The first modern translation of Theophrastus&#39; &#39;&#39;On Stones&#39;&#39; (peqı`kíhxm; De lapidibus): Ferrante Imperato (1599

annibale mottana; Annibale Mottana

The first translation of Theophrastus' peqı`kíhxm (De lapidibus) into a modern language was not the English one by John Hill in 1746, at the beginning of the 'industrial revolution', as usually reported, but an Italian one made by Ferrante Imperato (Naples, ca. 1525–1621), at the end of Renaissance. Imperato's translation is to be found as two separate chapters of book 22 of Dell'Historia Naturale, published 1599. This treatise, despite the title being generically on natural history, summarizes all knowledge on minerals assembled in Europe to date. Imperato's translation ends with the opening statement of section 48, i.e., it concerns only stones and gemstones, and leaves out the earths, that follow up to section 69 that closes Theophrastus' treatise. Probably, Imperato used, for his Italian translation, a Latin translation (as yet unknown) rather than the Greek original text as retrieved and printed by Aldus Manutius (Aristotelis et Theophrasti Opera, vol II, 1497). Certainly, such a Latin source was not the translation made by Adrianus Turnebus (Theophrasti De Lapidibus Liber, ab Adriano Turnebo Latinitate donatus, 1578), which was the only Latin one available in print at Imperato's time.

Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 DOI 10.1007/s12210-009-0072-6 The first modern translation of Theophrastus’ ‘‘On Stones’’ (peqı̀ kı́hxm; De lapidibus): Ferrante Imperato (1599) Annibale Mottana Received: 16 November 2009 / Accepted: 3 December 2009 / Published online: 22 December 2009 Springer-Verlag 2009 Abstract The first translation of Theophrastus’ peqı̀ kı́hxm (De lapidibus) into a modern language was not the English one by John Hill in 1746, at the beginning of the ‘industrial revolution’, as usually reported, but an Italian one made by Ferrante Imperato (Naples, ca. 1525–1621), at the end of Renaissance. Imperato’s translation is to be found as two separate chapters of book 22 of Dell’Historia Naturale, published 1599. This treatise, despite the title being generically on natural history, summarizes all knowledge on minerals assembled in Europe to date. Imperato’s translation ends with the opening statement of section 48, i.e., it concerns only stones and gemstones, and leaves out the earths, that follow up to section 69 that closes Theophrastus’ treatise. Probably, Imperato used, for his Italian translation, a Latin translation (as yet unknown) rather than the Greek original text as retrieved and printed by Aldus Manutius (Aristotelis et Theophrasti Opera, vol II, 1497). Certainly, such a Latin source was not the translation made by Adrianus Turnebus (Theophrasti De Lapidibus Liber, ab Adriano Turnebo Latinitate donatus, 1578), which was the only Latin one available in print at Imperato’s time. Keywords History of science Mineralogy Renaissance Greek Early Press 1 Introduction It is commonly agreed that the first translation of Theophrastus’ peqı̀ kı́hxm (De lapidibus) into a modern language was the English one by John Hill (1746).1 That translation, with its 1 The first translation that circulated widely throughout the scientific circles was the Latin one by Adrianus Turnebus (finished earlier than 1565 and published a few years later, after the author death). Only still later there were other translations, with new textual emendations. However, none of them could substantially improve readability (Schneider 1818, p. 535); rather, they lessened understanding of the subject, as they A. Mottana (&) Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Università Roma Tre, Largo S. Leonardo Murialdo 1, 00146 Rome, Italy e-mail: mottana@uniroma3.it 123 2 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 extensive commentary, was timely, because it called back the scientists’ attention to the first text passed on from classic times that had been entirely devoted to inorganic materials, both natural and artificial. Hill operated in the crucial moment2 when mineralogy and chemistry were freeing themselves from the alchemical and magic ideas they had inherited from the Middle Ages and moved ahead to become sciences, in the current meaning of the word. Correctly, therefore, D. E. Eichholz (1965, p. 52), the author of the current best philological edition of peqı̀ kı́hxm, summarizes the state of art in this way: ‘‘Hill’s text and translation are less valuable than his commentary’’, and yet ‘‘Hill’s English version was translated anonymously into French (1754), and into German by A. H. Baumgärtner (1770) and apparently by C. Schmieder (1807)’’, thus becoming the international reference for De lapidibus. Now, almost 50 years after Eichholz’ appraisal, science historians and classical philologists readily agree with him that Hill’s translation, although defective, became authoritative at once, especially among those scientists who managed neither Greek nor Latin,3 and kept being so for almost two centuries. Only fairly recently it was superseded by the edition by E. R. Caley and J. F. C. Richards (1956), which contains a far-reaching comment that looks far ahead than philology would require, and enters deeply into the book scientific content, through a general evaluation of Greek mineral wisdom. Philologists (and mineralogists too, although they are those who would have benefited most of Theophrastus textbook4) overlooked an Italian translation of peqı̀ kı́hxm carried out toward the end of Cinquecento (Imperato 1599). Actually, it was only a minor part of a book devoted to minerals considered to be useful for medical treatments, rather than as major constituents of the natural world. The added value of that book is that it was written at a time when the spirit of the Italian Renaissance, although on the way of declining, was still impregnating the European culture. At that time Italian was competing with Latin as reference scientific language, but its influence was already fading away rapidly. This may possibly justify why that first modern translation fell into a four-century long oblivion. Indeed, Italian influence on science and culture lasted only on a few special fields, and chemistry and mineralogy were not among them. Footnote 1 continued were based on an obsolete concept of natural science. Hill’s textual emendations did no better from the philological viewpoint and yet were accepted as good, perhaps because his translation made the whole text easy to understand. Hill was well aware of his innovation. In the preface of his book he proudly states: ‘‘I have chosen to give the Translation in English rather than Latin…because one great Intent of this Edition was, to make the Treatise as universally read and understood as possible’’ (p. XXI) [NB. emphases as in the original text]. 2 It was the time when the ‘‘scientific revolution’’ was beginning to turn into ‘‘industrial revolution’’, i.e., when, rather than studying nature to know its secrets, one would start studying it with the purpose of taking advantage of its richness. 3 A list of editions and translations in various languages up to 1997 is to be found in Mottana and Napolitano (1997, p. 222–227); it updates that given by Eichholz (1965, p. 11–12) and accounts for the observations by Burnikel (1974, p. 149). Fortenbaugh et al. (1993), the latest scholars on Theophrastus, did not take into consideration De lapidibus; they explicitly state (vol. I, p. 5) that they excluded from their collection of fragments all those opuscula that had been transmitted from antiquity by continuous manuscript tradition; thus, they restricted themselves only to geological and mineralogical quotations, references, etc. spread among sources that could not be related directly to De lapidibus. 4 Myself included—alas! (cf. Mottana and Napolitano 1997, p. 153). 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 3 Fig. 1 Ferrante Imperato (ca. 1525–1621). This oil portrait, to be found at Orto Botanico dell’Università di Pisa (Sezione storica), was painted by a XVI–XVII century unknown Neapolitan artist. The blurred inscription at the upper right corner reads: FERDINANDUS/ IMPERATUS/ NEAPOLITANUS. Note the book held in the left hand (is it ‘‘Dell’Historia Naturale’’?) and the herbs carefully exhibited in the right hand, both leaves and flowers 2 Ferrante Imperato, a late Renaissance type of learned man Although little known internationally and rarely studied even in Italy,5 Ferrante Imperato6 (Fig. 1) represents a cornerstone of Italian science, being the author of the first comprehensive book on natural history that was conceived, written and published in Italian7 5 There are only five studies specifically on him published during the second half of twentieth century: Russo (1958), Accordi (1981), Ciarallo (1981, 1986), and Stendardo (1991). Three others appeared in the present century: Stendardo (2001a, b) and Maio and Stendardo (2004). However, he is mentioned frequently in books on history of science that deal with the ‘‘scientific revolution’’, either for the characteristics of his museum or for his experimental approach at studying natural materials. Both contributed to the changing attitude toward science by anticipating the inductive method, i.e., the method that Francis Bacon and Galileo Galileo finally succeeded in popularizing (cf. Bromehead 1947; Bedini 1965; Badaloni 1980; Lugli 1983; Findlen 1989, 1990; Olmi 1992; Rossi 1997; Eamon 1999, and many others). 6 Little is known about his life, but for what arises from his letters and from the reminiscences that his son Francesco published in a short book he wrote in Latin (Imperato 1610) with the aim of freeing the father’s work from the possible charge of irreligiosity. This book is unimportant, scientifically, for Francesco simply summarized his father’s main book and added quotations from religious authors; in doing so, he was able to cope with the increasing pressure exercised by the Church censure on scholars who would attempt changing the established doctrine about the world. Nevertheless, Francesco’s book is notable for it contains first-hand, short but precious, information on Ferrante’s career and feelings. 