2/2017 - 1

Zoe Langer

More is More: Francesco Sansovino’s Editorial Additions as a Form of Authorship on Dante’s Commedia (1564)

Figure 1. Title Page. Dante con l’espositione di Christoforo Landino, Et di Alessandro Vellvtello, Sopra la Sua Comedia dell’In- ferno, del Purgatorio, & del Paradiso. Con tavole, argomenti, & allegorie, & riformato, riueduto, & ridotto alla sua uera lettura, Per Francesco Sansovino Fiorentino. In Venetia, Appresso Giovambattista, Marchiò Sessa, & fratelli. 1564. , 1564. Folio. Houghton Library, Harvard University (Typ 525 64.316).

Introduction Dante’s Commedia in 1564, 1578, and 1596 [Fig. 1].[1] Sansovino’s edition not only offered After successfully venturing into the business of an abundance of paratextual material such as a literary publishing with editions of Boccaccio, glossary, frontispiece portrait, biographies, , Ariosto, and Pietro Bembo, polygraph tables, illustrations, and summaries, but also in- extraordinaire Francesco Sansovino collabor- cluded – for the first time in the Commedia’s his- ated with the Venetian publishing family, the tory – a double commentary that brought to- Sessa, to produce a sumptuous folio edition of gether the most illustrious commentators of the Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 2

own authorship as an editor and . His visual and verbal interventions further illuminate how editors and publishers defined their prac- tice and status through the presentation of the book.[5] Therefore, Sansovino’s visual strategies for presenting Dante’s Commedia contribute to our knowledge about the publication and recep- tion of the poet’s works in the mid-sixteenth century.[6] The critical literature on Sansovino is varied and wide-ranging, appearing in studies of literature, book history, portraiture, politics, and Venetian history.[7] This perhaps reflects the prolific nature of Sansovino’s editorial activities. Recent studies have concentrated on two main lines of inquiry: the editor’s relationship to liter- ary and editorial networks in Venice and his his- torical works, such as his very popular Venetia Citta Nobilissima (1581).[8] Elena Bonora has written an important monograph on Sansovino’s early formation and the factors that led to his en- trance into the world of publishing in mid-six- teenth century Venice.[9] She shows how Sanso- vino’s personal and commercial relationships in- Figure 2. Dialogue format with Landino (LAND.) and Vellutello fluenced his historical writings and served as an (VELL.) in the left margin and one VELL. in the right margin. Detail from Purgatorio XI in 1578 edition. John Hay Library, inspiration for the Secretario (1564)[10], a work in Brown University (Hay Dante Collection, 1-Size B 1578), the genre of Il Cortegiano and Il Galateo. Adri- 203r. ano Moz provides a good general background to Sansovino’s biography and publications, high- Day – Cristoforo Landino and Alessandro Vellu- lighting his histories of Venice and the Ottoman tello.[2] Empire.[11] Along these lines, Paul Grendler has Although Sansovino rigidly adhered to also written about Sansovino’s contribution to the medieval commentary layout, with a block of what he calls “Popular History.”[12] This article text surrounded by commentary, he also crafted along with his more general observations on a highly original approach to the arrangement of “popular books” importantly show how editors each author’s contribution. The editor presented such as Sansovino used the book’s material each commentator as though in a dialogue, even form and organization of content to reach broad though their interventions were more than sixty and varied audiences.[13] With the exception of years apart.[3] Sansovino devised a layout in Sansovino’s editions of Boccaccio’s Decame- which each commentary was labelled with the rone, current scholarship has overlooked the ed- name of the author in the margins, such that it itor’s contribution to the publication of sixteenth- appeared that they were speaking to each other century literary editions of medieval authors.[14] across time [Fig. 2].[4] An examination of Sanso- Most scholars agree that Sansovino’s Com- vino’s use of the dialogue format, along with media was a successful work, having been pub- other editorial additions in all three editions re- lished three times in 40 years. Despite this as- veals how he used these features to claim his sessment, a detailed analysis of this edition or of Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 3

the factors that led to its success has not yet media came at a pivotal moment in Sansovino’s been undertaken. career. By 1560, Sansovino had already pub- By placing his activities within the con- lished the works of Boccaccio and Petrarch;[18] text of other poligrafi, commentators, and edit- however, what corpus would be complete ors in Venice and , Brian Richardson without Dante? Through the Commedia, Sanso- and Deborah Parker’s analyses provide a start- vino sought to achieve equal status with the pre- ing point from which to understand Sansovino’s vious masters in the editorial profession, such as motivations for editing vernacular texts and pub- Aldo Manuzio, Alessandro Paganini, and the Gi- lishing the 1564 edition of the Commedia.[15] unti and Giolito presses, who had all curated Sansovino felt strong ties to Venice, having their own collections of vernacular classics.[19] moved there from at a young age with his Each series, consisting of different authors, thus father, the famous architect , reflected a specific interpretation of the canon and subsequently having made a name for him- and an evaluation of Dante’s place within it. self by working with other Venetian publishers While Aldo included Dante and Petrarch among and founding his own press. It is for this reason ancient authors Virgil and Horace, equating the that he is primarily considered a Venetian pub- poem to the classics, the Giolito press lisher in the critical literature. However, Sanso- chose instead to include Dante among contem- vino also strongly emphasizes his Florentine ori- porary authors interpreting the Commedia as a gins, often referring to himself as “Fiorentino,” as more modern work. Vellutello started his career on the title page of the Commedia.[16] While he with his edition of Petrarch’s Rime (1523) and possibly spent some years in Florence, his once he established himself published his edi- chosen epithet was largely opportunistic as it al- tion of the Commedia in 1544. Therefore, the lowed him to claim the legacy of his father and Commedia provided the opportunity for Sanso- to capitalize on Florence’s political and cultural vino to make his career serving as the crowning influence in this era. achievement of a decade-long trajectory of liter- Although there were numerous ap- ary editions. proaches to editing the Commedia, the Venetian However, the act of publishing Dante in and Florentine publishers monopolized the in- and of itself was not enough to rival his prede- dustry and were often in competition. Sanso- cessors. Sansovino thus crafted a monumental vino’s multiple affiliations – Roman, Venetian, edition of the poem, one that would be exceptio- Florentine – perhaps informed the way he medi- nal in both its formal and textual properties. The ated between these views in the Commedia and present study begins, to show how the publicati- how he appealed to multiple reading publics. on of Dante’s poem was crucial to Sansovino’s The glossary, or Tavola delle voci oscure, be- aims for authorial, personal, commercial, politi- came a hallmark of Sansovino’s editions. The cal, and literary success in the competitive and tavola was just one of many features that al- high stakes environment of publish- ing in early lowed Sansovino to specialize in literary editions modern Venice. The examination of the book’s and appeal to both niche and more general mar- formal presentation allows us to understand kets. Scholars have also noted that Sansovino more fully how Sansovino, and other editors of rarely employed a simple presentation for his the time, asserted their authorship and could publications and built his reputation on produ- achieve success through both the form and con- cing rich and beautiful books.[17] tent of their editions. The Commedia was by far the most mo- numental of his literary editions due to its size, il- lustrations, commentaries, and decorative divi- sions. The unique presentation of the Com- Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 4

Authorship and Authority in the 1564 Com- lar writers, commentators, editors, and ulti- media mately, as “authorities” on Dante and his poem. An author – by which I mean any person Before analyzing the edition in detail, a definition that intervened in the work including publishers, of authorship must be established. Sansovino’s editors, artists, commentators, translators, and Commedia, by virtue of its being a commentary, readers – shaped the way the Commedia was still depended heavily on medieval conceptions presented to different audiences.[28] In contrast of authorship. In the medieval period, an author to modern concepts of authorship, which gener- (auctor) both possessed authority and was an ally rest upon ideas of individuality and original- authority (auctoritas).[20] As Albert Ascoli ity, the concept of authorship as expressed in notes, auctoritates consisted of a limited num- the 1564 edition of the Commedia was premised ber of classical and religious texts that “had ac- upon collaboration and collective participation. crued cultural capital and with it the status of Authorship was in fact shared and dispersed guarantors of truth and models for imitation over among the volume’s contributors. Yet a clear the centuries.”[21] Starting in the Duecento, hierarchy of authorship was present in the book commentators such as asserted that delineated each individual’s role; categories their status as authors and authorities.[22] In his of authorship had expanded substantially in this commentary on , La Rettorica, he claims period, and in the printed economy of books, “l’autore di questa opera è doppio.”[23] Although authors assumed multiple roles and moved he mentions Cicero first, Latini asserts that he is between a number of different genres, lan- an independent author “il quale mise tutto suo guages, and practices.[29] , for ex- studio e suo intendimento ad isponere e chiarire ample, described ’s drawings cio che Tulio avea detto.” Some two hundred as a form of commentary on the poem in his Vita years later, Cristoforo Landino named himself of the architect: “commentò una parte di Dante, before Dante in the title of his 1481 commentary, & figurò lo inferno & lo mise in stampa.”[30] In a a claim to authority that neither Vellutello nor similar manner, this volume points to the com- Sansovino made.[24] By the time that the 1564 plexity of the term “commentary,” as well as edition was published, Dante had achieved the how artists, poets, commentators, publishers, status of an auctor, and his Commedia, an auct- translators, and editors could all be considered oritas.[25] Sansovino lists Dante as an “autorità” authors in the early modern period. in his glossary to the Decamerone (1546) and as Sansovino’s Commedia was by nature a an historical source in the “Autori Citati” sec- hybrid entity, simultaneously maintaining the tions of his other works.[26] The multiple inter- conventions of the medieval literary genre of pretations present in the three editions also commentary and incorporating Cinquecento ed- would have contributed to the Commedia’s itorial practices.[31] This double commentary standing as a model of vernacular poetry. In- edition highlights Sansovino’s role as a unique deed, only auctoritates such as Cicero, Virgil, type of author – not a writer as such, though he and the Bible merited a long history of com- did provide his own interpretations and re- mentary.[27] While the authors of this edition had sponses to the poem in the form of summaries to contend with Dante’s supreme status, they and tables – but as a mediator between a medi- simultaneously made moves to exploit Dante as eval genre and modern medium, between the an auctor and the authority of the poem as two commentators, and between a medieval au- an auctoritas. Writing in the vernacular and on thor and a Renaissance audience. In this inter- the exemplum of vernacular auctoritas also sup- mediary role, Sansovino expressed his auctor- ported their own claims to authority as vernacu- itas by asserting that he had published the au- Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 5

