Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 6: Grosseteste, Robert--Italian Literature; 7: Italian Renaissance--Mabinogi; 8: Macbeth--Mystery Plays; 9: Mystery Religions--Poland; 10: Polemics--Scandinavia; 11: Scandinavian Languages-- Textiles, Islamic; 12: Thaddeus Legend--Zwart ʿnocʿ; 13: Index.Joseph R. Strayer

Speculum ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-149
Author(s):  
Martin McLaughlin

During the period of 1300–1600, autobiography and biography flourished in Italy despite the controversial thesis of the ‘rise of the individual’ during the Italian Renaissance. In the same period, a typology of biographical works emerged distinguishing the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Italy. These three strands of biography are: collection of lives, a De viris illustribus tradition, revived in Petrarch's work of the same name and inspired by Classical lives of famous rulers, by medieval Viri illustres, and by famous writers and artists; individual biographies, again either of a single ruler or of an individual, and once more derived from Classical models, such as Boccaccio's De vita et moribus Francisci Petrarcchi and Trattatello in laude di Dante; and autobiography, which was pioneered by Petrarch through his Secretum, a purportedly secret dialogue in which St. Augustine was the subject. This chapter discusses distinctive examples of the three strands of biography, with emphasis on the biographies and autobiographies of the writers. It charts the rise and principal developments of these genres during 1350 to 1550.


1960 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-233
Author(s):  
R. J. Schoeck

My brief note on Sir Thomas More's reading and use of Aulus Gellius did not pretend to be a complete survey of the fortunes of the Nodes Atticae in the Renaissance; nonetheless it should have made reference to Hans Baron's important essay on Aulus Gellius in the Middle Ages and the Italian Renaissance. Echoing Professor Baron's statement that ‘the study of Gellius’ fortunes in the Renaissance has not made much headway beyond a modest start; we cannot point to any monograph on Gellius among the humanists, or in other Renaissance circles'—I would like to add this further note.Besides More himself and Erasmus, others in the More circle knew their Attic Nights. For having disparaged Seneca, Gcllius was ‘passionately taken to task’ by Juan Luis Vivcs, yet Vivcs cited Gcllius with great frequency in his commentary on the City of God. Clearly, Gellius is one of those classical authors whose influence upon other members of the More-Erasmus circle (such as Bude and Pace) it would be most fruitful to explore further, and that influence will doubtless also be found in many minor writers of the earlier sixteenth century.


1991 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 453-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. D. Reeve

In a recent article I tried to disperse the fog in which modern editions envelop the transmission of the Livian Periochae and Floras' Epitoma de Tito Liuio. Working from editions and catalogues, and without looking at more than a few readily accessible manuscripts, I argued that the Periochae reached the Middle Ages in the company of Floras and nothing else; that the mainstream of the medieval tradition, which probably issued from the region south-west of Paris, derived first from a manuscript that presented Florus and only 1–7 of the 142 Periochae, Λ, and then from one that presented Florus alone, e; that after appearing for several centuries only in N (s. ix1) and P (s. xii2) the complete text of Florus and the Periochae saw a revival in the Italian Renaissance, probably thanks to Petrarch and Boccaccio; and that most Italian manuscripts contaminate the text of e with the complete text. Pending visits to libraries, I left open several questions: whether Λ derived from the source of NP; whether e derived from Λ; whether the Italian manuscripts of the complete text all derive from one source; whether, if so, it was P; whether any of them have escaped contamination in Florus; and whether contamination had already begun in France.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document