7 The very first one was ‘‘De la Pirotechnia’’ by Vannoccio Biringuccio (Venetia, 1540), which is totally innovative. Second was ‘‘La Minera del mondo’’ by Giovanni Maria Bonardo (Venetia, 1585), which repeats traditional lore. Third was Ferrante’s book. In the mean time there had been several translations from Latin into Italian, e.g., the whole corpus of Agricola’s books (Vinegia, 1550, care of Michele Tramezzino), and his masterpiece De re metallica (Basileae, 1563, translated by Michelangelo Florio). There were also several books, which pretended to be originals, but in fact had been translated from Latin without mentioning the 123 4 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 during Renaissance, i.e., the century-long time span when the Italian intellect expressed its best, and actually was even able to spread most achievements—the mineralogical ones included—all over Europe (Mottana 2006). Despite the wide-ranging, rather vague title, Ferrante’s ‘‘Dell’Historia Naturale’’ is very precisely intended for: most part of it concerns stones, minerals, gems, and earths, i.e., all kinds of inorganic materials that would now be classified in the study field of mineralogy and related disciplines; only one-tenth of it, i.e., 78 pages at the end, deals with animals and herbs, which were the commonest drug components8 at that time. By profession an apothecary (pharmacopaeus, or ‘‘semplicista’’), Ferrante had made his best efforts to locate all sorts of natural substances (‘‘i semplici’’) useful for his practice.9 He started with collecting, exchanging and even purchasing them, when needed. He always practiced on them in his laboratory. So he soon realized that many were stones and earths, in addition to the herbs, which at that time were by far the most commonly used medical commodities.10 Thus, when he organized a display (‘‘museo’’) of his collection in a stately room next to his own shop and house in Naples, such stones, minerals, and fossils (at that time considered to be strange stones; cf. Morello 2003, 2006) were stored and shown in the best cabinets around the walls, while birds and animals (and even a supposed pigmy) were spread all over the room, or else they were hanging on the ceiling11: in this way they would attract the visitor attention, but they did not hamper examination of the smaller, more precious, inorganic objects kept in bags and vases on the shelves. As for the herbs, which constituted the most significant components of his potions and contributed most to his trade, he had arranged them in a separate herbal made of 80 in folio volumes, which were located flat on open cabinets along the walls. The way itself the museum was organized and displayed (Fig. 2) speaks clearly for Ferrante’s scientific inclinations, and also for his innovation with respect to the idea of Wunderkammer, then the form of showing most common among the ruling classes (Lugli, 1983). He collected and displayed only naturalia, i.e., natural objects useful to his practice of preparing artificialia, i.e., potions and drugs. However, he put on display the latter ones too, rather obviously; they were the source of his repute and income. He also owned a Footnote 7 continued author, e.g., Lodovico Dolce’s ‘‘Delle diverse sorti delle Gemme’’ (Venetia, 1568). Actually, most Italian scholars kept writing in Latin: so did Girolamo Cardano and Andrea Cesalpini, the best ones, who both suggested clever new ideas on minerals they had conceived after careful observation of Italian specimens, but they did so in Latin (cf. Mottana 2006). 8 This uneven partition had been planned from the beginning, as Ferrante clearly states in his first chapter (Libro I, Cap. I): ‘‘Questo fa che più negli minerali, che nella materia degli animali e men di tutte nelle piante mi sia disteso: come che questa ultima parte più dell’altre sia stata frequentata’’ (p. 1). He repeats this statement at the very end (Libro XXVIII, Cap. II): ‘‘Harrebbe il soggetto istesso richiesto, che con alquanto di speculazion distesa, si fusse proseguita l’historia delle piante, e degli animali. Ma come nel principio fù da me proposto, l’intenzion mia non era di abbracciar questa parte d’historia tutta…’’ (p. 791). 9 Ferrante’s original aim was at making theriaca, a sort of panacea made up of as many as 70 ingredients (mostly herbs and earths) that he first satisfactorily realized in 1557, after 3 years of laborious experiments. This successful, popular and advertized remedy made him rich, and permitted him to continue searching for other materials that would not only improve theriaca but also allow him to prepare mithridato, i.e., a special drug against poisoning. He continued experimenting on these drugs for the rest of his life. 10 ‘‘L’intenzion mia non era di abbracciare questa parte d’historia tutta: ma solo quanto io ritrovassi da altri non osservato’’ (p. 791). 11 All together, the Museum numbered as many as 12,000 items (‘‘circa dodecimila semplici terrestri’’: Capaccio 1634, p. 576), when it was no longer Ferrante’s but under the ownership and control of his son Francesco. 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 5 Fig. 2 The Imperato Museum in Naples as it appears in the double-page engraving at pp 2–3 n.n. that opens the 1599 edition of ‘‘Dell’Historia Naturale’’ number of mirabilia, i.e., other natural objects that were strange, but he made little use of them and essentially to attract customers. The list of the items he collected12 and the representation of what he displayed shows that he had no interest for artistic pieces, which, in contrast, formed a consistent part of any Wunderkammer. His collecting strategy and the use he made of his specimens set Ferrante Imperato into a small community of scholars (‘‘virtuosi’’) that developed in Italy during the second half of Cinquecento13; they were learned men who personally worked and experimented on their samples and consequently structured their collections and museums as laboratories, where they could follow work, trade, and teaching all at the same time. This is why their museums were open to public. Such scholars collected and studied natural materials for the purpose of knowing all possible aspects of the world, but most of them did not undervalue the additional possibility of making some use of what they had found (Findlen, 1998). Accordingly, some of them wrote about their own findings, so as to make others aware not only of the beauty of the world, but also of the usefulness of the natural objects they had revealed. A number of them had also pietistic inclinations, which made them potential suspects of heresy to the Catholic Church, although none was put on harsh trial. Most probably, it was in a spirit of emulation toward those colleagues and correspondents of him—who were also his competitors, to a certain extent—the reason why, late in his life,14 Ferrante Imperato could be induced by his son15 (and friends too) to illustrate his 12 There is no more such list. However, it is certain that there existed an inventory (‘‘catalogo’’) of the most important items, which circulated among contemporary ‘‘virtuosi’’ to promote distant exchange (cf. Ferrante’s letter dated December 21, 1590 to Joachim Camerarius in Stendardo 1991, p. 76). 13 The most illustrious ones are Ulisse Aldrovandi in Bologna, Francesco Calzolari in Verona, Michele Mercati in Rome and, indeed, Ferrante Imperato in Naples (Accordi 1977, 1980, 1981; Olmi 1992; Simili 2001; Morello 2003). They all organized museums, but it is only Aldrovandi’s one that still exists. They all wrote descriptions of their museums, but only Imperato wrote in Italian and succeeded in seing his book printed while still alive. 14 He was around 70 when the book was published. So little is known of his life that the date of his birth ranges from 1525 to 1550 according to various authors, and is generally given as 1550 (Neviani 1936, p. 65; Accordi 1981, p. 43). However, this date cannot be correct (Ciarallo 1981, p. 59; Stendardo 2001a, p. 12); a 123 6 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 museum by organizing his own notes into a bulky volume (791 pages, distributed over 28 books of uneven length) with 119 woodcuts intercalated in the text, mostly toward the end.16 This 1599 edition17 is rare indeed: it was printed in a small number of copies, because it had been intended to circulate only among friends and customers. Notably, the double-page ‘‘Ritratto’’ (portrait) of Ferrante’s museum (280 9 388 mm in the original in folio book; cf. Fig. 2), which follows the two-page long dedication written by Ferrante’s son Francesco that opens the book, is the first picture of this sort that was either conceived or, in any case, survived in print and reached us.18 It is commonly reproduced in all books on history of science wishing to show the display of a collection of mirabilia gathered at the end of the sixteenth century (e.g., Mortimer 1974, n. 240; Impey and Macgregor 1985; Findlen 1994, and many others).19 Imperato’s method of writing up about his materials starts with quoting previous authors dealing on the same subject,20 discussing them for what he wished to deal with at that Footnote 14 continued year ca. 1525 (or even earlier) is most likely, since his son Francesco calls him ‘‘vecchio ottuagenario’’ (old man in his eighties) in a letter dated October 29, 1605 (Stendardo 2001a, p. 12). His death year is normally given as 1631 (see above), but again is equally not well known, although more narrowly constrained: it was shortly earlier than 1624 (Stendardo 2001a, p. 21), possibly 1621 (Gabrieli 1989, vol. II, p. 1530; Stendardo 1991, p. 56). In 1624 the Imperato museum was already in the complete, lawful possession of his son and heir Francesco. Furthermore, in a letter to Francesco Stelluti dated December 10, 1624 Johannes Faber refers to Ferrante as tibi olim amicissimi (Gabrieli 1996, p. 969–970), i.e., he was a very good friend of yours, but he is already passed away. The surviving documents on Ferrante’s active life as a scientist span over more than half a century. They start from May 1570, when Bartolomeo Maranta wrote down for him a report on the preparation of theriaca, which the same scientist later developed into a book (Maranta 1572). Maranta had died in 1571, but in the dedication of this book to Ferrante, dated October 30, 1570, he titles him as ‘‘m. = mastro’’ (i.e., experienced practitioner without university degree) and praises him for having prepared a satisfactory theriaca already in 1557, for the first time and after 3 years of hard work. The latest letter written by Ferrante himself is dated March 12, 1614 (Gabrieli 1989, vol. II, p. 1354; Stendardo 1991, p. 64), and the latest document referring to him is dated January 26, 1616. In that, Federico Cesi, although having met Ferrante ever since 1604 and believing knowing him ‘‘molto utile’’ among Neapolitans ‘‘de’ Lincei amicissimi’’ (cf. Gabrieli 1996, p. 36–41, n. 15), nominated his son Francesco as a candidate member for Accademia dei Lincei in preference of him, probably because he was too old, although being still alive (Gabrieli 1989, vol. I, p. 533). 15 Francesco states so in the dedication leaf that opens the 1599 edition of this book: ‘‘Restavano queste lunghe fatiche di mio Padre solo al suo gusto destinate, et ne la polvere sepolte…io mi sono con prieghi oprato sı̀ con mio Padre, che si è contentato ch’io li mandi alla luce’’ (p. 2 n.n.). 16 Most of the 80 in folio volumes of the herbarium siccum that Ferrante had organized have been lost, because they were burned during two riots in 1656 and 1799 (Ciarallo 1986; Stendardo 2001a, p. 89). Only one survives, and it is now in the Naples National Library. 17 More commonly, libraries have the second edition (Venetia, 1672), which lacks the opening pages (substituted by a presentation by G. B. La Noù, the new editor), but it contains additions on herbs made by G. M. Ferro. 18 Johannes Kentmann’s cabinet depicted by Conrad Gesner in 1565 (Morello 2006; Fig. 4) is a very little thing—practically nothing—when compared with the spacious room where Ferrante displayed his materials. 19 Several recent reproductions of the print representing Imperato’s museum are taken from the second edition of his book rather than from the first one. The 1672 copper plate is definitively sharper than the 1599 one, but the image is reversed, and includes a small label in the front that does not occur in the original picture. 20 The number of authors quoted by him is large indeed: 34 according to Neviani (1936, p. 68, n. 17). They are mostly from the Greco-Roman antiquity (Galen, Discorides, Aristoteles, Pliny, Oribasius, Columella, Celsus, etc.), with some Arabs (Geber, Mesue, etc.). Rather numerous are contemporary scientists (Biringucci, Mattioli, Agricola, Paracelso, Cellini, Barbosa, Falloppio, etc.). No religious authorities are quoted, not even Albert the Great. How Ferrante selected his sources would need a careful evaluation, which has not yet been performed by anybody. 