Figure 3. First pages of Inferno I with woodcut illustration on the left and text and commentary on the right. Detail of 1564 Edition. John J. Burns Library Special Collections, Boston College. size and better – with additions such as glossar- ies, tables, illustrations, and summaries – than thoritative account of Dante’s poem through the any production of the Commedia of his time. status of Landino and Vellutello. He also occu- The particular way Sansovino asserted his au- pies the dual role of auctor and actor, speaking thorship through commentary, and especially his as the portavoce for the book to multiple authors own additions, therefore calls attention to the and audiences.[32] Perhaps Sansovino can also way the practice of editing a text was also an act be described as a kind of stage director, orches- of interpretation and authorship in the age of trating a multitude of different actors, including print. publishers, backers, commentators, illustrators, and Dante himself, for a Renaissance audience. Opening to the first page of Dante’s poem, it be- In the manner of the theatre – to which comes clear that the reader confronts not a tomes of knowledge were often compared – the single interpretation at one discrete moment in material presentation and organization of the time, but rather an accumulation of conversa- book’s content reflects Sansovino’s editorial vis- tions that combine different interlocutors, thus ion for the Commedia.[33] An early modern take constituting what I want to suggest represent on the medieval “compilator,” he determines multiple ‘authorial’ moments across time [Fig. who is on the stage and who the public sees as 3]. Mikhail Bakhtin’s association of dialogue and the principle actors in the production.[34] “polyphony,” or the presence and interaction of Through additions, or aggiunte, he occupies a multiple voices in a text, is particularly useful for primary speaking part, and also directs the play understanding Sansovino’s use of the dialogic of his own creation, one that was bigger in folio genre in a book that was not actually a Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 6

Figure 4. Le terze rime di Dante, Aldo Manuzio, Venice, 1502. 8°. Houghton Library, Harvard University (*IC.- D2358.472c.1502 (A)).

dialogue.[35] In this edition, these multiple voices, or “polyphony,” coexist within one text; yet they also stand separate from one another, as if asserting their independence and advan- cing their own interpretations of Dante. While Landino and Vellutello had their own aims, driv- en by their own particular time and place, Figure 5. Dedication Letter to Pope Pio IV by Francesco Sansovino. 1564 Edition. Houghton Library, Harvard Univer- Sansovino appropriates them as editor, render- sity (IC D2358 472c 1564). ing him the latest ostensible author of Dante’s poem. In Bakhtin’s consideration of Dostoevsky, the Russian author does not impose himself on take these interventions to comprise. Unen- the characters of work, letting them live and take cumbered by commentary, the poem is given shape, whereas Sansovino inserts himself, quite one title and one author Le terze rime di Dante. literally, into the dialogue and converses with his [38] Yet Aldo conspicuously bookends the fellow commentators.[36] volume with the dolphin and anchor, his printer’s However, given the number of authors of mark, in order to emphasize his activity as an- the volume and nearly one hundred pages of other “author” of Dante’s poem. Nonetheless, prefatory texts which included reprints of mul- the experience of Dante’s authorship in the Ald- tiple dedication letters, biographies, descriptions ina is much more straightforward for readers of of Hell, poems, and letters, this polyphony the poem. makes it difficult for the reader to parse out who To Sansovino, the authors of this Com- authored which part.[37] Comparing this edition media, and its readers, it mattered not only who to the Commedia published by Aldo Manuzio was speaking, but in what register and with what and edited by Pietro Bembo in 1502 throws this authority. Sansovino made certain to demarcate complexity of authorship into relief [Fig. 4]. At a his authorship. He made these claims most glance, the presentation of the book expresses a plainly on the title page and in his dedication let- different approach to the work of “authoring” I ter to Pope Pious IV [Fig. 5]. In his dedication Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 7

Sansovino proclaims, “ricercando fra me portance of the preface to an oration by stating medesimo, nel publicar questo maraviglioso that, like the entrance hall of a palazzo, “non scrittore illustrato da me con tanti ornamenti, prima s’apprasenta a gli occhi de’ riguardanti qual maggior nome fosse nell’universo, sotto il che essi da quella prendendo argomento fanno quale il maggior lume della lingua Toscana giudicio ch’il palazzo di dentro debbe essere dovesse uscir fuori.” In comparison to Sanso- ben ornato, con perfetta architettura composto, vino’s other literary editions, he is relatively brief et insieme tutto corrispondente alle parti, così in outlining his editorial policy. We might read questa entrata dell’oratione è l’imagine e il di- the letter as an attempt to emphasize Dante’s mostramento di quel che si dee dire e Christian faith and the theological nature of the trattare.”[41] Commedia, which had come under increased Extending the architectural metaphor to scrutiny at this time.[39] This context helps to the printed book, which can be considered a explain the choice of dedicatee. The imitation of textual rendition of an oration, highlights the im- Vellutello, who also dedicated his work to a portance of the visual impact of the preface. The Pope, also doubly bestows Sansovino’s edition presentation of these materials not only with sacred and literary authority.[40] More im- provided the basis upon which the book was portantly, the lines above serve to affirm Sanso- worthy of consideration, it also demonstrated vino’s role in bringing Dante to light both for the “the image […] of that which needs to be said supreme Pontiff and for his readers. Now let us and discussed,” previewing the content of the examine how Sansovino’s presentation consti- book as well as each author’s contribution.[42] tutes authorship in the various sections of the The proemio consisted of material from previous book, starting with the title page and frontis- commentaries and editions of the Commedia, piece portrait and proceeding to the first Cantica including dedication letters, letters to the reader, of the poem and the glossary. and lives of the author. All of these support Sansovino’s claim of offering the biggest, best, latest, and most correct version of Dante’s poem. The vast amount of prefatory material, as well as Sansovino’s additions, position the book as the culmination of a progressive evolution within the realm of the poem’s fortuna. There- fore, the editor had few pages to make an im- pression that could affect the book’s and the au- thor’s success on the market. The title page, the first part of the preface, thus takes a heightened importance for the style, content, and marketab- ility of the entire book. Figure 6. Detail of title page with the title “Dante” in 1578 Examining the visual hierarchy of the title Edition. John Hay Library, Brown University (Hay Dante Col- lection, 1-Size B 1578). page reveals how the complex of authorship functioned in the edition as a whole and in each individual leaf. Printed in the largest font and in Roman capitals, the most powerful statement of Setting the Stage: Presenting the Comme- authorship and authority is the title of the book, dia’s Authors on the Title Page Dante [Fig. 6]. Titles were an important part of identifying an author, but also attributing author- In his treatise on oratory, the In materia dell’arte ship.[43] Titles also entitled its author and were libri tre (1564), Sansovino underscores the im- thus intrinsically linked to literary authority. As Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 8

Victoria Kirkham shows, titles became synonym- “PER” or “by, through, because of,” demon- ous with certain authors, such that Commedia strates that it is per Sansovino’s intervention that for example, was almost always associated with the audience is able to see these authors to- Dante.[44] Therefore, the enterprising use of the gether for the first time on one stage, so to proper name should not be overlooked, as titling speak.[48] Placing Landino and Vellutello togeth- a work was among the most important of editor- er was also a shrewd business decision, as it not ial tasks. One need only be reminded of the sig- only made the volume appear more authoritat- nificance of Ludovico Dolce’s decision to add ive, it would also be likely to sell more copies. “Divina” to Commedia in 1555. While there is Furthermore, Sansovino declares that he precedence for the use of “Dante” as a title, it has contributed the most to the volume, having was not nearly as common as Commedia, nor added “tavole, argomenti, & allegorie” and “rifor- was it so visually prominent on the page.[45] mato, riveduto, & ridotto” the Commedia “alla This visual attention to titling the work, in addi- sua vera lettura.” Defining these terms help to tion to Sansovino’s decision to combine the title identify how Sansovino positioned himself as an page with the author portrait, demonstrates its author in relation to the poem and its commen- importance to the volume’s presentation. [ 46 ] tators. These terms, common to sixteenth-cen- Font, script, and order comprise a visual rhetoric tury editorial culture, also allow us to reconstruct that directs the reader’s engagement with the how editors sought to establish and elevate their text. Such verbal and visual signs begin to es- practice through the print medium and in relation tablish the editor’s claim for the book and articu- to both traditional and contemporary paradigms late the authority of each author. of authorship. Similar to a theatre marquee, each head- The final three editorial interventions lis- liner is listed on a distinct line, in capitals, and in ted on the title page roughly translate as “re- fonts of decreasing size: Dante, Christoforo formatted, revised, and reduced to its true read- Landino, and Alessandro Vellutello. Font and ing.” I will limit my discussion to “ridotto” and placement signify the status of Landino’s com- “riformato,” because of their visual implications mentary as the more established and prestigious for the organization of the book. Scholars have account. Indeed, the Florentine author’s edition variously translated “ridotto” as “improved,” “re- was reprinted many times and remained uncon- turned,” or “brought back.”[49] These issues of tested for 60 years until Vellutello published his translation call attention to the complexity of commentary in 1544. Vellutello’s commentary ridurre as a term that had multiple meanings never achieved the success of Landino’s, but his which depended on its context and its relation to commentary and status as an intellectual were other terms. Based on the Latin reducere, here considered important enough to include with the term implies a “return,” “recovery,” “restora- Landino in this particular edition. Francesco tion,” and perhaps most accurately, a “recupera- Sansovino is named after the commentators and tion” of the poem to its “true” state. “Vera the Sessa, the publishers of the volume, are lettura,” encompasses all these meanings and named at the bottom of the page with the place further suggests that the “true reading” of the of publication and the date.[47] poem is one that returns the text to a linguistic- While at first glance their position might ally pure and correct state. Indeed, the Acca- appear to subordinate Sansovino’s authorship, demia della Crusca edition, noted for being the their names serve to bolster his authority. If we most official and accurate text of the poem, continue the metaphor of Sansovino acting as a claims only one intervention: that of “reducing” stage director, employing the best actors adds the poem to its “miglior lezione.”[50] The mean- to the quality and prestige of his production. ing of ridurre as being primarily linguistic and Also in all capitals, the keyword before his name, Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 9