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 7 point,21 then calling attention to his own evidence by describing similar samples he actually had in his collection (and on which he had experienced directly) and, finally, drawing his own conclusions. Such a writing scheme is little akin that a proud but naı̈ve collector would follow, as this one would be wishing only to enhance the properties and value of the materials he put on display. Rather, such scheme shows that Ferrante always reckoned like a scientist, and handled his matters in a scientific way, by taking notes and preparing some sort of protocols. Certainly, his way of doing and putting things differs from what the next generation of scientists will do only a few years later, under the pressure of the ‘‘scientific revolution’’, but he was on the right track despite the fact that Naples, at his time the most populated city in Europe, lay under a rather stringent control by the Spanish rulers22 and by the Catholic Church.23 Even a cultivated and fairly high-rank man like Imperato would be hampered from getting books from Protestant countries, and therefore might not have been made aware directly of the new ideas on science that Francis Bacon was putting forth in England (Rossi 1974). This, nevertheless, was not hampering him from doing experimental research according to methods that would shortly trespass into the same ‘‘modern’’ methods that Bacon, in turn unaware of him, was trying to develop (Badaloni 1980; Eamon 1999). Ferrante had probably developed his way of doing science and presenting results either because he had been listening to Girolamo Ruscelli’s teaching24 or because of his acquaintance with Giovanni Battista Della Porta (Badaloni 1960, 1980). The former was a ‘‘virtuoso’’ who not only taught alchemical science according to the then usual recipes, but urged also for other practical studies. These included the search for new and useful recipes (‘‘segreti’’), which would make life more comfortable to human beings. He also believed that success in experimenting, especially on alchemical and metallurgical matters, would have the added value of improving the scientist self-consciousness and understanding of how things should go on in the present world while waiting for the next one (Badaloni 1980; Eamon and Paheau 1984). Ruscelli had pietistic inclinations; thus, he tried to aid people welfare, in this following the lead initiated 21 When tracing his workplan (‘‘a gli lettori’’: p. 1 n.n.), Ferrante does not refrain from warning the reader that progress in science is much faster and easier when research is performed in cooperation with other scientists (‘‘le cose da noi trattate han fatto progresso dall’aiuto degli amici’’…‘‘anco tra vivi miei compatrioti’’), rather than by reading Aristotle and other ancient writers, whom he calls naive (‘‘ingenui’’). 22 Frequent riots due to food shortage, but also at times induced by the displaced, former French dominants, made the Spaniards extremely touchy about keeping control over this kingdom they had finally conquested, after more than a century of wars. 23 Well-known thinkers as Juan de Valdés and Bernardino Ochino spent some time in Naples spreading their ideas, which on the long run were considered heretic by the Catholic Church. Contrary to Sicily, where the inquisition was introduced in 1517, the Spanish rulers never succeeded in establishing it into either Naples or Milan, their possessions in the peninsula, essentially because they were contrasted by the local nobility. Nevertheless, the Church had other less pervasive methods of control, which became oppressive after ca. 1570. 24 This polygraph (Viterbo, ca. 1504; Venice, 1566) was active in Naples only for few years (1541–1548), but he was important for creating there (or, alternatively, at Salerno) conditions appropriate to experimentally study natural science. Indeed, he founded and led an ‘‘Academia Segreta’’ (Eamon and Paheau 1984), which died out when he left for Venice. However, this Academy became the example for many others that followed, although they were all short-living. Furthermore, if Ruscelli is indeed the true author of Alessio Piemontese’s ‘‘De’ secreti’’ (Venetia, 1550), as it would appear from a claim contained in the letter to the readers of his ‘‘Secreti nuovi di maravigliosa virtù’’ (Venetia, 1567), published posthumously, he should be ranked among the most influential stirrers for science of the late Renaissance (Eamon and Paheau 1984, p. 217). 123 8 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 across the Alps by Paracelsus.25 When publicly expressed, in the years 1550s, those views had produced no suspicion of irreligiousness,26 but later on, in 1575–1580, they had started appearing dangerous to the establishment. Indeed, this is possibly the reason why the Accademia Secretorum Naturae (‘‘Accademia dei Segreti’’), which Giovanni Battista Della Porta27 had set up according to the same lines, was charged of sorcery and disbanded by Pope orders in 1579. Toward the end of the century, when Ferrante’s book went to print, the local situation had deteriorated to such a point that his son Francesco, an accomplished lawyer besides being a natural science lover, felt obliged to shelter his father from being possibly charged by the Church by quickly preparing a short version of his textbook that was full of references to saints and christian writers. The 22nd book of Ferrante Imperato’s treatise on natural history begins with a chapter explicitly said to be taken from Theophrastus (‘‘Di Theophrasto’’) describing stones (Cap. I, p. 582–585), followed by a chapter containing Ferrante’s own evaluation of Theophrastus’ previous sayings (Cap. II, p. 585–591).28 The following chapter (Cap. III, p. 591–595) is again said to have been taken from Theophrastus (‘‘Di Theophr.’’) and concerns differences among gems, including the artificial ones. It is followed by another commentary written by Imperato on the relationships between metals and stones (Cap. IV, p. 595) and on artificial gemstones (Cap. V, p. 595–597). This second commentary is uninteresting, for the aim of this study, because it contains quotations that are no longer taken from Theophrastus, but from other writers, among whom ‘‘Dorne’’.29 However, quotations from ‘‘Dorne’’ are intertwined with sharp discussions, and are followed by conclusions made only by Ferrante himself; thus this chapter as a whole certainly contributes to our understanding of his scientific ideas, although it adds nothing to Theophrastus’ studies. The two chapters30 that are mentioned as taken from Theophrastus are the only ones that are explicitly said to have been taken from that author, among the many mentioned ancient and contemporary contributors.31 Indeed, when assembled together, they are a partial, but 25 Philipp Bombast von Hohenheim, who renamed himself first Theophrastus Philippus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim, then Paracelsus (Einsiedeln, 1493; Salzburg, 1541): German itinerant physician and miner whose medical doctrine pioneered the use of chemicals and minerals in drugs, under the theoretical influence of hermetism and alchemy. He published books of recipes in a plain German language so that they could be understood especially by fathers on behalf of their entire family, thus becoming a forerunner of welfare applied to the basic social unit of his time. 26 Rather, it was for political reasons that this Academy came to end. The main supporter, prince Sanseverino, rebelled against the Spanish viceroy and had to leave for France (Eamon and Paheau 1984). 27 Giovanni Battista Della Porta (Vico Equense, 1535; Naples, 1615) founded an Academy that, although short-living (Muraro 1978), is quite significant for the history of science, because it was the forerunner of the Neapolitan branch of Accademia dei Lincei (known as Liceo), organized in 1612 by Federico Cesi and led first by the same Della Porta (Gabrieli 1989, p. 1497). After his death, the Liceo continued under the leadership of Fabio Colonna. It is the latter one who suggested as a possible new member first Ferrante and then Francesco Imperato (cf. no. 13, above). The Liceo activity continued to 1628 at least, and vanished only when Federico Cesi died (1630). 28 The text here contains a woodcut showing two Indian knives made of ‘‘pietra focara, ò vetro fossile’’, i.e., obsidian (p. 590). 29 Gerhard Dorn (ca. 1530–1584), Flemish alchemist and physician, best known for his translations of Paracelsus’ German works into Latin, so that they would spread all over Europe. 30 Stendardo (2001a, p. 54) had already sorted out these two chapters, but she related them, hypothetically (‘‘forse’’), to Historia plantarum or Origo plantarum, i.e., the two works of Theophrastus best known during the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance (Schmitt 1971a, b; Sharples 1984), rather than recognizing them as translations of De lapidibus. 31 There are numberless other references to Theophrastus’ ideas scattered throughout Imperato’s book. However, they are all mediated from other written references, especially of Pliny and Galen, among the ancient authors, and Agricola, among the recent ones. 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 9 Fig. 3 a ‘‘Coltelli indiani di sostanza di pietra focara, ò vetro fossile’’ [Indian knives made of flint or fossile glass (i.e., obsidian)] illustrating Libro XXII, Cap. II, p. 590 of Ferrante Imperato’s ‘‘Dell’Historia Naturale’’ (1599 edn). Most probably, this woodcut is the first illustration of an American ethnic tool made for mineralogical reasons, rather than to show a curiosity. Blades of this kind are frequently found in Masoamerica archeological sites; shown for comparison (b) are two of the many ones dug out from a Mixtec female tomb dated ca. 1530 now on display in the museum of San Pedro y San Pablo Teposcolula (Oaxaca, Mexico) (photo: Carlotta Cardana) continuous Italian translation of peqı̀ kı́hxm (De lapidibus): the first known translation of it in any modern language. Furthermore, the reproduction of two sharp splinters of natural glass (obsidian) used as knives by the American Indians shown (Fig. 3a) is the first figure ever printed to illustrate the content of De lapidibus. The source of such material is unknown, but the printed picture compares well with Mexican archeological finds (Fig. 3b). It may be conjectured that Ferrante had copied it from the manuscript that Nardo Antonio Recchi32 had brought back with him to Naples when Philip II of Spain let him free (ca. 1580–1585), and was later sold by his heirs to Federico Cesi (1611). In such a case, 32 Leonardo Antonio Recchi (Montecorvino near Salerno, ca. 1535; Naples, 1595), a medical doctor to Philip II of Spain, was entrusted by him to arrange a compendium of Hernández’ bulky treatise on the natural richness of Mexico. When sent back home, he brought a copy of his work with him, and this is what his nephew sold to Federico Cesi. Ferrante had seen Recchi’s material as early as December 21, 1590 (letter to J. Carmerarius, in Stendardo 1991, p. 75–78), but he valued it little (‘‘scartafacij di certj pitture in carta…erano di piante et alcuni animali…veramente di