cial pressures on turning out copies quickly and efficiently to satisfy readers demands for new and improved texts. In this sense, I suggest that “ridotto” was charged with critical and interpret- ative meanings, which embraced the presenta- tion of the poem as well.[53] Less common is the term “riformato” which involved changes in the use and place- ment of headers, commentaries, printer’s devi- ces, columns, sizes and types of font, initials, and illustrations. The use of “ornamenti,” in the dedication letter also provides clues as to how this specific matrix of terms might have influ- enced the style and type of format used in the book. The use of “ornament” with “ridurre” and “additions” suggests both embellishment in the sense of making the book more beautiful, but also in a rhetorical sense, in a high style. Attenti- on to both the visual and verbal meanings of these terms therefore establishes a broader pic- ture of the motivations behind Sansovino’s edi- torial choices, including the decision to use the medieval commentary format for the three canti- cles of the Commedia. Finally, directly impacting the visual rhet- Figure 7. Hand-colored frontispiece portrait. Detail from oric of the page is the medallion portrait of the 1578 Edition. Beinecke Library, Yale University (1976 +143). Inscription below reads “Filippus Butii Romanus Architectus author [Fig. 7].[54] The grand visual effect pro- Anno 1772.” duced by opening the book and seeing the im- age of the author bolstered the editor’s claims to authorship. Sansovino, along with Vasari, was philological in nature, motivating direct interven- instrumental in popularizing the genre of the tions in the text, is further evidenced by its fre- visual biography through his L’historia di casa quent pairing with “corretto” and “emendato.” Orsina (1565).[55] The monumentality of Dante’s As Paolo Trovato has shown, these were fairly portrait reaffirms Sansovino’s authority in this common editorial terms and they were used in genre and also continues his project of providing virtually all editions of the Commedia in the early authentic biographies of his literary subjects. modern period.[51] Furthermore, Bonora has Also interesting to note is that this particular shown how Sansovino’s additions formed an in- volume was in folio as well. The portrait, as well tense “impegno lessicografico” which culmin- as the dimensions of the book, asserts the ed- ated in his treatise on vernacular orthography in itor’s positive evaluation of Dante’s status. In- 1568.[52] Therefore, “ridotto” asserts Sanso- deed, Sansovino capitalized on the portrait’s vino’s editorial and philological role. visual effect to make the book more attractive It is interesting to note that Sansovino and fashionable, thereby engaging contempor- did not substantially intervene in the text. In this ary audiences. period, it was necessary and even more import- The Renaissance taste for portrait ant to claim such interventions due to commer- medals influenced Dante’s representation Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 10

Figure 9. La Divina Comedia di Dante. In Vinegia. Appresso Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari, et fratelli, MDLV. Venice. 1555. 12°. Houghton Library, Harvard University (Typ 525 55.316).

Figure 8. Comedia del Divino Poeta Danthe. MD XXXVI. In Vi- negia ad instantia di M. Gioanni Giolitto da Trino. Venice. Jutting forcefully out toward the viewer, Dante’s 1536. 4°. Beinecke Library, Yale University (1977 828). dynamic pose presents a more enlivened por- trait than that in the Giolito editions of 1536 and throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 1555 for example [Figs. 8 & 9].[57] In this portrait turies. Aby Warburg, writing about the Renais- the woodcutter clearly cites the Giolito model, sance’s encounter with classical antiquity, said but adds his own flair, replete with putti, fes- “The figures of ancient myth appeared before toons, cornucopia, volutes, and other grottes- Italian , not as plaster casts, but in per- che. One of the most elaborate frames to appear son, as figures full of life and color.”[56] The fact in editions of the Commedia, it can also tell us that the portrait medal was the favored mode of about Sansovino’s editorial strategies. The Dante’s representation emphasized his standing frame stylistically evokes the decorative divi- as an “antico.” This is further enhanced by the sions that initiated each canto, creating a sense depiction of Dante as a portrait bust which ma- of unity among the different parts of the book. terially makes him a monument and also sym- This titling again calls attention to Sansovino’s bolically monumentalizes him as a great author role, along with that of the publishers, in creating of the past. However, Sansovino’s elaboration of a monumental and visually coherent product. the motif of the portrait medal emphasizes Similar to the way Aldo employed his dolphin Dante’s relevance to modern authors and read- and anchor device, by using the Sessa printer’s ers. There are visual strategies, too, that make mark in the headers for each section of 1578 Dante, to use Warburg’s words, a figure “full of edition, the publishers also symbolically frame life and color.” Dante’s portrait and works. Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 11

Fit for an emperor much less a poet, the sheer ostentation of the frame also recalls triumphal architecture. It is no accident that this volume was published in 1564, when one of the greatest triumphal processions ever assembled took place in Florence. In order to honor the death of Michelangelo, ’s ‘greatest light’ of the arts, Giorgio Vasari and Vincenzo Borghini designed an ornate catafalque and sepulcher for the artist. [58] As the two monuments to “il divino,” as Michelangelo was called, celebrated Florentine superiority in the arts, so too does Sansovino’s monumental edition commemorate Florentine preeminence in literature through the portrait of its “divine poet.”[59] Further evidence of Michelangelo’s fu- neral as a possible source of inspiration for the frame is the artist’s quotation of Vasari’s painted portrait of Dante (1544).[60] Here, Dante is celeb- rated as the supreme poet among his Tuscan contemporaries in poetry. The portrait shows a particular response to the language debates, or the “questione della lingua” and Petrarchism. Literary relations depicted in the painting can be contextualized by recalling Pietro Bembo’s eval- uation of Dante as an unsuitable linguistic mod- el. In step with the ideals of the Accademia Figure 10. Detail of Inferno XVI. 1564 edition. PQ 4302 B64, UCLA Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Fiorentina and the patron Luca Martini, Vasari Research Library, UCLA. creates an ideal literary history that represents an alternative reception of Dante, one in which the bottom right of the frame. These initials are he is the premier author. almost certainly those of the woodcutter, who As Leonard Barkan has shown, visual has not yet been identified. Perhaps the wood- objects such as portrait medals, were con- cutter cites both Bronzino and Vasari. Regard- sidered authentic historical sources.[61] Here less, both portraits assert Dante’s fiorentinità Vasari’s painted image becomes the ‘authentic’ and his renown in the poetic arts. source for Dante’s representation. Printed por- Furthermore, by recalling both current traits were not solely copies. The choice of and historical visual moments in Dante’s repres- which source to interpret was deliberate.[62] By entation, the portrait supports the editor’s claims taking Dante out of the group context and in- for Dante as a modern author. Combined with stalling a frame, Sansovino presents a new inter- Sansovino’s editorial additions, the portrait is a pretation of contemporary visual sources. visual way of updating the Commedia for con- It should be noted that there have been temporary readers. A detailed analysis of the some questions regarding the source for the title page reveals the way its visual and verbal portrait, the model for the woodcut having also effects set up the claims for the book and been attributed to Agnolo Bronzino.[63] This is framed the readers experience of Dante’s mas- also potentially supported by the initials A.B. on terpiece. Let us now examine Sansovino’s Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 12

fying each commentator’s text. Other double and triple commentaries in manuscript and in print typically have the commentators follow each other, sometimes with repetition of keywords analyzed in the text, with little to no demarcation, as in the Petrarch double com- mentary of 1508 [Fig. 11]. Even more common, dating back to the medieval period, the first commentary is interspersed interlinearly in the main text with the other commentary surround- ing both texts. Sixteenth-century readers might have been familiar with these layouts, because they were often used for Bibles and other signi- ficant texts. By further enhancing the distinc- tions between commentators, the dialogue format increases the reader’s ability to find the author of each section on any given page. How- ever, questions of spatial organization alone cannot explain Sansovino’s appropriation of the dialogue format. Considering how Sansovino’s additions operate visually is essential to understanding his Figure 11. Petrarcha con doi commenti sopra li Sonetti et innovations. As Brian Richardson notes, addi- Canzone. Impressum Venetiis per Gregorium de Gregoriis. MDVIII. Venice, 1508, 4°. Double commentary with repetition tions were a way of putting one’s “stamp” on of “Voglia” in capitals and marked with a paragraph sign. new editions or reprints.[64] Additions were also Houghton Library, Harvard University (*IC P447C 1508b). vital to a book’s success on the market and were considered to be improvements to the ori- strategies for publishing the first double com- ginal work.[65] While “reducing” often meant mentary on the poem. “adding”, for Sansovino and the earliest editors of the Commedia, the trend in later six- teenth-century editions actually comes closer to The mise-en-scene of the Page: Combining the modern definition of the word. In fact, most Past Traditions and Modern Innovations editions of the Commedia from 1560 to 1726 were small, austere, and contained minimal illus- Due to the double commentary format, Sanso- tration.[66] Given this tendency, how can we ex- vino was especially innovative in organizing the plain why Sansovino produced such a large mise-en-page [Fig. 10]. Through the placement book, and one which upheld medieval conven- of both commentaries, illustrations, printer’s tion? marks, headers and titles, in addition to his own The combination of the medieval format interventions, he asserted his multiple authorial with the folio size, used for the Commedia’s fif- roles as a commentator, editor, and publisher. teenth-century incunabula, underscores the as- The commentary, usually considered marginal to sociation of the book with previous traditions the poem in strictly textual terms, here becomes both in manuscript and in print. As Deborah central, dominating almost the entire visual field Parker observes, “these folio volumes of Lan- of the page. One reason to use the dialogue dino’s and Vellutello’s commentaries come ra- format was to facilitate reading by clearly identi- ther unexpectedly after decades of Dantini. Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 13

Figure 12. Commentary on Dante’s Commedia. Probably late Figure 13. Detail of Purgatorio X. 1578 edition. John Hay Lib- 14th-century. Parchment, 192 ff. Bibliothèque nationale de rary, Brown University (Hay Dante Collection, 1-Size B 1578). France, Manuscript Italien 77, 20v.

One almost has the impression of a nostalgic re- The use of the medieval format and wealth of turn to the earliest printed Dantes.”[67] The additions that Sansovino provides, including format of the book invests the edition with the glossaries, summaries, and indexes, also con- prestige, authority, and luxury of the manuscript ceivably comment on philological debates in the tradition. The folio size, rarely used in the six- mid-sixteenth century. Starting in this period, teenth century for literary texts, was most often there were discussions in the Academies regard- employed for illustrated books, choir books, and ing how to edit vernacular classics, such as religious texts. It is likely that the book of this Dante, Boccaccio, and Petrarch. Vincenzo size was made for study, display, and/or to be Borghini, among others, argued that the editor’s read aloud. The presentation of the book and its primary aim should be to correct the text visual links to other kinds of books reinforce through manuscript copies and variants.[68] It is Sansovino’s claims of “illustrating” the Com- notable that Borghini’s ideas were published media with proper decorum. The association around the same time that Sansovino’s second with the incunabula, and Landino’s edition of edition came out in 1578. Arguably, these new 1481 in particular, also recalls a time when ideas about editing contributed to the Com- Dante’s reception was at its height, which would media’s use as classic text for scholars.[69] Giv- have been viewed favorably by Florentine read- en this context, the format also visually asserts ers at the time. the usefulness of commentary for the editor, as Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 14

a crucial space to critically engage with a text, as well as for the reader, as an aid for reading and imitating poetry. Perhaps, as Parker sug- gests, years of experience with unaccompanied text made this particularly edition, rich in numer- ous interpretations of the poem, desirable to readers at this time.[70] Rather than restricting his audience to li- terary critics and academicians, Sansovino used the medieval layout, ample in commentary and additions, to appeal to a broader reading public. While some scholars have noted that much of Renaissance commentary is similar to its medie- val predecessor as a critical and textual appara- tus, the two traditions also often resonated vi- sually, as in this case. In this fourteenth-century commentary on the Commedia, one can imme- diately identify the similarities in layout: the com- mentary engulfing the few lines of the poem, dis- tinctions in script, and the spacing and organiza- tion of the header, poem, and commentary [Figs. 12 & 13]. A reception-oriented approach recog- nizes that encountering a book involved opera- tions of both reading and beholding. Renais- sance audiences would have possessed certain Figure 14. First page of Inferno I. Detail of 1564 Edition. Houghton Library, Harvard University (Typ 525 64.316). “equipment” they deployed in viewing and inter- preting the various parts of the text.[71] The period’s “horizon of expectations,” as Hans- Characters in Dialogue: Sansovino as Author, Robert Jauss has put it, conditioned the recep- Actor and Auctor tion and legibility of the pictured text, the visual elements and conventions of the printed page. As art historian Michael Baxandall reminds us in [72] Sansovino and the publishers, who were his reading of Jacopo Sadoleto’s description of clearly thinking about both the visual and textual the Laocoön, there is distance between the ex- organization of the page, inserted signposts for perience of visual objects and their description the reader to follow. Attending to the way in language.[73] Indeed, the first question Sado- Sansovino both adhered to and broke with the leto asked of the Laocoön was “what shall I conventions of printing a commentated text al- speak of first, what last?” Asking this of Sanso- lows us to reconstruct how the material support vino’s edition helps to answer the following of the book contributed to the Commedia’s questions: How should we attend to all this visu- meanings and interpretations and how these be- al information? How is authorship organized and came legible to Renaissance audiences. expressed?

Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 15

Figure 15. Detail of “allegoria” and “argomento” with SANS. If we read the layout as a dialogue or in left margin from Paradiso I, 282v. Detail of 1578 Edition (Hay Dante Collection, 1-Size B 1578). even a play, Sansovino would speak first. His appearance, while brief, serves to narrate the Turning to the very first page of the Commedia story he wishes to tell about himself and the proper, to Inferno I, we encounter the following poem. Indeed, the “argomento” gives a short elements: title, header, and decorative border, description of the salient moments in the canto the first nine lines of the poem with the decorat- and its key characters. Yet this intervention is ive initial, the “argomento,” or the summary of not specifically named here, but is mentioned on the canto, and the “allegoria” or the allegorical the title page. The “allegoria” is indicated by reading of the canto, both by Sansovino, fol- Sansovino’s name, by the abbreviation “SANS.” lowed by the commentaries of Landino and then in the left margin [Fig. 15]. The naming of the al- Vellutello [Fig. 14]. It is significant that the wood- legory is curious. It is as though Sansovino be- cut illustration, which serves as a form of visual comes an allegory of himself, a character that is commentary, appears first and is placed on a separate from the historical editor-Sansovino, separate page preceding the poem. For the first similar to the dual identity of Dante poet and pil- canto of each cantica the image is self-con- grim.[77] One might also see this naming as an tained, and for subsequent illustrations, the im- allegory for the editor, one who intervenes in the ages are integrated into the text, often initiating poem both from inside, as an interlocutor, and the canto. While outside the scope of this paper, from outside, as physically composing the ma- the illustrations played a fundamental role not terials and persons that make the production of only as an organizing and didactic element, but the book possible. The dialogue and the allegory as a complex visual interpretation of the poem. specifically, also works to directly link editing [74] At the same time, it must be recognized that with authoring. illustrations did not always directly refer to the The allegorical reading, that Dante him- poem and expressed their own histories and self applied to his poem, was considered a high- agency.[75] The illustrations not only call atten- er level of engagement with the poem than the tion to the placement of commentary, but also literal reading.[78] This would of course give the parts of the text that are named, and more Sansovino claim to a more intellectual and au- precisely, attributed to authors.[76] thoritative position in relation to the hierarchical structure of the poem and the commentators. Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 16

We might also interpret this as editorial one-up- ized by the fact that the dialogue in the main text manship regarding Dolce’s edition of 1555, is preceded by another conversation, but it is which also had sections labelled “argomento” one in which only he and Sansovino take part. and “allegoria.” Sansovino himself provided Sansovino republished Landino’s “Apologia”; a short summaries before each giornata in his edi- lengthy defense of Florence in which he lists the tion of the Decamerone (1546), and therefore most illustrious Florentine men of various fields, may even also be one-upping himself. Another including poetry, art, religion, philosophy, and way to interpret the allegorical reading is to con- commerce. Inserting himself at the end of each sider the intellectual atmosphere of the mid-six- section with the title “Aggiunta del Sansovino,” teenth century. In the 1540’s and 1550’s, several the editor addresses Landino directly. He also of the most prominent Academies in Florence speaks to his audience by updating Landino’s published a series of lezioni by figures such as list with great men who have achieved success Giambattista Gelli and Pierfrancesco Giambullari to the present day. In Landino’s 1481 edition, that contained allegorical readings of the Com- the Apologia and the other prefatory texts pro- media.[79] Through the “allegorie,” Sansovino af- moted a particular ideological, institutional, and firms his place within current Dante scholarship political agenda that sought to reunite Dante and editorial debates, while also appealing to with not only Florence, but with a Laurentian multiple audiences by providing both summaries Florence. Simon Gilson suggests that Landino and allegories of the poem. deliberately uses past Florentine sources in the After the “allegoria,” following the order Apologia and in the section on Poetry, such as displayed on the title page, Sansovino then in- Giovanni Villani, in order to synthesize them and serts Landino’s commentary, followed by that of to create a ‘perfect’ lineage of Florentine au- Vellutello.[80] Scanning the visual field of the thors.[83] Here, Sansovino takes the opportunity page, it becomes apparent that Landino over- to highlight his fiorentinità, by dedicating a large shadows both the poem and the page. While space to Florentine artists and his father in par- Sansovino ostensibly publishes both comment- ticular, who he calls the “secondo Michelan- aries entirely, with only minor changes to the gelo.” He also refers to Vasari’s Vite specifically text, he has rearranged the blocks of the main at the end of the section, stating that if the read- poem such that both he and Landino seem more ers should need more exhaustive information on important.[81] This is further emphasized by the Florentine artists they can consult his text. How- historiated initial, which signals the first letter of ever, while many Florentines underline the the canto and of Landino’s commentary.[82] This “Sansovino Fiorentino” he also includes Vene- xylographic detail was used across all three edi- tians, such as his teacher Trifone Gabriele.[84] tions. While Sansovino did use Vellutello’s illus- Through this strategic move, in addition to the trations from the 1544 edition, remarkable in use of Pietro Bembo’s text of the poem, Sanso- their bird’s eye view and circular shape, he de- vino mediates between a ‘Florentine’ and ‘Vene- cided not to use Vellutello’s arrangement of tian’ Dante. Therefore, Sansovino’s aggiunte al- Dante’s poem, his edition of the text, or his lowed him to take on multiple positions in the script, which the commentator advertised as be- questione della lingua and to appeal to the ex- ing fundamental to his contribution to the inter- pectations of several print markets and audi- pretation of the Commedia. These decisions, ences. coupled with Sansovino’s placement of Landino The identification of the speakers in the before Vellutello, relegate the lucchese com- volume also establishes the authors’ relationship mentator to a subordinate position on both the to each other, their authority, and where they fit editorial and visual hierarchy. in the genealogy of Dante commentators. One Landino’s importance is further emphas- can plainly ‘see’ that the relationship between Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 17

the two commentators is not equal. To return to In promoting his own “reduction” of the poem, the metaphor of a play it is clear there are prot- Vellutello polemically declared that all modern agonists and those with minor speaking roles. editions set in print were “incorrettissimi e sopra Sansovino’s appropriation of the dialogue genre tutto quello impresso stampato da Aldo.”[88] not only demonstrates the way that he perceived Sansovino’s decision shows that – despite Vellu- the relationship between the two commentators; tello’s reproach – the Aldine text maintained its it also reflects how he wished the reader to inter- standing and continued to be considered the au- pret this relationship. Whether the readers actu- thoritative version of the poem. The use of his ally interpreted the hierarchy between the two type and Bembo’s text, and its associations with commentators in this way cannot be fully ascer- accuracy, fidelity, and prestige, again illuminates tained, especially because the dialogue, as a how Sansovino took advantage of all the best genre, required a particularly active form of texts, illustrations, and commentaries at his dis- reader engagement.[85] Furthermore, this dialo- posal. gic encounter is signaled visually and typo- Any discussion of authorship needs to graphically. The interpretation and evaluation of also consider the publishers and other ‘authors’ this encounter is signaled prior to actually read- involved in the physical production of the book. ing the text itself; that is, the relationship, the As we saw in the Aldine edition, the printer’s value judgment, is already established visu- mark not only served as an organizing and de- ally. The dialogue, and the act of naming spe- corative element, it also expressed the publis- cifically, thus expresses both organizational and her’s authorship and authority over the publicati- authoritative distinctions among the authors of on of the book. The Sessa family was responsi- the volume. ble for publishing the three editions of Comme- However, several unnamed characters dia in 1564, 1578, and 1596. They brought in make important appearances on the stage. As Domenico Nicolini da Sabbio for the first and mentioned, Sansovino did not use Vellutello’s third editions and Francesco Rampazetto for the edition of the text or his cursive type. He did, second edition to assist in the three publica- however, use the Aldine text for poem. He also tions. In all editions the Sessa are mentioned on used his italic type, which would have been eas- both the title page and in the colophon variously ily recognizable to anyone familiar with Aldo’s preceded by “appresso,” “ad instantia,” and printed editions. The italic type would have also “per.” A variation on their printer’s device, a cat conjured images of the previous editions of the with a mouse hanging from its mouth, also ap- poem. This visual recall is something that oc- pears in the colophon of all three publications. curred specifically in this type of book which More significant to this discussion is the use of strategically combined previous moments of the the printer’s mark in the 1578 edition. The Sessa book’s fortuna. M.B Parkes has shown how cer- furnished yet another variation of their device to tain scripts were not only markers of status, but serve as a header for each cantica. This version also how the choice of script was highly conten- contained the depiction of a cat alert on its hind tious.[86] Editors of the Commedia used different legs in the center with a frame displaying the font types as a way to contend with Bembo on printer’s motto “Dissimilium infida sotietas” [Fig. an aesthetic and editorial level. 16]. Around this central grouping is an elaborate For example, Bernardino Stagnino’s array of figures including satyrs, putti, masks, 1512 edition of the Commedia boasted “nova- urns, volutes, and cornucopia. More than just a mente in littera cursiva impresse” on the title header, this reiteration of the Sessa device page.[87] Publishers and editors clearly made stands in for the signature of the publisher and strategic decisions to use italic, or roman, or alerts readers to their presence as additional other cursive alternatives (like that of Vellutello). authors of the poem. These subsidiary authors Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 18