bellissimi colorj e di buona mano, mà non possevano servire a nnoj’’: letter to J. Camerarius on October 10, 1595, in Stendardo 1991, p. 78–79). A copy of Recchi’s manuscript still exists (Providence, Rhode Island, USA, John Carter Brown Library, Codex latinus 5), but all its bright pictures have been lost. The engravings in the book finally printed in 1651 by the last members of Accademia dei Lincei are very faint copies of them. 123 10 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 that picture would be a black and white copy of one of the many colored ones illustrating Francisco Hernández’ unpublished Rerum medicarum Novae Hispaniae thesaurus, although such a picture is lacking in Recchi’s compendium, as this was given to print by Lincei several years later (Rome, 1651). Theophrastus’ translation is stated (p. 585) to have been made with great difficulty by retrieving sentences from a very torn copy.33 Imperato neither gives indication on whether such a text was a manuscript or a print copy,34 in Greek or Latin, nor does he claim to be the sole translator. It is up to us to come to find out how such a translation could be made and where from. 2.1 Where was Ferrante Imperato’s translation of Theophrastus’ peqı̀ kı́hxm (De lapidibus) carried out from? Whatever the language of the original text was, the Italian translation published by Ferrante Imperato (given here as Appendix35) is definitively incomplete with respect to the Greek editio princeps edited by Aldus Manutius (1497), not to speak of the editio critica by Eichholz (1965). Indeed, not only it covers only 47 of the 69 sections of peqı̀ kı́hxm, as the Byzantine tradition made this treatise available to us,36 but also it shortens many of them, either by simply omitting certain sentences or by skipping names and words that are of difficult understanding even now.37 The first chapter (Libro XXII, Cap. I) of Ferrante’s translation comprises 20 out of the first 21 sections making up the text, with the topics in the same order as it is to be found in Aldus’ editio princeps. This is most likely to be the order given by Theophrastus himself, as it stems from the earliest manuscript of peqı̀ kı́hxm that arrived to us: Vaticanus graecus 1302, the dating of which oscillates between the second half of thirteenth century and the first half of the fourteenth one (Burnikel and Wiesner 1976, p. 141–142; Prato 1979, p. 18738). What is missing is section 20, which, in contrast, is present in all codices, as well as in all prints ever since Aldus’ edition.39 Its omission does not alter the argument flow significantly, so that omitting it in the Italian translation was probably due to an editorial accident, if it is not due to a printer’s failure. The following chapter of Ferrante’s book containing the translation (Libro XXII, Cap. III) covers sections 22–47 without omitting any, and ends abruptly with the short sentence by 33 ‘‘Sin qui Theophrasto delle prime differenze delle pietre, per quanto con fatica da un’essemplare molto lacero, habbiamo possuto raccorre’’ (p. 585). 34 In modern Italian the word he uses (‘‘essemplare’’) applies only to a printed copy of a book, but at that time it might have referred to a manuscript codex too. 35 The Appendix contains Imperato’s translation as printed (1599), however, with the spelling slightly modified for the modern u-v usage. Moreover, the text (which in the original flows continuously, albeit with a rather queer punctuation) has been divided in Sections (Arabic numbers) and Paragraphs (Roman numbers) following Eichholz (1965). 36 Whether the present peqı̀ kı́hxm is a complete book (Eichholz 1965) or a fragment (Schneider 1818; Wimmer 1862) is irrelevant for the present study. 37 Ferrante clarifies his translation method in Lib. I Cap. I: ‘‘nel citar gli luoghi di autori, che a nostro proposito facessero: abbiamo più atteso alla intenzione, chiaramente e distintamente narrata, che alle parole puntualmente riferite’’ (p. 1). In other words: he translated by interpreting the meaning (ermeneutically), rather than by swapping the words from one language to the other (literally). 38 The name of the copyist is Michael Kalothetos (Prato 1979, p. 187, A. 87), who in 1330 had signed a codex similarly written at Byzantium. 39 As a matter of fact, sections are not numbered in codices, nor in all the various editions preceding Hill’s. 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 11 which section 48 begins: ‘‘These, then, are substantially the characteristic differences and powers of stones’’.40 Theophrastus’ peqı̀ kı́hxm continues with describing earths, up to section 69. Ferrante’s translation does not continue, because he, according to his personal style, decided to go on by discussing the formation of stones and gemstones, both natural and artificial. Moreover, translating sections 48–69 at this point of ‘‘Dell’Historia Naturale’’ was not for him especially needed: indeed, information regarding earths and salts had been already given plenty in several previous books (Libri I–V; Libro XIII). Notably, however, there is nothing in those books that is referred to as taken from Theophrastus; rather, Imperato quotes as his sources Pliny and Dioscorides, or else Biringuccio, among the modern authors. Does this mean that Theophrastus’ manuscript was not available to him at that early stage of his book preparation? Turning now to the source, it is quite clear that Ferrante’s translation was carried out from an original that differed from Vaticanus graecus 1302, the archetype of the current tradition, or else, if in Greek and related to it, had been significantly simplified.41 An alternative possibility is that his source was a Latin translation of De lapidibus independently carried out during the Middle Ages and somewhat changed with respect to the Greek text, as available at present. Let us first evaluate whether Imperato’s translation could have been carried out from another Greek original partaking the manuscript tradition of peqı̀ kı́hxm. There is consensus among philologists that all 13 surviving manuscripts42 containing Theophrastus’ text belong to the same family (Eichholz 1965, p. 48), as they all appear to derive from one only archetype, namely Vaticanus graecus 1302. Their little differences are believed to be only due to reading or writing errors by the different copyists (Burnikel 1974 p. 84), so that there is no loss of information, except for the three codices that by accident lost their final pages, as indeed it was the case for Neapolitanus III D 1. In the century-long time span between Aldus Manutius’ editio princeps43 and Ferrante Imperato’s translation, other differences in the Greek text arose owing to the emendation work by the few Renaissance philologists who tried to improve understanding of such an unusual, difficult subject.44 In any case, changes with respect to that first printing remained 40 This English translation is by Eichholz (1965, p. 75). 41 In Naples National Library there is a Greek codex of Aristotle’s Metaphysica, written in 1497 by Johannes Rhosos, which contains peqı̀ kı́hxm too (Neapolitanus III D 1). It cannot be the source of Ferrante’s translation because it is partaking the same tradition as most other opuscula (Eichholz 1965, p. 48). Furthermore, in this codex peqı̀ kı́hxm ends at section 43. 42 Only few of them are truly Byzantine in origin; several others are copies written near the end of the fifteenth century, probably in Italy by Greek expatriates (Eichholz 1965, p. 50). 43 Aldus (or, rather, Thomas Linacre, homo & graece & latine peritissimus, who acted as consultant for him during the final phase of the year-long preparation of Aristotle’s edition, the last volume of which contains Theophrastus’ works: cf. Lowry, 2000) made use for his edition of De lapidibus of a single manuscript (cf. Aldus’ dedication to Albertus Pius, vol. II, p. *ii), which is no longer available. However, Aldus’ text is very close to Vaticanus reginensis graecus 123, which has a watermark ca. 1499–1501 (Eichholz 1965, p. 48– 50). Aldus’ edition ‘‘ist, ebenso wie die Ausgaben des GEMUSAEUS und des TURNEBUS, die sie fortführen, eine emendierte Abschrift einer bereits emendierten Abschrift’’ (Burnikel 1974, p. 149), indeed the one that had been prepared at the end of thirteenth century and still survives as Vaticanus graecus 1302. 44 In between Aldus’ (1497) and Turnebus’ (1577) Greek editions there had been three other printings: two in Basle (both 1541) by Johannes Oporinus (actually, the Greek texts are the same, and only the Latin presentations differ: one is by Joachim Camerarius and the other one by Hieronymus Gemusaeus), and one in Venice (1552) apud Aldi filios, edited by Iohannes Baptista Camotius. 123 12 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 very minor till Adrianus Turnebus started working on it.45 From 1552 on, Turnebus had edited and published several of Theophrastus’ natural works (Moffitt 1840, p. 32–33), but the peqı̀ kı́hxm Greek text he edited was published only much later, when he had already died, by the printer Frédéric Morel, as a part of a miscellaneous volume that comprises other minor works by Theophrastus (1567). It was then reprinted all by itself, as a separate booklet, again by Morel (1577). Both books do not mention Turnebus as being the curator. In contrast, the Latin translation of peqı̀ kı́hxm that closely followed it in 1578 (De lapidibus), once more published by Morel, although nowhere referring to Turnebus as the curator of the Greek editions, mentions him as the translator and editor. Since it contains all emendations present in the two Greek editions (and even a few conjectures that fit well with Turnebus’ philological shrewdness), these too are referred to him by general consensus. Both Aldus’ (A) and Turnebus’ (TG) Greek editions, not to speek of Eichholz’ (E), are definitively different from Imperato’s translation (I). As a matter of fact, they are both the same text, basically, although at places read and emended in different ways. Therefore, they both considerably differ from Imperato’s translation not only in their sizes46 but also in their renderings of certain lacunae (noted here as h) that have been assumed to be indices of the codex family affinity, e.g., in section 16: ikia (A) – gkidi (TG) – ‘‘Ilia’’ (I), now conjectured as Hkeia (E), i.e., Elis; in section 25: hhhamxm (A) – samxm (TG) – omittit (I), now Kajaimxm (E); in section 32: hrsiqam (A) – Tiqam (TG) – omittit (I), now Arstqa (E, however, with a question mark); etc. Conclusively, therefore, we can reject the idea that Imperato used for his Italian translation any of the Greek texts published at his times (and also of the contemporaneous codices, off course). As a further support to this conclusion, I add that we are informed that he knew little Greek, although he had some inclination for it.47 In contrast, he was certainly fluent in Latin, as all learned men of his time were. A deep knowledge of that language was obviously required by his profession, which kept him in touch with the medical community, whose education, in the Naples University, for a long time to go would be given exclusively in Latin. Let us, then, evaluate whether Ferrante Imperato’s Italian translation could possibly have been made from a Latin translation or paraphrase of Theophrastus’ text. At Ferrante’s times, near the end of Cinquecento, there existed only one published Latin translation of De lapidibus; the one by Adrianus Turnebus, who had edited the Greek edition and had performed it probably in its preparation. Such a Latin translation had been published in Paris in 1578 as an in 4 book of 15 pages only, 210 9 135 mm wide, printed on poor paper. A small book of that sort could easily have been overlooked by a scientist living as 45 Adrien Turnèbe (Les Andelys, 1512; Paris, 1565): French philologist, editor and printer. On Eichholz’s (1965, p. 52) opinion, Turnebus’ ‘‘admirable emendations’’ to the Greek text made his edition of De lapidibus ‘‘the best of those available for 250 years’’, i.e., to his own, which was done when classical philology had progressed enormously, and following Karl Lachmann’s method. 