Figure 16. Variation of Sessa printer’s mark as header of each cantica. Detail of 1578 Edition. Beinecke Library, Yale University (1976 +143). emphasize the idea of multiple authorship so characteristic of Cinquecento literary editions. They also show how they delineated their inter- ventions and claimed their status as authors through both visual and verbal strategies in the book.

Speaking to the Past and Present: The Glossary and Concluding Remarks

Christina Roaf has shown how the Tavola was Figure 17. Glossary. Detail of 1578 edition. John Hay Library, Brown University (Hay Dante Collection, 1-Size B 1578). editorially significant in Sansovino’s edition of Boccaccio’s Decamerone (1546).[89] She encounter in the text. The entries demonstrates how the editor’s innovations, his providea simple definition, current usage, and use of the biography and glossary specifically, are often accompanied by its root such as made Boccaccio’s text more approachable for “latino,” “greco,” and “fiorentino,” in addition to readers interested in studying and imitating ver- other authors that have employed it in their nacular prose. Similarly, the tavola in the Com- works. For example, the entry for “talento” media furnished a critical space for Sansovino to states: “voglia, appetito. Voce usata anco dal dialogue with previous scholarship and contem- Boccaccio nelle novelle.” The kind of information porary audiences [Fig. 17]. Indeed, its import- Sansovino provided was in keeping with the ance to Sansovino’s authorship is evidenced by fashion of other dictionaries of the time, such as the fact that it appears at the front of the book, Alberto Accarisio’s Vocabolario (1550). Dolce immediately after the dedication letter. Brian also provided a Tavola in his 1555 edition of the Richardson argues that glossaries allowed the Commedia. However, Sansovino provides more editor to intervene and mediate between a book words and more contextual information than and its audience, thus permitting scholars to these authors. He also identifies many of posit a reader or readers, depending on the in- Dante’s neologisms, stating “voce Dantesca,” formation they provided.[90] The glossary, ac- “verbo Dantesco,” “alla Dantesca” or in an ex- cording to Sansovino, seeks to explain the “voci ceptional statement of authority “son voci di difficili” or difficult terms that a reader might Dante e non d’altri.” Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 19

Continuing the dialogue with Landino and Vellu- this Commedia combined many ‘authorial’ mo- tello, he uses their commentaries to validate the ments that spanned more than two-hundred definitions he provides. Sansovino also import- years, from Dante’s creation of the poem in the antly notes where Landino and Vellutello do not early fourteenth century to Landino and Vellutel- define certain terms. He states for the word lo’s commentaries published in 1481 and in “sprazzo” that “il Landino e il Velutello non toc- 1544, and finally to Sansovino’s publication of all cano pure una parola di questa voce.” In this three in 1564, 1578, and 1596. Rather than re- way, Sansovino specifies his intervention in dis- presenting a synchronic moment in history, a tinction to and in addition to Landino and Vellu- point of origination, this edition represents a dia- tello, asserting his role as a literary authority chronic moment, a meeting point across time equal or superior to the commentators themsel- and space. This meeting, appresso Sansovino, ves. allowed for two figures, Landino and Vellutello, Given the content of the glossary, the to engage in a dialogue about Dante and for entries anticipate problems that readers would Dante to speak to a range of Renaissance rea- have with the language of the text, both as a ders. work of poetry but also as a work written in Tre- cento Italian. This suggests that there was enough distance between sixteenth-century readers and the fourteenth-century text to re- Notes quire a glossary, and that readers would have 1. Dante con l’espositione di Christoforo Landino, Et di Alessandro Vellvtello, Sopra la Sua Comedia difficulty reading the poem both in terms of form dell’Inferno, del Purgatorio, & del Paradiso. Con and content. The inclusion of a glossary, as well tavole, argomenti, & allegorie, & riformato, riue- as other prefatory material, suggests an audi- duto, & ridotto alla sua uera lettura, Per Francesco ence that is interested in Dante, but cannot yet Sansovino Fiorentino. In Venetia, Appresso Giovambattista, Marchiò Sessa, & fratelli. 1564. read his works without assistance or further cla- Venice, 1564. Folio. The three editions retain the rification. The glossary, as the genre of dialogue, images from the Marcolini 1544 edition and the or- by illuminating the voci oscure reveals the very ganization of the materials, but differ in their ded- nature of the Commedia, considered to be the ication letters, xylographs, headers, and some of ultimate and highest expression of vernacular lit- the titles. The 1578 and 1596 editions contain the dedication letter by Francesco Rampazetto, who erature. The commentaries explain the meaning was brought in to give financial assistance. He of the text and particularly the meaning of ob- dedicates the work to Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke scure points in the poem. The glossary, like the of Mantova and Monferrato. portrait, allegories, and additions in the Apolo- 2. The classic study on paratexts is Gerard Genette, Paratexts. Thresholds of Interpretation, Cambridge gia, translates the language of the text for a 1997. Regarding Dante and paratexts specifically Renaissance audience. The glossary furnishes see Marco Santoro, Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio, e an important place in the book where we see il paratesto. Le edizioni rinascimentali delle tre Sansovino occupying the role of a mediator, corone, Rome 2006. For a more general account of paratexts in the Renaissance see Helen Smith stage director, author, and character. Additions and Louise Smithson, Renaissance Paratexts, therefore allow Sansovino to bring the past to Cambridge, U.K. 2011. the present and to mediate between Dante and For more information on Cristoforo Landino and his new readers. his commentary see Michele Barbi, Della fortuna di Dante nel secolo XVI, Pisa 1890; Deborah Park- The hybrid and accumulative nature of er, Commentary and Ideology. Dante in the this edition of the Commedia presents a com- Renaissance, Raleigh, NC 1993; Paolo Procacci- pelling case study for the examination of author- oli, Comento sopra la Comedia, Roma 2001; Si- ship in the Renaissance. By virtue of its innovati- mon A. Gilson, Dante and Renaissance Florence, ve and protean editor, Francesco Sansovino, Cambridge, U.K. 2005. For more information on Alessandro Vellutello and his commentary see Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 20

Ernest H. Wilkins, Vellutello’s Map of Vaucluse M. B. Parkes, Pause and Effect. An Introduction to and the “Carte de Tendre”, in: Modern Philology, the History of Punctuation in the West, Berkeley, vol. XXIX, no. 3, 1932, p. 275–280; Gino Belloni, 1993; Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory. A Un eretico nella Venezia del Bembo. Alessandro Study of Memory in Medieval Culture, Cambridge, Vellutello, in: Giornale Storico della Letteratura U.K. 2008; Rhiannon Daniels, Boccaccio and the Italiana, 157, 1980, p. 43–74; Alessandro Vellu- Book. Production and Reading in Italy, 1340– tello, La ‘Comedia’ di con la nova 1520, London 2009. esposizione, ed. Donato Pirovano, Rome 2006; H. 6. The scholarship on the reception of Dante’s Com- Wayne Storey, The Economies of Authority. Be- media is vast, I have listed the most relevant stud- mbo, Vellutello, and the Reconstruction of “Au- ies for this article. See Corrado Bologna, Tradiz- thentic Petrarch”, in: ‘Accessus ad auctores’. ione e fortuna dei classici, Torino 1993; Michael Studies in honor of Christopher Kleinhenz, eds. Caesar, Dante. The Critical Heritage, London Fabian Alfie and Andrea Dini, Tempe 2011. Also 1995; Paolo Procaccioli, Commenti Danteschi dei see Ernest H. Wilkins, The Making of the “Can- secoli XIV, XV, XVI, Rome 1999; Richard H. Lans- zoniere” and other Petrarchan Studies, Rome ing, The Dante Encyclopedia, New York 2000; 1951. Zygmunt Baranski, Italy’s Three Crowns. Reading 3. The format is also similar to a theatrical play, with Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio, Oxford, U.K. the characters’ names appearing in an abbrevi- 2007. For studies on Dante’s early modern recep- ated form in the left margin. Both genres emphas- tion in particular see: Michele Barbi, Della fortuna ize the theatricality of the encounter between the di Dante nel secolo XVI, Pisa 1890; Giosuè Car- two commentators through the layout. ducci, Dante, Bologna 1940; Umberto Cosmo, 4. A classic case is Petrarch’s letters addressed to Con Dante attraverso il Seicento, Bari 1946; Aldo dead authors including Virgil, Horace, and Cicero Vallone, La critica dantesca nel Settecento e altri in Book XXIV of the Familiares. Here, Sansovino is saggi danteschi, Florence 1961 and L’inter- communicating with commentators through their pretazione di Dante nel Cinquecento, Firenze texts on the Commedia. On the genre of dialogue 1969; Carlo Dionisotti, Varia fortuna di Dante, Na- in general see Virginia Cox, The Renaissance Dia- poli 1966 and Geografia e storia della letteratura logue. Literary Dialogue in its Social and Political italiana, Torino 1967; Parker 1993, Commentary Contexts. Castiglione to Galileo, Cambridge 2011; and Ideology; Brian Richardson, Editing Dante’s Evelyn Lincoln, Brilliant Discourse. Pictures and Commedia 1472–1629, in: Dante Now. Current Readers in Early Modern Rome, New Haven 2014. Trends in Dante Studies, ed. T.J. Cachey, Notre 5. Studies that emphasize the importance of the Dame, USA 1995 and Print Culture in Renaissance book as a material object to the production and Italy. The Editor and the Vernacular Text, 1470– reception of texts, demonstrating how the object 1600, Cambridge, U.K. 1999; Saverio Bellomo, of the book shapes the relationship between au- Dizionario dei commentatori danteschi. L’esegesi thor, text, and reader: Anthony Grafton and Lisa della Commedia da Iacopo Alighieri a Nidobeato, Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities. Edu- Firenze 2004; Gilson 2005, Dante and Renais- cation and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Six- sance Florence; Giuseppe Tavani, Dante nel Sei- teenth-Century Europe, London 1986; Roger cento, Firenze 1976; Francesco Mazzoni, Con Chartier, The Order of Books. Readers, Authors, Dante per Dante II. I commentatori, la fortuna, and Libraries in Europe Between the Fourteenth Rome 2015. and Eighteenth Centuries, Stanford, CA 1994; Ar- 7. For Sansovino’s personal and editorial biography mando Petrucci, Writers and Readers in Medieval see Emanuele Cicogna, Delle iscrizioni veneziane, Italy. Studies in the History of Written Culture, New vol. I–VII, Venice, 1824–53 and volume IV in partic- Haven 1995; Adrian Johns, The Nature of the ular published in 1834, which contains an index of Book. Print and Knowledge in the Making, Chica- Sansovino’s editions; G. Sforza, F. Sansovino e le go 1998; Wendy Wall, Authorship and the Material sue opere storiche, in: Memorie della R. Acca- Conditions of Writing, in: The Cambridge Com- demia delle Scienze di Torino II, XLVII, 1897, p. panion to English Literature, 1500–1600, ed. Ar- 27–66; Guido Pusinich, Un poligrafo veneziano del thur F. Kinney, Cambridge, U.K. 2000. For the way ‘500. Francesco Sansovino, in: Pagine Istriane VIII, form contributes to the meaning of content see 1911, p. 1–18. Michael Camille, Visualising in the Vernacular. A 8. Francesco Sansovino, Venetia citta nobilissima et New Cycle of Early Fourteenth-Century Bible Illus- singolare, descritta in XIIII libri da m. Francesco trations, in: The Burlington Magazine, 130, 1988, Sansouino. In Venetia, appresso Iacomo San- p. 97–106; Paul F. Grendler, Form and Function in souino, 1581. Venice 1581. Quarto. Italian Renaissance Popular Books, in: Renais- 9. Elena Bonora, Ricerche su Francesco Sansovino. sance Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 3, 1993, p. 451–85; Imprenditore librario e letterato, Venice 1994. Also Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 21

see M.C. Panzera, Francesco Sansovino e to to Postmodern. A Reader, Edinburgh 1995; Me- l’Umanesimo veneziano. La fonte nascosta dei dieval Literary Theory and Criticism, c. 1100–c. modelli di lettere del Del Secretario, in: Italianist- 1375. The Commentary Tradition, eds. Alastair ica, vol. 4, no. 2, 2012, p. 21–48 and in no. 3, Minnis, A.B Scott, and David Wallace, Oxford 2012, p. 11–30. 1988; Rita Copeland, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and 10. Francesco Sansovino, Del secretario di m. Translation in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 1995. Francesco Sansouino libri quattro. In Venetia: ap- Also see M.D. Chenu, Auctor, Actor, Autor, in: presso Francesco Rampazetto, 1564. Ottavo. Bulletin du Cange: Archivium Latinitatis Medii Aevi 11. Adriano Moz, Francesco Sansovino. A Polygraph III, 1927, p. 81–86. On Dante as an auctor see Al- in Cinquecento Venice. His Life and Works, PhD bert Russell Ascoli, Dante and the Making of a Dissertation, University of North Carolina Chapel Modern Author, Cambridge, U.K. 2008. Hill 1985. 21. Ascoli 2008, Dante, p. 7. 12. Paul F. Grendler, Francesco Sansovino and Italian 22. Rita Copeland has demonstrated how translators Popular History 1560–1600, in: Studies in the and commentators started to be considered Renaissance, vol. 16, 1969, p. 139–180. autonomous authors in the medieval period. See 13. Paul F. Grendler, Form and Function in Italian Copeland 1995, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Renaissance Popular Books, in: Renaissance Translation, p. 195. Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 3, 1993, p. 451–85. 23. I have used Maggini’s edition of the Rettorica: La 14. Christina Roaf, Francesco Sansovino e le sue rettorica. Testo critico di Francesco Maggini, “Lettere sopra le diece giornate del Decamerone”, Firenze 1968. in: Quaderni di Retorica e Poetica, vol. I, 1985, p. 24. The title of the 1481 edition is Comento di Christo- 91–98 and Roaf, The Presentation of the ‘De- phoro Landino Fiorentino sopra la Comedia di cameron’ 1988, p. 109–21. Dante Alighieri Poeta Fiorentino. 15. See Parker 1993, Commentary and Ideology; 25. That being said, Pietro Bembo’s evaluations of the Gilson 2005, Dante and Renaissance Florence. Commedia and exclusion of Dante as a poetic 16. Sansovino most explicitly identifies himself as model, meant that Dante’s position was not a giv- Florentine in a letter to Bernardo Cavalcanti: “… en, but still needed to be defended and asserted. non faranno però che i Fiorentini in qualunque 26. Il decamerone di M. Giouanni Boccaccio. In Vine- luogo essi andranno non sieno onorati. E se non gia appresso Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari, LDXVI. che io, essendo Fiorentino…” Quoted from Venice 1546. Quarto. Also see Della origine, et de’ Christina Roaf’s edition of Le lettere sopra le dieci fatti delle famiglie illustri d’Italia, Di m. Francesco giornate del Decamerone di m. Giovanni Boccac- Sansovino libro primo. In Vinegia, Presso Altobello cio / Francesco Sansovino, 2003. Salicato, MDLXXXII, and his collaboration with 17. See Roaf 1985, Francesco Sansovino and Parker Francesco Alunno in Della fabrica del mondo, 1993, Commentary and Ideology. Venice 1560, in Nuovo 2005, I Giolito, p. 187. 18. Sansovino edited the Decamerone and Petrarch’s 27. For a general history of commentary on the Com- Rime in 1546. It is interesting to note that Sanso- media and relevant bibliography see Bellomo vino’s edition of the latter also strategically in- 2004, Dizionario dei commentatori danteschi. cluded Vellutello’s commentary. See Bonora 1994, 28. See Chartier 1994, The Order of Books and Part Ricerche su Francesco Sansovino, p. 48. Three of The Author’s Hand and the Printer’s 19. For background and bibliography on the publish- Mind. Transformations of the Written Word in ers mentioned see Martin Lowry, The World of Al- Early Modern Europe, Cambridge, U.K 2014; Adri- dus Manutius. Business and Scholarship in an Johns, The Physiology of Reading in Books Renaissance Venice, Ithaca 1979; Carlo Dionisotti, and the Sciences in History, eds. N. Jardine and Aldo Manuzio Umanista e Editore, Milano 1995; M. Frasca-Spada, Cambridge, U.K. 2000, p. 291– Angela Nuovo, Alessandro Paganino (1509–1538), 314 and How to Acknowledge a , Padova 1995; Christopher Coppens and Angela in: American Historical Review, 107, 2002, p. 106– Nuovo, I Giolito e la stampa nell’Italia del XVI 25. Also see Inge Crosman and Susan Suleiman, secolo, Geneva 2005; William A. Pettas, The Gi- The Reader in the Text. Essays on Audience and unti of Florence. A Renaissance Printing and Pub- Interpretation, Princeton 1980; Sean Burke, The lishing family. A History of the Florentine Firm and Death and Return of the Author. Criticism and a Catalogue of the Editions, New Castle, DE 2013. Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida, Ed- 20. On medieval authorship in general see Alastair inburgh, 1998. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship. Scholastic 29. Storey 2011, The Economies of Authority. Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages, Phil- 30. Giorgio Vasari, Le vite, eds. Luciano Bellosi and adelphia 1988 and The Significance of the Medi- Aldo Rossi, vol. I, Torino 1991, p. 477. eval Theory of Authorship, in: Authorship from Pla- Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 22