46 Sections 1–47 of Aldus’ 1497 Greek edition comprise 2,714 words (Eichholz’ editio critica has 2,745). The same sections of Turnebus’1578 Latin edition sum up to 2,299 words. They are all incompatible to Imperato’s Italian translation (3,004 words), which is shortened somewhat in its information content, although it may appear to be longer on account of the substantial grammatical and syntactic differences existing between the three languages. 47 One of his foreign correspondents, Jacob Zwinger, sent to him his Lexicon Graeco-Latinum, although he knew it was a book outside his main interests (‘‘aliena dalli fatti loro’’), sure as he was of pleasing him anyway (Zwinger’s letter to Giovan Vincenzo Pinelli, March 20, 1601, published in Stendardo 2001a, p. 53, n. 4). 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 13 far away as Naples (in spite of his extensive network of correspondents48) or else, if known, could have reached him in a deteriorated state because of excessive consumption or improper handling on the long way. Turnebus’ Latin translation (TL) depends closely upon the Greek text that he himself, presumably, had edited. Indeed, it contains the same clever emendations and ever some more, probably conceived in the mean time. Therefore, it is just as unlikely as being the source as the Greek text was. Moreover, some of Turnebus’ Latin interpretations are even more remote from Imperato’s rendering than are those in his Greek edition, and occasionally are completely wrong, such as, e.g., in sections 18, 25, and 34, where he simply translittered the name of the famous town located in present-day Tunisia without recognizing its classical origin: Jaqvgdom (A) – Jaqvgdom (TG) – Carthago (TL) – ‘‘Carchedone’’ (I), i.e., Carthage (E). Similarly, in section 32 while Turnebus suggests identifying the king who received the unusual gemstone found at Astyra (cf. above) with Alexander the Great, Imperato takes no position; thus he implicitly suggests the Persian king: omittit (A) – Akenamdqx epel/hg (TG) – Alexandro regi missa est (TL) – ‘‘mandata al rè’’ (I). Indeed, this is now the accepted interpretation (E), although with some restraint (Caley and Richards 1956, p. 130). In particular, there is a point, which to my mind demonstrates inconfutably that Ferrante knew neither Turnebus’ Greek nor Latin editions. In both of them, at section 17, Turnebus had modified Aldus’edition by substituting a meaningless sentence (ecjapsg1 tkg1) with the conjecture em rjapsgrtke1 lesakkoi1 (TG), i.e., in Scaptensulae fodinis (TL), which he had inferred probably from Lucretius (De rerum natura, 6.810) or from Plutarchus (Vita Cimonis, 4). With this clever conjecture Turnebus not only had made a nearly incomprehensible statement clear but he had also located the site of occurrence of an interesting, rare asbestos-like mineral. Consequently, his conjecture gained consensus among all philologists who followed (e.g., Eichholz 1965, p. 62). In contrast, nothing of it appears in Imperato’s translation: he simply ignored the passage, and did not even try explaining the words that Aldus had printed, which are faulty, and yet appear exactly as such in the entire family of manuscripts arrived to us. Ferrante’s omission confirms once more my belief that he did not use the Greek text, possibly because he did not know Greek well enough but, alternatively, because he relied on another source, which cannot be anything else than a Latin one. There are other differences that defy explanation, e.g., in section 22 Ferrante speaks of the characteristics of lavas occurring at ‘‘Ryace di Sicilia’’, thus relating the stone to a precise locality.49 In contrast, Turnebus has a totally different sentence: ex iis qui in Aetna crateribus generantur, & e` Diabaro lapide, qui incensus pumicatur (TL). If we turn to the Greek texts, in both we find no mention of either ‘‘Ryace’’ or Aetna and even less of Diabaro lapide; rather, they all bear the sentence ej sot qtajo1 sot em Rijekia (A = TG), which has been accepted by the editio critica (E) and translated as ‘‘[the pumice] from the Sicilian lava-flow’’ (Eichholz, 1965 p. 64), thus interpreting qtan as a geological term, rather than a geographical one.50 Clearly, both Turnebus and Imperato had interpreted 48 Ferrante Imperato’s letters show that he could correspond just as easily in Italian and/or Latin with the most important scholars of his time: Carolus Clusius, Ulisse Aldrovandi, Joachim Camerarius, Ippolito Agostini, Johann Faber, Giovan Vincenzo Pinelli, etc. Notably, the foreigners are mostly from the German world: none is from France. 49 The name of the locality is given twice, thus it cannot be considered an occasional error (see Appendix). Actually the village Riace is in Calabria, on the shore of the Messina straits opposite to Sicily. 50 This meaning is unquestionable, for it is also the title of one of Theophrastus’ lost works (Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum, 5.49; cf. Fortenbaugh et al. 1993, p. 38). 123 14 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 ermeneutically and conjectured differently; indeed, they either added something of their own (and both guessed wrong, although their conjectures differed51), or they found the added sentences on texts that did not arrive to us. On the basis of all these evidences, I conclude that we must look for an alternative source to Imperato’s Italian translation. This may be another, as yet undisclosed Latin translation made any time before or around the end of fifteenth century. There is no evidence of such an early translation in either Schmitt’s (1971a) or Kristeller and Cranz (1971) compilations. However, the possible existence of it turns out from a letter that Cuspinianus52 wrote to Aldus on January 1502. A keen reader of anything related to gemstones, Cuspinianus complained for the difficulties he had encountered in going through the published Greek text and urged Aldus, persistently but always kindly,53 to print a Latin translation so as to make Theophrastus’ treatise54 understandable to a greater number of learned men (Orlandi 1976; letter XLII B). Attention for Theophrastus works was high, during Cinquecento, especially in Italy. A testimony of it is Michelangelo Biondo55’s Italian translation of the first three books of Historia plantarum, printed in Venice in 1549 at the translator expenses. This unusual way of publication warns us on the interest that Theophrastus’ science books in general had in Renaissance times, and on the possibility that that on minerals too may have been translated, at first, into a language such as Latin that most people, if not everybody, could read. Such a Latin translation, if it ever existed and was the source used by Ferrante Imperato for his translation, was far from being accurate: indeed, I suspect that a number of his false renderings such as ‘‘la [pietra] del Ryace’’ (section 22, above) or ‘‘la pietra…chiamata Poly, simile alla cine’’ (section 15), which are very different from both the Greek originals and Turnebus’ Latin translation, may be derived from misunderstandings occurring already in the undisclosed source, which could as well be worn out for long use by traders arriving to Naples. 2.2 Was Ferrante Imperato the sole translator or did he get help from somebody? Everywhere in his book Ferrante addresses the reader according to very polite, conventional manners and by making use either of the first singular person or of the first plural one. This practice means that he himself alone takes responsibility of certain statements, 51 Ferrante’s translation is the faultiest: apparently he knew Greek so little as not to be even aware of Thucydides’ use of the word to describe the Sicilian lava flows (Historiae, 3.116). 52 Johann Spiessheimer (Spiessheim, 1473; Vienna, 1529): German humanist and diplomat, very interested in mineral matters. He edited for the first time Liber lapidum, a poem on gemstones written by Marbode of Rennes ca. 1066–1081 that had been the leading reference for minerals during the Middle Ages. 53 si tibi esset [if you find it (opportune)]. Aldus decided against, but he gladly accepted to implement his edition of Valerius Maximus with 24 missing passages, which Cuspinianus had discovered and submitted to him in the same letter. 54 Theophrasti de gemmis latinitate donatus [a gift to the Latin society (the book of) Theophrastus on gemstones]. Notably, Cuspinianus refers only to gemstones, which is indeed the bulk of the Italian translation by Imperato. Note, moreover, how the title of Turnebus’ translation recalls Cuspinianus’ writing, this being an indication that his call had circulated over the European learned circles, and it was deeply felt by many. 55 Michelangelo Biondo (Venice, 1500; after 1565): medical doctor in Naples and Rome, where he fought against paracelsian medicine favoring the traditional alchemical and galenian praxis, became a polygraph and an editor in Venice. He considered books only as instruments for immediate, practical use, so that his translation from Theophrastus (Dell’Historia delle piante, 1549) is addressed specifically to farmers, to medical doctors and to apothecaries. 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 15 while for others he acknowledges support by the consensus of others, i.e., he implies that the section was written by him by summarizing the result of a cooperative effort made by several companion scientists. In no part of the book there is a clue to argue that somebody else wrote certain parts, or even less all the book, as Vincenzo Placcio (1674)56 hinted maliciously, when the second edition of ‘‘Dell’Historia Naturale’’ had just appeared (1672). Using plural referring to himself was a common practice at Ferrante’s time not only among those who wanted to stress their authority on any field but also by scientists who intended to involve the reader emotionally—and science (in the mind of a southern Italian educated according to the lines set forth by Girolamo Ruscelli) is certainly worth emotional participation, not for nothing but because doing it requires a lot of dedication. Addressing readers by using such a plural, therefore, can indeed apply to him alone, as the sole author of ‘‘Dell’Historia Naturale’’ and as the one who would take upon himself all responsibility for its content. Actually, he clearly says so in the letter to the readers that opens the book (‘‘Ferrante Imperato a gli lettori’’, p. 2 n.n.). Alternatively, such a plural could also imply that for certain passages he had felt easier to look for support by someone else who had been working in association with him. In particular, this is the case of Fabio Colonna57 and Colantonio Stelliola,58 the two fellow scientists he indeed gratefully acknowledges in the same opening letter as those who often helped him by studying samples together and by constantly sharing useful information.59 If the first case is correct, the implication for the translation is clear-cut; Ferrante Imperato states that he himself made the Italian translation. Were the second one true, he certainly would have written it, but either only in part or under the assistance of someone who knew Greek better than he did. Indeed, this was the case for both Colonna and Stelliola, both highly qualified scholars who had received full humanistic education.60 However, I argue that none of them would have felt to be in the need of simplifying the original Greek text printed by Aldus or by anyone else, since they could easily read and 56 Verus auctor fuit Nicolaus Antonius Stelliola, qui 100 scutatos accepit ab Imperato, ut nomen illi suum praefigere permitteret [the true author (of Dell’Historia Naturale) was Nicola Antonio Stelliola, who received from Imperato 100 scudi to allow him to place his own name before his: Placcio 1674, p. 213]. Actually, this did not happen, because only Ferrante’s name appears in the authorship. Stelliola is only listed together with several other living scholars whom Ferrante was in contact with, and receives especially warm thanks, but at the same level as Fabio Colonna. 57 Fabio Colonna (Naples, 1567–1640): botanist and paleontologist, long time a close associate with Ferrante Imperato for research, in 1612 was named a member of Lincei Academy and in 1616 became the head of ‘‘Liceo’’, i.e., its Neapolitan branch. He often used the microscope for his botanical and zoological research, helped in the preparation of Novae Hispaniae Thesaurus, and published a De glossopetris dissertatio (Romae, 1616), in which he first demonstrated the origin of such fossils from teeth of marine fishes. 58 Colantonio Stelliola or—in better Italian—Nicola Antonio Stigliola (Nola, 1546; Naples, 1623): medical doctor and architect, from 1612 a member of ‘‘Liceo’’. He wrote a Theriace et Mithridatia Libellus (Neapoli, 1577), so close to Ferrante’s main interests that he added a prefatory letter of praise, and ‘‘De gli elementi mechanici’’ (Neapoli, 1597). He is best remembered for ‘‘Del Teloscopio Linceo, seu Dell’ispecillo Celeste’’ (Neapoli, 1618), where he suggested the name (later modified into ‘‘telescopio’’) for the magnifying instrument built by Galileo for his astronomic research (Gabrieli 1989, p. 900). Stelliola had troubles with the Roman Inquisition and from 1595 on was kept in jail for ca. 2 years. 59 He refers to Stelliola in this way: ‘‘professore di scienze occulte, con cui ho comunicato la maggior parte delle mie cose date in luce nella presente opera’’ (p. 2 ‘‘a gli lettori’’). 60 Colonna held a doctorate in law awarded by Naples University in 1589, and Stelliola one in medicine by Salerno University in 1571. Colonna frequently used words of Greek derivation in his works, including the title of Phytobasanos (Neapoli, 1592). As for Stelliola, on February 4, 1612 Federico Cesi introduced him to Galileo as a scientist ‘‘di bellissime lettere, et greche specialmente’’ (Gabrieli 1989, p. 1505). 123 16 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 understand it; there was no reason, for them, to simplify it so much as to practically make a paraphrase of Theophrastus’ treatise, rather than an accurate translation. Concluding: I believe that Ferrante made everything by himself, and according to his idea of writing clearly, rather than accurately.61 For this purpose, he did not refrain from using a Latin source, but what he had found had been already modified to a certain extent and shortened, besides being so poorly preserved as to let him define it ‘‘un’essemplare molto lacero’’. Whether this copy had anything to do with the Latin translation wished-for by Cuspinianus, or it was something else circulating among scholars, this still remains uncertain. Surely, in Renaissance times there were partial Latin translations made of numerous Theophrastus’ texts (cf. Schmitt 1971a, b; Sharples 1984). Specifically for De Lapidibus, some information can be gathered in the works by Georgius Agricola, a scientist, but also an authority in classical Greek.62 His book Bermannus (written 1528, and published 1530), which opens the sequence of his ground-breaking contributions to mining Geology, frequently reports Theophrastus’ opinions. Most of them are simply referring to what Pliny quotes in Historia naturalis, but there are also a few verbatim translations (Agricola, 1530: a.v. anthracium, ochra). Agricola could not take them out from anything else but from Aldus’ editio princeps.63 As a confirmation, some years later, in De ortu & causis subterraneorum lib.V (written 1539, and published 1546) Agricola reports the incipit of De lapidibus translated as follows: eorum quae in terra consistunt alia sunt aquaea, alia terrena, aquea quidem sunt metalla, ut aurum, argentum, & reliqua: terrena vero lapis, & lapidum species preciosae, atque terrarum naturae, quae insignes sunt colore, vel levore, vel spissitudine, alia’ve facultate (Agricola, 1546 p. 49).64 In the same treatise he reports two other passages from De Lapidibus, which are said esplicitly to be verbatim translations, and at several points he attracts the reader attention by statements such as: ‘‘Theophrastus…censet…asseverat…inquit…scribit…sentit…’’ (Agricola, 1546 passim). All the other five treatises that in the same year Agricola printed as a comprehensive book contain scattered quotations from Theophrastus’ works, and not only from De lapidibus. However, in all cases Agricola makes his quotations short and free, and sticking to the subject he wants to treat. Nowhere else, but in the three previously mentioned cases, he states clearly that he had translated accurately. 61 Cf. note no. 37 above. 62 Georg Bauer or Pawer, latinized as Georgius Agricola (Glauchau, 1494; Chemnitz, 1555): medical doctor in Bologna 1524, he had co-worked with many others under Giovanni Battista Opizzoni at the Aldine press in Venice (1525–1526) to the first editions of Galen and Hippocrates (Hannaway 1992, p. 557), before going back home and turning entirely to those mineral and mining matters that made him the ‘‘father of Mineralogy’’. Later on, he demonstrated his deep knowledge of Greek again by preparing and discussing a book on the Roman and Greek length and weight units (1533; reworked 1550). 63 Agricola’s translations are critical to assess the impact of De lapidibus among humanists and Renaissance scholars. However, they are never continuous; rather, they consist of bits and pieces scattered throughout his many treatises. I will evaluate them in another study. 64 The anonymous Italian translation of Agricola’s works cared by Michele Tramezzino (Venetia, 1550) reads: ‘‘De le cose che sono in terra, altre ne sono acquee, altre terrene: le acquee sono i metalli, com’è l’oro, e l’argento: e gli altri: le terrene sono le pietre, e le spetie de le pietre pretiose, e le terre, che sono dotate ò di colore, ò di lisciezza, ò di spessore, ò d’altra simile pregiata facultà’’ (p. 51r). This translation is rather different, textually, from Ferrante’s one (cf. Appendix I.1), although containing the same information. There is a point, however, where the Latin and Italian translations agree while disagreing with the Greek original text: they all quote gold first, as the metal most coveted in their time, whereas the Greek text puts silver in the first position, possibly reflecting the high consideration the Athenians had for this metal, the extraction of which from Laurium had paid for their freedom at Temistocles’ times. 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 17 3 Conclusions Ferrante Imperato’s Italian translation of the first 47 sections of peqı̀ kı́hxm (De lapidibus) is the first translation of Theophrastus’ ground-breaking treatise on stones ever made into any modern language. Most probably, Ferrante’s translation was not carried out from the Greek original text, although this was circulating among scholars owing to Aldus Manutius’ editio princeps (1497) and to other five emended re-editions that followed, but from a Latin translation that is now lost. Such a Latin text differed from the first published Latin translation made by Adrianus Turnebus (1578) for being shortened at certain places and somewhat simplified in content. Nevertheless, Ferrante’s translation loses nothing significant of Theophrastus’ text scientific content. Ferrante Imperato’s translation, although being the first in any modern language of a highly revered book, did not circulate widely, and was rapidly forgotten. Its fate warns us, indirectly, about the very limited impact the Greek author had onto mineral science: indeed, at least two, slightly alternative Greek and Latin versions of his work on stones circulated during Seicento among the learned community, but it was only the much later John Hill’s translation into English (1747) what made De lapidibus and its author Theophrastus the reference authority for the classical roots of mineral science in preference to Pliny’s encyclopedic treatise. Acknowledgments Retrieving the very rare ‘‘cinquecentine’’ of Theophrastus’ translations would have been impossible to me, had I not received help by friendly and efficient library experts such as Dr. Marco Guardo (Biblioteca dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei e Corsiniana, Rome), Dr. Stephen Parkin (British Library, London) and Dr. ssa Anita Ceccarelli (Biblioteca Angelica, Rome). Furthermore, I could leisurely examine ancient library funds at Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra (‘‘Sapienza’’ Università di Roma) through the kindness of Prof. ssa Patrizia Tucci and Prof. Nino Mariotti. I gladly express my best thanks to all them, to the colleagues who read the text before submission (Profs. Stefano Merlino and Francesco P. Sassi), and to two unknown reviewers. Appendix Dell’Historia naturale di Ferrante Imperato Libro Vigesimosecondo. Nel quale generalmente si tratta della generazione delle pietre, e delle loro differenze. Principio, e nascimento delle pietre, e diverse differenze, e proprietà dell’istesse. Cap. I. ‘‘Di Theophrasto.’’ I. 1. Degli corpi, che nella terra piglian consistenza, altri sono dall’acqua, altri dalla terra. Dell’acqua sono li metalli, come è l’argento, e l’oro, e gli altri conosciuti. Dalla terra sono le gemme, & spezie di pietre più nobili; & alcune particolari nature terrene segnate o da gli colori, o dalla pulitezza, e lisciezza, o dalla spessezza, o da altra propria virtù; Perche dunque de gli corpi metallici habbiamo già ragionato, segue che trattiamo de gli altri, 2. de quali generalmente bisogna stimare che piglino consistenza da materia pura, e simile; o sia fatta da flusso, o dal tracolamento, o per altra maniera di separazione; percioche possono in diverse maniere provenir le nature de corpi c’habbian pulitezza, spessezza, lucidezza, e trasparenza; ove generalmente sappiamo, che per quanto sia il corpo di parti più somiglianti, e più pure, per tanto habbiano anco in più alto grado le 123 18 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 proposte conditioni; e perche dal perfetto condensamento ne vengono di conseguenza l’altre qualità dette, il condensamento in altri avviene dal caldo, in altri dal freddo; anzi per quanto stimiamo in alcune spetie, di pietre concorre, e l’una e l’altra virtù; e molti corpi di consistenza terrena sono condensati con succession di effetti contrarij, dico prima di liquefarsi, & appresso di apprendersi. Dunque le differenze delle pietre più conosciute, sono negli colori, nella lucidezza, e pulitezza, e nella densità; ma conosciute sono nell’altre qualità, dico negli effetti, e nell’habilità del patire, e non patire, onde diciamo altre esser liquabili, & altre non: & altre combustibili, altre incombustibili; oltre che in ciascuna delle dette differenze vi sono altre diversità: vi sono anco le differenze pigliate dalla somiglianza, come diciamo dello smaragdo, che somiglia l’acqua; & le differenze pigliate dalle cose in esse impetrate; in alcune si considera la virtù di trarre a se; & in altre la virtù di essaminare il metallo, come si vede nella pietra herculea, o Lydia; delle dette differenze tutte la maggiore, e più maravigliosa è nella possanza di liquefarsi, o non liquefarsi; e la conosciuta molto è l’assegnata nelli lati, che ricevono, che altre sono idonee, o alla scoltura, o al torno, o alla serra; altre del tutto non sono toccate dal ferro, altre appena, e malamente; ma le più numerose, e più frequenti sono le differenze de gli colori; e della mollezza, o durezza, e pulitezza; vi sono oltre di queste le differenze assegnate del luogo ove nascono, da quali piglian nome le cave, perloche diciamo il marmo Pario, il Pentelico, il Chio, il Thebaico. l’Alabastrite che si ritrova in Thebe di Egitto, si taglia in pezzi, grandi, il Chernite è simile all’Avorio, di cui dicono che sia il tumolo ove è riposto Dario; il Poro è simile al marmo Pario, e nel colore, e nella spessezza, diverso solamente nella molta leggierezza ch’egli ha, perloche l’adoprano gli Egitij negli ornamenti delle stanze in modo di cinte; vi è inoltre da considerarsi la differenza, che altre si ritrovano in cave, continue, e grandi: altre separate, & in pezzi; & altre sono rare molto a trovarsi, e piccole: come lo smeraldo, il sardio, il carbuncolo, e’l sapphiro, che si lavorano in ornamento del corpo, e sigilli; e vi sono alcune pietre, che si ritrovano dentro dell’altre pietre mentre si spezzano. Hora faremo consideratione delle differenze, pigliate dall’operationi, che il fuoco fa in esse; II. 9. dunque delle parti si liquefanno, e corrono quelle da quali estragghiamo li metalli: quali veggiamo fondersi insieme con l’argento, co’l rame, e co’l ferro; corrono anco nel fuoco le pietre che nelle fornaci dalla fusion de detti metalli provengono, o l’avvenga detta fusione dalla humorosità del metallo, o dalla natura propria di essa pietra; ma non corrono le pietre Pyrimache, cosı̀ dette dal contrasto che fanno col fuoco, e le Milie, de quali se ne servono gli artefici per sostener nelle fornaci le materie da fondere; sono alcuni, che affermano le pietre tutte fondersi, eccetto il marmo, e che questo solo si bruci, e faccia calce, 10. il che mi par esser troppo universalmente detto: perche molte sono le pietre, che al fuoco si frangono e schioppano, e non possono sostener il fuoco, nel modo che il sostengono li vasi figulini. Quivi dunque io conchiudo, che le pietre liquabili abondano dentro d’interno humore; e che della detta humorosità hanno la potestà di fondersi; 11. all’istessa considerazione appartiene la differenza, che alcune pietre si seccano del tutto al Sole, in modo che non più facilmente si taglino, e non più s’inhumidiscano, 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19 altre ne divengano più molli, e più fragili; ove determiniamo, che l’uno avvenga di una istessa causa, che se ne estragga l’humidità, ma che con ciò nondimeno ne provengono effetti diversi: percioche dal disseccamento dell’humore le dense s’induriscono, e le rare ne divengono fragili, e fusile; e sono alcune delle fragili che si accendono al fuoco, & accese per molto tempo si mantengono; tali sono le trovate nelle cave di Bini, & quelle di esse che ne porta il fiume; dunque le dette pietre se vi si sovrapongono carboni accesi, mentre sian soffiate, bruciano dell’uso al qual si accendono; e quando sian lasciate, de se stesse si smorzano; e quando si bisogni di nuovo vi si appiccia fuoco, e si smorzano dell’istesso modo detto. e perciò servono in tal uso molto tempo; hanno le dette pietre odore molto greve; e quel che si chiama Spino, che si ritrova nelle minere, rotto, e posto cumulato al Sole si accende, e tanto più se vi soprapiova, vi si irrori acqua; la pietra Liparea cacciata fuori dall’incendij, divien pumiciosa, onde insieme fa mutatione nel colore, e nella spessezza; percioche non bruciata è nera, liscia, e spessa: e bruciata passa nella natura, di pomice, divisa con linee lunghe, simile a rughe di chi ride; ma non è vero universalmente quel che dicono della pomice di Melo, che si generi dentro all’altra pietra: e quantunque questo anco avvenga da passione, fatta da fuoco, non è perciò simile questa alla pomice di Lipari; viene anco fuori dal fuoco la pomice generata in Terra di Sicilia, che è paese posto d’incontro Lipari. è la pietra, che nasce nella estrema Erineade, chiamata Poly, simile alla cine, qual bruciata rende odor di bitume; e si ritrovano dette pietre in Liguria, ove è anco l’Elettro, & in Ilia per ove si và in Olympia tramontana; e di esse se ne servono maestri ferrari; ritrovasi anco una spetie di pietra simile in vista a legno putrido, che affondendovi oglio si brucia, e finito di bruciarsi si vede non haver patito; e li chiamati carboni, che tengono questo nome dall’uso, percioche si accendono, e bruciano nel modo de carboni; le dette dunque sono le differenze delle pietre che bruciano; III. 18. a quali affatto si oppone il chiamato carbonchio, di cui se ne fan sigilli in ornamento del corpo, che non patisce dal fuoco: di color rosso, e che posto incontro del Sole rappresenta carbone acceso, di somma stima tra le pietre, onde quantunque piccolo, si stima di valor di quaranta monete di oro; vien quello di Carchedone, e Massalia; 19. non si brucia anco la pietra angolare, e l’essagone, che nasce in Mileto, chiamata similimente carbuncolo; e simile al diamante: il che è maraviglia, percioche non par che in queste pietre sia l’istessa ragione, che è nella pomice, e cenere, che non bruciano per esser sustanze prive di humore; e per ciò non habili a concepere il fuoco; e per questo molti dicono, che la pomice nasca da bruciamento, eccettuatone la fatta da spuma di mare, 20. (omitted) 21. percioche nell’uno, e l’altro modo par che possa generarsi; e si veggono pomici, che manifestamente rappresentano pietra composta di arena, che maneggiata si frangono nelle mani, e quasi si sciolgono in arena: e ciò loro avviene mentre non habbiano ancora pigliato perfetta consistenza; di queste se ne ritrovano molte, che nella grandezza non empiono la mano, o sono poco maggiori; & la loro arena è molto leggiera; ritrovasene molta in Melo; ve ne è anco, come si è detto, di quella che si genera dentro di altra pietra; 123 20 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 22. Hanno inoltre le pomici differenza tra di se nel colore, spessezza, e gravezza; e nel colore, la del Ryace di Sicilia è nera, e sono preferite all’altre nella spessezza, e nel peso, la istessa è la Malode; percioche si ritrova in questi luochi tal spetie di pomice c’ha peso e densità di più stima che l’altre; dunque la del Ryace taglia più della leggiera, e bianca; e più dell’altre tutte quella che si piglia da mare; ma delle sustanze che concepono, o non concepono fuoco, dall’occasion de quali siamo venuti in questo ragionamento, se ne è trattato altrove, hora passeremo alle dette propriamente pietre. ‘‘Sin qui Theophrasto delle prime differenze delle pietre, per quanto con fatica da un’essemplare molto lacero, habbiamo possuto raccorre.’’ [Cap. II (omitted)] Differenze nelle gemme apprese dalla vista. Cap. III. Di Theophr. IV. 23. Nelle pietre da quali si fan sigilli, ornamenti del corpo, sono alcune differenze apprese dalla vista, cosı̀ distinguiamo il Sardio, l’Iaspi, e’l Sapphiro, pietra punteggiata di scintille di oro, in simil modo conosciamo lo Smeraldo, che come hò detto, somiglia all’acqua, 24. e si porta in sigilli alla ricreazion della vista questa è rada da vedere, e non è di molta grandezza: eccetto che se vogliamo dar fede ad alcuni, che ne sia una appresso li Rè di Egitto, donatagli dal Rè de Babyloni, di lunghezza di gombiti quattro, e di larghezza di tre, e che siano riposti nell’Obelisco di Giove quattro smeraldi di lunghezza di gombiti quaranta, di larghezza per un verso di quattro, per un altro di due, 25. come anco dicono, che in Tyro vi sia una colonna di buona grandezza nel tempio di Hercole: se egli non sia alcuno falso Smeraldo, fatto dalla natura, e segnatamente nelle cave di rame, in Cypro, e nella isola vicina à Carchedone, di cui sono più proprij, e questa minera si cava come l’altre minere; 26. ma rare se ne ritrovan de grandezza di sigillo: e per lo più sono minori: onde se ne servono à saldare l’oro, come si fa della chrisocolla, e molti sono, che stimano che sia dell’istessa natura, sendo di color simile; ma la chrisocolla si ritrova abondante nelle minere di oro, e di rame: 27. lo Smeraldo, come si è detto, è raro; par anco che lo Smeraldo nasca dall’Iaspi: e si dice, che sia ritrovata in Cypro pietra, la metà di cui era Smeraldo, e la metà Iaspi: quasi non ancora fatta mutazione per virtù del principio aqueo dall’Iaspi in Smeraldo: dico ciò perche la trasparenza è operazion propria dell’acqua, che produce tal natura da nascimento è principio non traslucido; dunque la detta natura di pietre è nobile; V. 28. del Lyncurio anco si fan sigilli: percioche non è men denso delle altre gemme, e tira le fistuche come l’elettro; anzi dicono alcuni, che non solo tiri le paglie, ma anco il legno, e’l rame, e il ferro, se sian sottili il che afferma Diocle, il qual dice, che il Lyncurio sia trasparente, e freddo, e che sia miglior dell’urina de lynci maschi, e selvaggi, che delle femine, e domestiche; anzi che vi sia anco differenza dall’esser eglino affatigati, ò non affatigati; si ritrova anco humido dalli cavatori, che n’hanno esperienza, quale spesso resta attaccato alla terra, che esso seco ritiene; lavorasi con molta industria, non meno, che l’elettro; 29. questa pietra dunque ha virtù di attrahere qual virtù più manifesta, che in nessuna altra cosa si vede nella pietra ch’attrahe il ferro; 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 21 30. dunque dalle dette pietre se ne fan sigilli, e di altre: tra quali è la pietra Hyaloidide, cosı̀ detta perche tiene trasparenza, e forma di vetro, e l’Omphace, e’l Christallo, e l’Amethysto ambi trasparenti; e si trovano cosı̀ le dette gemme, come il Sardio, nelle rotture di alcune pietre; sono anco corrispondenti tra dij se le spezie di pietre negli nomi aggionti: percioche delli Sardi il trasparente, e rosso è chiamato femina, e quello che nella trasparenza hà più nerezza, è chiamato maschio. 31. nelli Lincurij similmente il più trasparente, e più biondo, è chiamata femina; e si chiama similmente degli Cyani l’un maschio, e l’altro femina, e maschio è detto il più nero. Ma l’Onicho è meschiato di liste bianche, e bigie, e poste di pari. l’Amethysto rappresenta color di vino; la pietra detta Achate, da Achate fiume di Sicilia, e di molta bellezza, e si compra cara; 32. nel tenimento di Lampsaco nelle cave di oro se ne ritrovò una maravigliosa, cui se ne fe sigillo con scultura, che fu per la sua eccellenza mandata al Rè; VI. 33. dunque le pietre dette hanno insieme bellezza, e rarità: e perciò sono care. ma le pietre della Grecia sono di miglior prezzo, come è il carboncello di Arcadia, più nero del Chio: evvi il Trezenio vario, che si ritrova di color puniceo, e bianco, come anco il Corinthio; quantunque questi inchinino alquanto al verde; 34. li dotti dunque sono in abondanza; ma gli eccellenti sono rari, e di pochi luoghi; come li di Carchedone, e di Massalia, e di Egitto, da due luochi: dico da Syene presso la città Elefantina, e dalla provincia chiamata Psephò. 