31. Richardson 1994, Print Culture, p. 144–6. Richard- 39. See Parker 1993, Commentary and Ideology and son states that Sansovino and the Sessa “com- Caesar 1995, Dante for the religious context of bined editorial traditions of an earlier period with Dante’s fortuna in the sixteenth century. those of the mid-cinquecento.” 40. Vellutello dedicated his Commedia to Pope Paul 32. Portavoce signifies here both a representative of III. the book, but also a communication of a specific 41. The quote is taken from Lina Bolzoni, La stanza point of view and critical interpretation of the text. della memoria. Modelli letterari e iconografici 33. See Ann Blair, The Theater of Nature. nell’età della stampa, Torino 1995, p. 193. The and Renaissance Science, Princeton 1997, who quote appears in the 1564 edition of In materia supplies a detailed history of the concept of the dell’arte libri tre on folio 4v. “Theatre of Nature” and other types of theatres, p. 42. On the importance of the frontispiece and its rela- 153–179. See the section “The Book as a Theater” tion to both authorship and the illustrated dialogue in particular, p. 159–167. see Lincoln 2014, p. 226–35. 34. The four kinds of commentary in the medieval 43. Victoria Kirkham, Fabulous Vernacular. Boccac- period were outlined by . The compil- cio’s “Filocolo” and the Art of Medieval Fiction, ator is someone who literally compiles, who brings Ann Arbor 2001, p. 80–82. together authors as well as organizes the manu- 44. Kirkham 2001, p. 81. script and its quires. For Bonaventure, a compiler 45. To my knowledge, no such title appears in four- is not on the level of an author or commentator. teenth-century manuscripts. The most similar title The editor in the Cinquecento is a unique combin- page is the Jean de Tournes edition “Il Dante” of ation of all these forms of authorship and com- 1547, Lyon, which also contains a small medallion mentary. portrait. Guillaume Rouille also titles his edition 35. M.M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, trans. Mi- “Dante” Lyon 1551 and so does Giovanni Antonio chael Holquist, Austin 1981 and the chapter Dis- Morando, in his Venetian edition of 1554. Giovan course in the Novel, p. 259–422 in particular and Giorgio Trissino heads the title page with Dante’s Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, ed. and trans. name in his edition of the De vulgari eloquentia in Caryl Emerson, Minneapolis 1984. Also see Peter 1529, but it is in small font. However, these do not Burke The Renaissance Dialogue, in: Renaissance have quite the same visual impact considering the Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 1989, p. 1–12 for a useful ornate portrait and folio size of Sansovino’s edi- analysis on the relationship of Bakhtin’s concept tion. Petrarch is also titled in this way, “Il of “polyphony” and the genre of the dialogue in Petrarcha” titles the Giolito edition of 1538 for ex- the Renaissance. ample. 36. M.M. Bakhtin 1984, Problems of Dostoevsky’s 46. On the significance of author portraits in printed Poetics. books see Giuseppina Zappella, Il ritratto nel libro 37. On the organization and tools for reading scholarly italiano del Cinquecento, Milan 1988; Ruth Mor- information see Anthony Grafton, The Footnote. A timer, The Author’s Image. Italian Sixteenth-Cen- Curious History, Cambridge, U.S.A. 1997; Ann tury Printed Portraits, Cambridge, U.S.A 1996; Blair, Too Much to Know. Managing Scholarly In- Peter Burke, Reflections on the Frontispiece Por- formation before the Modern Age, New Haven trait in the Renaissance, in: Bildnis und Image, 2010. For the way dedication letters and reprints Das Portrat zwischen Intention und Rezeption, add new meanings to original works see Roger eds. Andreas Köstler and Ernst Seidl, Köln et al. Chartier, Princely Patronage and the Economy of 1998, p. 151-162. For a more general survey of Dedication, in: Forms and Meanings. Texts, Per- frontispieces see Francesco Barberi, Il frontespizio formances, and Audiences from Codex to Com- nel libro italiano del Quattrocento e del Cinque- puter, Philadelphia 1995; Evelyn Lincoln, Inven- cento, Milan 1969. tion, Origin, and Dedication. Republishing Wo- 47. For more information about the Sessa publishing men’s Prints in Early Modern Italy, in: Making and house see Silvia Curi Nicolardi, Una società tipo- Unmaking Intellectual Property. Creative Produc- grafico-editoriale a Venezia nel secolo XVI. Mel- tion in Legal and Cultural Perspective, Chicago chiorre Sessa e Pietro di Ravani, 1516–1525, 2011, p. 339–357. Florece, 1984. 38. As has been pointed out to me by Ronald L. Mar- 48. Commentaries often used the preposition “di” and tinez, this title referred to Dante’s own description “da.” Sansovino uses “da” for his edition of the of his work in his Epistle to Cangrande della Scala, Filocolo to describe his editing. “Per” was most and served to emphasize the fact that Bembo had commonly used for publishers, along with “ad in- used manuscript copies for his edition. stantia” and “appresso.” For example, in Vellu- tello’s edition of the Commedia, “per” precedes the publisher’s name Francesco Marcolini. Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 23

49. For the partial definition of these terms, I consul- 59. For Michelangelo’s various epithets see Patricia A. ted the Accademia la Crusca dictionary online in Emison, Creating the “Divine” Artist. From Dante addition to comparing this edition to other editions to Michelangelo, Leiden 2011. of the Commedia that also employ similar termino- 60. The portrait is held at the Minneapolis Institute of logy. The dictionary lists three different definitions Art. See Deborah Parker, Vasari’s Portrait of Six of “ridurre” that roughly translate as “return, re- Tuscan Poets. A Visible Literary History, in: Lec- cover, and consist.” Also see Moz 1985, 135–6. tura Dantis, 22–23, 1998, p. 45–62. 50. La Diuina Commedia di Dante Alighieri nobile 61. See Leonard Barkan, Unearthing the Past. Ar- fiorentino ridotta a miglior lezione dagli Accadem- chaeology and Aesthetics in the Making of ici della Crusca. In Firenze: per Domenico Man- Renaissance Culture, New Haven 1999. zani, 1595. Florence 1595. Ottavo. 62. Some examples are the L.A. Giunti edition of the 51. See Paolo Trovato, Con ogni diligenza corretto. La 1529 Commedia based on Botticelli and the Con- stampa e le revisioni editoriali dei testi letterari vivio (Zuane Antonio da Sabio, Venice, 1521) italiani (1470–1570), Bologna 1991. based on Botticelli. 52. See Bonora 1994, Ricerche su Francesco Sanso- 63. For a description of Bronzino’s portrait of Dante vino, p. 48. see Venere e amore. Michelangelo e la nuova 53. This is a tentative suggestion with appearances of bellezza ideale, eds. Franca Falletti and Jonathan “ridurre” in a wide variety of contexts including in Katz Nelson, Firenze 2002, p. 184–6. Also see Machiavelli in a political context and in Vasari in a Richard Thayer Holbrook, Portraits of Dante from visual one. What cannot be underestimated is the Giotto to Raffael. Critical Study, with a Concise importance of “ridurre” to Renaissance terminolo- Iconography, London 1921; Jonathan Nelson, gies, along the lines of “inventione.” Dante Portraits in Sixteenth Century Florence, in: 54. For a general summary and bibliography on por- Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1992, p. 59–77; Victoria traiture in Renaissance books see Zappella 1988, Kirkham, Dante’s Phantom, Petrarch’s Specter. Il ritratto nel libro italiano del Cinquecento and Bronzino’s Portrait of the Poet Laura Battiferra, in: Peter Burke 1998, Reflections on the Frontispiece Lectura Dantis Special Issue: Visibile Parlare. Portrait in the Renaissance. Dante and the Art of the Italian Renaissance, ed. 55. See Tommaso Casini, Ritratti parlanti. Collezion- Deborah Parker, 1998, p. 63–139. ismo e biografie illustrate nei secoli 16. e 17, Firen- 64. Richardson 1994, Print Culture, p. 144. ze 2004 and Cecil Clough, Italian Renaissance 65. Lincoln 2011, Invention, Origin, and Dedication. Portraiture and Printed Portrait-Books, in: The 66. Exceptions to this are Bernardino Daniello’s illus- Italian Book: 1465–1800. Studies Presented to trated edition of 1568 and the Accademia della Dennis E. Rhodes on his 70th Birthday, ed. Denis Crusca edition of 1595 which contained a map of V. Reidy, London 1993. the Inferno. 56. Aby Warburg, The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity. 67. Deborah Parker 1993, Commentary and Ideology, Contributions to the Cultural History of the p. 148. European Renaissance, ed. K. Forster, Los 68. For a detailed summary of these debates in the Angeles 1999, p. 161. Also see Joost Keizer and late sixteenth century see Michael Brunner, Die Il- Todd Richardson, The Transformation of Vernacu- lustrierung von Dantes Divina Commedia, Munich lar Expression in the Early Modern Arts, Leiden 1999, p. 75–134 and Richardson, 1994, Print Cul- 2012. ture, p. 157. Also see Ottavio Gigli, Studi sulla 57. For Sansovino’s collaboration with the Giolito see Divina Commedia di Galileo Galilei, Vincenzo Nuovo 2005, I Giolito, p. 105. Borghini ed altri, Firenze 1855; Benedetto Croce, 58. See Marco Ruffini, Art without an Author. Vasari’s Un critico di poesia. V. Borghini, in: Poeti e scrit- Lives and Michelangelo’s Death, New York 2011. tori del pieno e del tardo Rinascimento, Bari 1945; There are similarities in the volutes and monu- A. Vallone, Un momento della critica dantesca nel mentality of the frame to Michelangelo’s tomb, al- tardo Cinquecento, in: Aspetti dell’esegesi though it cannot be said for certain whether the dantesca nei sec. XVI e XVII, Lecce 1966, p. 94– artist was aware of the tomb or if the frame refers 127 (originally published in 1962–3). to it specifically. It does seem to me to express a 69. Christina Roaf shows how these trends influenced Florentine monumentality, especially if compared the publication of Boccaccio’s Decameron toward to the more Venetian motifs of the Casa Orsina the mid-sixteenth century. See Roaf 1988, The portrait frames that contain Veronese type figures. Presentation of the Decameron, p. 110. Although I do not elaborate on this topic here, the 70. Parker 1993, Commentary and Ideology, p. 150. relationship between the frame and its architectur- 71. See Hans-Robert Jauss, Toward an Aesthetic of al and artistic context merits further investigation. Reception, Minneapolis 1982. 72. Ibid. Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 24

73. Michael Baxandall, Words for Pictures. Seven Pa- Comedy”, Princeton 1979; David Quint, Origin and pers on Renaissance Art and Criticism, New Originality in Renaissance Literature. Versions of Haven 2003, p. 99–116. On the difference the Source, New Haven 1983. Dante outlines between the description and experience of art and these modes of reading in the Epistle to Can language see Baxandall in general and in particu- Grande della Scala. He also discusses allegory in lar The Language of Art History, in: New Literary Book II of the Convivio. Also see Ronald L. Mar- History, 10, 1979, p. 453–65. Also see Gotthold tinez, Allegory, in: Dante Encyclopedia, ed. Ephraim Lessing, Laocoön. An Essay on the Lim- Richard Lansing, New York 2000, p. 24-34. its of Painting and Poetry, trans. and ed. Edward 79. Giambattista Gelli and Pier Francesco Giambullari Allen McCormick, Indianapolis 1962. published their “Letture” primarily through the Tor- 74. On the role of illustrations in relation to texts and rentino press with full sponsorship of the Medici in the book see Lina Bolzoni, Web of Images. Ver- (the Medici stemma often appears on nacular Preaching from its Origins to Saint Bern- the title page of these editions). David Quint ar- ardino of Siena, Burlington 2004; Sachiko gues that in fact Renaissance writers moved away Kusukawa, Picturing the Book of Nature. Image, from allegorical modes of writing in Origin and Ori- Text, and Argument in Sixteenth-Century Human ginality. After the Council of Trent the allegorical Anatomy and Medical Botany, Chicago 2011; Lin- interpretation of the Commedia might have been coln 2014, Brilliant Discourse. problematic. Yet allegory remained a predominant 75. Barkan 1999, Unearthing the Past, p. 65–117 and way of interpreting the Commedia in the p. 269. This idea that images can be read in the Academies and in the editions of the poem from same way as a text derives largely from Clifford the mid-fifteenth century to the eighteenth century Geertz and his assertion that culture is a text. For (the “allegoria” was still published until this late contributions to this debate see Erwin Panofsky, date). Deborah Parker points out that dedicating Studies in Iconology. Humanistic Themes in the the book to a Pope might have been preemptive Art of the Renaissance, New York 1939; Rens- on Sansovino’s part, which is further evidenced by selaer W. Lee, Ut Pictura Poesis. The Humanistic his mentioning of Giacomo Naclante, who was at Theory of Painting, in: The Art Bulletin, 22, no. 4, the Council of Trent and who Sansovino describes 1940, p. 197–269; E.H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion, as a great defender of the faith against heretics: London 1968; David Rosand, Ut pictura poeta. see Parker 1993, Commentary and Ideology, p. Meaning in Titian’s Poesie, in: New Literary His- 148–149. For the Accademia della Crusca’s lec- tory, vol. 3, no. 3, 1972, p. 527–546; Meyer Scha- tures and meeting notes about Dante see Severina piro, Words and Pictures. On the Literal and the Parodi, Sugli autori della Divina Commedia di Symbolic in the Illustration of a Text, The Hague Crusca del 1595, in: Studi danteschi, 44, 1967, p. 1973; Norman Bryson, Word and Image. French 211–22 and Dante e L’Accademia della Crusca, in: Painting of the Ancien Regime, Cambridge, U.K. Studi Danteschi, 56, 1984, p. 169–88. 1981; Emile Male, Religious Art in France, Prin- 80. Chartier rightly states that the order established ceton 1986; Mieke Bal, Reading Rembrandt. Bey- and imposed by the producers of the book does ond the Word-Image Opposition. The Northrop not prescribe the ‘order’ and behavior with which Frye Lectures in Literary Theory, Cambridge, U.K. readers interpret and encounter texts. This is evid- 1991. For the intrinsic power and properties of im- enced by the marginal notes in editions which re- ages see David Freedberg, The Power of Images. flect specific interests of readers. For example, in Studies in the History and Theory of Response, a 1564 edition at Boston College (Burns Library, Chicago 1989. PQ4302 .B64 RARE OVERSIZE) the reader was 76. The author of the illustrations is not named either primarily interested in the measurements of the in Vellutello’s 1544 edition nor here. Some theories otherworldly realms, underlining measurements have been put forth about the artist being Gio- and writing them in the margins for repetition and vanni Britto, who worked for the Marcolini press at memorization. He also wrote in VELL. where the the time Vellutello published his commentary in printers did not label his commentary. In a 1578 1544. example in the exhibition at Notre Dame, curated 77. Bakhtin is also useful for thinking about this dis- by Deborah Parker, the edition contains notes tancing of a character from the “real author,” or as solely on the Landino commentary. In the 1578 he calls it the “posited author” and “teller.” See edition at the Beinecke Library at Yale (1976 Bakhtin 1981, The Dialogic Imagination, p. 312. +143), the reader colored in the title page, illustra- 78. On the links between allegory and authorship see tions, and decorative divisions, indicating that per- Robert Hollander, Allegory in Dante’s “Com- haps it was meant more for display or that the media”, Princeton 1969; Giuseppe Mazzotta, reader was most inspired by the visual elements of Dante, Poet of the Desert. History in the “Divine the edition. Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 25

81. Martin Kemp, From “Mimesis” to “Fantasia”. The sovino. 1564 Edition. Houghton Library, Harvard University Quattrocento Vocabulary of Creation, Inspiration (IC D2358 472c 1564). and Genius in the Visual Arts, in: Viator, vol. 8, Figure 6. Detail of title page with the title “Dante” in 1578 1977, p. 347–348. Edition. John Hay Library, Brown University (Hay Dante Col- 82. The initials are different in the 1578 edition, but the lection, 1-Size B 1578). use of them for the first letter of the canto and the first letter of Landino’s commentary is seen across Figure 7. Detail of hand-colored frontispiece portrait. 1578 all three editions. Edition. Beinecke Library, Yale University (1976 +143). Ins- 83. Gilson 2005, Dante and Renaissance Florence, p. cription below reads “Filippus Butii Romanus Architectus 175–180 and Procaccioli 2001, Comento sopra la Anno 1772.” Comedia. 84. Parker 1993, Commentary and Ideology, p. 149. Figure 8. Comedia del Divino Poeta Danthe. MD XXXVI. In Vinegia ad instantia di M. Gioanni Giolitto da Trino. Venice. 85. On the active reading of the dialogue genre see 1536. 4°. Beinecke Library, Yale University (1977 828). Cox 1992, Literary Dialogue. 86. See Parkes 1993, Pause and Effect. For the way Figure 9. La Divina Comedia di Dante. In Vinegia. Appresso script marked status in Boccaccio see Rhiannon Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari, et fratelli, MDLV. Venice. 1555. Daniels, Boccaccio and the Book. Production and 12°. Houghton Library, Harvard University (Typ 525 55.316). Reading in Italy, 1340–1520, London 2009 and Martin Eisner, Boccaccio and the Invention of Itali- Figure 10. Detail of Inferno XVI. 1564 edition. PQ 4302 an Literature. Dante, Petrarch, Cavalcanti, and the B64, UCLA Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA. Authority of the Vernacular, Cambridge, U.K. 2013. Also see Marco Cursi, La scrittura e i libri di Figure 11. Petrarcha con doi commenti sopra li Sonetti et , Rome 2013. Canzone. Impressum Venetiis per Gregorium de Gregoriis. 87. Opere del diuino poeta Danthe con suoi comenti: MDVIII. Venice, 1508, 4°. Double commentary with repetition recorrecti et con ogne diligentia nouamente in lit- of “Voglia” in capitals and marked with a paragraph sign. tera cursiua impresse. Bernardino Stagnino. Houghton Library, Harvard University (*IC P447C 1508b). Venice. 1512. Quarto. 88. Vellutello, Letter to the Readers, 1544. Figure 12. Commentary on Dante’s Commedia. Probably late th 89. See Roaf 1988, The Presentation of the “De- 14 -century. Parchment, 192 ff. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Manuscript Italien 77, 20v. cameron”, p. 109–21.

90. Richardson 1994, Print Culture, p. 111–114 and Figure 13. Detail of Purgatorio X. 1578 edition. John Hay Li- 144. brary, Brown University (Hay Dante Collection, 1-Size B 1578).

Figure 14. First page of Inferno I. Detail of 1564 Edition. Figures Houghton Library, Harvard University (Typ 525 64.316).

Figure 1. Title Page. Dante con l’espositione di Christoforo Figure 15. Detail of “allegoria” and “argomento” with SANS. Landino, Et di Alessandro Vellvtello, Sopra la Sua Comedia in left margin from Paradiso I, 282v. Detail of 1578 Edition dell’Inferno, del Purgatorio, & del Paradiso. Con tavole, ar- (Hay Dante Collection, 1-Size B 1578). gomenti, & allegorie, & riformato, riueduto, & ridotto alla sua uera lettura, Per Francesco Sansovino Fiorentino. In Venetia, Figure 16. Variation of Sessa printer’s mark as header of Appresso Giovambattista, Marchiò Sessa, & fratelli. 1564. each cantica. Detail of 1578 Edition. Beinecke Library, Yale Venice, 1564. Folio. Houghton Library, Harvard University University (1976 +143). (Typ 525 64.316). Figure 17. Glossary. Detail of 1578 edition. John Hay Library, Figure 2. Dialogue format with Landino (LAND.) and Vellutello Brown University (Hay Dante Collection, 1-Size B 1578). (VELL.) in the left margin and one VELL. in the right margin. Detail from Purgatorio XI in 1578 edition. John Hay Library, Brown University (Hay Dante Collection, 1-Size B 1578), 203r. Summary Figure 3. First pages of Inferno I with woodcut illustration on the left and text and commentary on the right. Detail of 1564 Edition. John J. Burns Library Special Collections, Boston College. This paper shows how Francesco Sansovino’s visual strategies for presenting Dante’s Comme- Figure 4. Le terze rime di Dante, Aldo Manuzio, Venice, dia contribute to our knowledge about the publi- 1502. 8°. Houghton Library, Harvard University (*IC.D2358.472c.1502 (A)). cation and reception of Dante’s works in the Figure 5. Dedication Letter to Pope Pio IV by Francesco San- Zoe Langer More is More kunsttexte.de 2/2017 - 26

mid-sixteenth century. Current scholarship has Author undervalued Sansovino’s authorship of literary editions, and in particular of medieval poets. Zoe Langer is a PhD Candidate in Italian Studies An unicum of its time, Sansovino’s edi- at Brown University. Her research has been gen- tion was the first double commentary on the erously supporte by the Bibliographic Society of Commedia to appear in print. He combined two America, the Fondazione Giorgio Cini, and the of the most illustrious Dante commentators of Samuel H. Kress Fellowship in Art History at the the day – Cristoforo Landino and Alessandro Medici Archive Project. She completed her B.A. Vellutello – into one sumptuous folio edition. in the History of Art and Italian Studies at the Striking in its adherence to the medieval com- University of California, Berkeley and received mentary layout, with a block of text surrounded her MPhil in Literature at the University of Cam- by commentary, the organization of each au- bridge. thor’s contribution was decidedly new. Sanso- vino presented each commentator as though they were in a dialogue, even though their inter- Title ventions were more than sixty years apart. This is but one example of how Sansovino allowed Dante and his commentators to speak to each Zoe Langer, More is More: Francesco Sanso- other as well as to contemporary audiences. vino’s Editorial Additions as a Form of Author- This paper demonstrates how Sansovino ship on Dante’s Commedia (1564), in: Minor maintained manuscript traditions, while creating Publishers in the Renaissance, ed. by Angela innovative ways to organize the mise en page to Dressen, Susanne Gramatzki, Berenike Knob- assert his authorial role. I examine how he com- lich, in: kunsttexte.de, Nr. 2, 2017 (26 pages), bined the medieval commentary format with mo- www.kunsttexte.de. dern editorial additions, such as glossaries, por- traits, biographies, and summaries. Sansovino’s visual and verbal interventions further illuminate how editors defined their practice and status through the presentation of the book. An analy- sis of these additions in all three editions (1564, 1578, 1596) reveals how Sansovino used them to claim his own authorship as an editor, intel- lectual, and author.