35. e si ritrovano anco lo Smeraldi, e l’Iaspi in Cypro; ma le pietre di Battriana, che mettono nell’incasti, le ritrovano nell’eremo, e le raccogliono caminando supini, mentre soffiano gli Etesij: percioche all’hora massa l’arena dalla possanza del soffio si scuoprono; e sono le dette pietre piccole molto. 36. Trà le pietre di conto si ripone anco la Margarita, trasparente di sua natura: di cui fanno ricchissimi ornamenti; generasi questa in una spezie di ostrago simile alla pinna; e nasce nell’Indie, & in alcune isole del Mar rosso. 37. In quel che si è detto, è quasi quanto habbiamo di eccellenza nelle pietre: ma vi è inoltre l’Avorio fossile vario di nero è di un chiamato Sapphiro. qual anco nereggia con maniera non molto diversa dal Ceruleo maschio. Evvi la pietra Prasite, di color verde, e la Hematite, pietra squalida, simile, secondo mostra il nome, à sangue secco condensato, & un’altra chiamata Xantha, che non è del tutto nel color Xantho, ma biancheggia alquanto: e quel colore gli Dori chiamano Xantho. 38. Il Corallo, che possiamo numerarlo nelle pietre, nel colore, e rosso, e nell’effigie somiglia à radice. Nasce dentro il mare; né molto da questo è lontano il Calamo Indico impetrato; ma queste cose sono di diversa considerazione. VII. 39. Hora seguendo il nostro soggetto, diciamo, che delle pietre molte hanno seco compagnia di metallo, e molte contengono manifestamente argento, e nel secreto han parte di oro; e queste sono gravi di peso, e spesso nell’odor gravi; si trova anco il Ceruleo, c’hà seco chrisocolla; e vi è una pietra, che nel colore somiglia al Carbunculo, ma nel peso si conosce esser metallo; 40. si ritrovano anco in questo geno molte particolari nature, 41. de quali alcune si possono riponere negli ordini delle terre, come è l’ochra, e’l minio: alcune nell’ordine delle arene, come la crisocolla, e’l ciano; alcuni nel numero delle ceneri, e calci, come la sandaraca, e l’orpimento, e simili; de quali si potrebbono 123 22 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. pigliare altre più particolari differenze; il Magnete hà singolarmente di maraviglia, che essendo essa pietra di nessuna participazion di argento, hà nondimeno effige esquisita di argento; sono oltre di ciò, come si è detto, le pietre differenti nella virtù del non patire: perciocche molte non si lavorano con ferri, ma con altre pietre, come sono gran parte delle gemme: e considerando le pietre c’hanno qualche notabil grandezza, altre sono commode à secare, altre à scolpire, altre al lavoro del torno; sono molte pietre, che ricevono ogni sorte di lavoro, tal ne è una minera in Siphno, la cui cava è discosta dal mare miglia tre; la pietra è ritonda, e globosa, & si lavora al torno, e si scolpisse per la sua tenerezza; e quando si empia di oglio, divien nera, e dura: onde di tal pietra ne fan vasi in uso di mensa: nelle dette pietre il ferro fa impressione; altre pietre sono, che non patiscono dal ferro, e perciò si scolpiscono con pietre di esse più dure; ma è maraviglia della cote, ò pietra di arrotare: percioche essa consuma il ferro, e nondimeno col ferro si taglia, e riceve la forma che se li dà; il che non avviene similmente nelle gemme, ò sigilli: dico che le gemme sono lavorate con altre pietre, e l’altre non sono intagliate da esse; oltre delle dette, vien di Armenia una maravigliosa natura di pietra, con cui fan prova dell’oro, e par che faccia l’istesso effetto del fuoco; ove dobbiamo dire, che non sia la prova di un modo istesso; percioche il fuoco fa ciò con mutation di colore, e con annobilire il metallo; ma la pietra ne fa prova col semplice fregamento; onde par che pigli della sustanza del corpo assaggiato, e per quanto si dice, quella c’hora si ritrova è molto miglior della antica: si che non solo può dar saggio quanto sia più ò men purgato l’oro: ma può dar riconoscimento del rame, che venga in temperamento dell’oro, e dell’argento; ove nel far la prova, si comincia dal saggio del temperamento della misura minima, che è il grano di orzo, appresso di cui e colymbo; appresso il quarto, che è uno obolo è mezo; e da questi temperamenti conoscono quanto rame sia nella mistura; le dette pietre di paragone si ritrovano nel fiume Tmolo, e son di natura liscie, & in forma di breccie larghe non ritonde, la loro grandezza è il doppio della maggior breccia usata in ballottare. Nella detta pietra di paragone la parte superiore, che mira al Sole, è migliore à giudicare, che la sottana verso terra: il che avviene con ragione: percioche la soprana è più secca, e la humidità impedisce l’apprendimento della tintura metallica, che dà il saggio; e perciò anco nel caldo la prova è peggiore, percioche la pietra all’hora rilassa una leggiera humidità, onde nel fare il saggio scorre, e non piglia il metallo; l’istesso avviene nell’altre pietre, da quali si fan statue. VIII. 48. In queste cose dunque sono le differenze, e virtù delle pietre. References Accordi B (1977) Contributions to the history of geological sciences: the Museum Calceolarium (XVIth century) of Verona illustrated in 1622 by Ceruti and Chiocco. Geol Rom 16:21–54 Accordi B (1980) Michele Mercati (1541–1593) e la Metalloteca. Geol Rom 19:1–50 Accordi B (1981) Ferrante Imperato (Napoli, 1550–1625) e il suo contributo alla storia della geologia. Geol Rom 20:43–56 Badaloni N (1960) I fratelli Della Porta e la cultura magica e astrologica a Napoli nel ‘500’. Studi Storici 1:67–715 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 23 Badaloni N (1980) Fermenti di vita intellettuale a Napoli dal 1500 alla metà del 600; pp. 307–352 in Storia di Napoli: cultura e letteratura, vol. 8. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples Bedini S (1965) The evolution of science museums. Technol Cult 6:1–29 Bromehead CN (1947) A geological museum of the early Seventeenth century. Q J Geol Soc Lond 103:65–86 Burnikel W (1974) Textgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu neun Opuscula Theophrasts (Palingenesia, 31). Wiesbaden, Steiner Burnikel W, Wiesner J (1976) Der Vaticanus 1302–Konvergenz einer Diskussion. Mnemosyne 29:136–142 Caley ER, Richards JFC (1956) Theophrastus on stones. Introduction, Greek text, English translation, and commentary. Ohio State University, Columbus Capaccio GC (1634) Forastiero. Dialogi di Giulio Cesare Capaccio, accademico otioso, nei quali, oltre a quel che si ragiona dell’origine di Napoli, governo antico della sua repubblica, duchi che sottogli imperadori greci vi ebbero dominio, religione, guerre che con varie nazioni successero, si tratta anche dei re che l’han signoreggiata, che la signoreggiano, viceré che amministrano, tribunali regi, governo politico, sito e corpo della cità con tutto il contorno, da Cuma al Promontorio di Minerva, varietà e confini di habitatori, famiglie nobili e popolari, con molti elogij d’homini illustri, aggiuntavi la cognitione di molte cose appartenenti all’historia d’Italia, con particolari relationi per la materia politica, con brevità spiegate. Napoli, Gio. Domenico Roncagliolo. (new edition 1989: Il forastiero; introduzione di Luca Torre con un itinerario fotografico di Gianni Rollin. Napoli, Torre) Ciarallo A (1981) Ferrante Imperato e le origini del collezionismo naturalistico. Museologia 10:51–59 Ciarallo A (1986) L’erbario di Ferrante Imperato. Museol Sci 3:187–213 Eamon W (1999) La scienza e i segreti della natura. I ‘‘libri di segreti’’ nella cultura medievale e moderna. Genova, ECIG (original edition 1994: Science and the secrets of nature: books of secrets in medieval and early modern culture. Princeton University Press, Princeton) Eamon W, Paheau F (1984) The Accademia Segreta of Girolamo Ruscelli: a sixteenth-century Italian scientific society. Isis 75:327–342 Eichholz DE (1965) Theophrastus De Lapidibus. Edited with introduction, translation and commentary. Clarendon Press, Oxford Findlen P (1989) The museum: its classical etymology and renaissance genealogy. J Hist Collect 1:59–78 Findlen P (1990) Empty signs? Reading the book of nature in Renaissance society. Stud Hist Philos Sci 21:511–518 Findlen P (1994) Possessing nature, museums, collecting and scientific culture in early modern Italy. University of California Press, Berkeley Findlen P (1998) Possessing the past: the material world of the Italian Renaissance. Am Hist Rev 103:83–114 Fortenbaugh WW, Huby PM, Sharples RW, Sharples RW, Gutas D (eds) (1993) Theophrastus of Eresos. Sources of his life, writings, thought and influence, vol I–II. Brill, Leiden Gabrieli G (1989) Contributi alla storia della Accademia dei Lincei, vol 2. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome Gabrieli G (1996) Il carteggio linceo, vol 2. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome Hannaway O (1992) Georgius Agricola as humanist. J Hist Ideas 53:553–560 Hill J (1746) Heo/qarsot sot Eqeriot peqi sxm kihxm bibkiom. Theophrastus’s history of stones. With an English version, and critical and philological notes, including a modern history of the gems, described by the author, and many other of the native fossils. Davis, London Imperato F (1599) Dell’Historia Natvrale Di Ferrante Imperato Napolitano. Libri XXVIII. Nella Qvale Ordinatamente Si Tratta della diuersa condition di miniere, e pietre. Con alcune historie di Piante, & Animali; sin’hora non date in luce. Con Privilegio. Napoli, Stamparia à Porta Reale. Per Costantino Vitale Imperato F (1610) De Fossilibvs Opvscvlvm Avthore Francisco Imperato Ivre Consvlto Neapolitano Ferdinandi Filio. In quo miro ordine continentur Naturalis disciplinæ scitu dignissima, eiusque Professoribus omnino necessaria; ab alijs minimè excogitata. Accesserunt Multa, quæ Hieroglyphicè per Fossilia nouiter interpetramur; non nullæque Icones fideliter ad viuum delieatæ. Neapoli, Io. Dominici Roncalioli Impey O, Macgregor A (1985) The origins of museums. The cabinet of curiosities in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford Kristeller PO, Cranz FR (eds) (1971) Catalogus translationum et commentariorum (Mediaeval and renaissance Latin translations and commentaries). In: C. Schmitt: Theophrastus, vol II. Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, pp 239–322 123 24 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 Lowry M (2000) Il mondo di Aldo Manuzio. Affari e cultura nella Venezia del Rinascimento (2nd edn, with author’s additions; original edition 1979: the world of Aldus Manutius. Business and scholarship in Renaissance Venice, Oxford, Blackwell). Il Veltro, Rome Lugli A (1983) Naturalia et Mirabilia. Il collezionismo enciclopedico nelle Wunderkammern d’Europa. Mazzotta, Milan Maio N, Stendardo E (2004) Pioneering herpetological researches of Ferrante Imperato. Ital J Zool Suppl 2:209–212 Manutius A (1497) Aristotelis et Theophrasti Opera. Volumen II. Eorum quae hoc uolumine continentur nomina & ordo. Aristotelis uita ex laertio. Eiusdem uita per ionannem philoponum. Theophrasti uita ex laertio. Galeni de philosopho historia. Aristotelis de physico auditu, libri octo. De coelo, libri quatuor. De generatione & corruptione, duo. Meteorologicorum, quatuor. De mundo ad alexandrum, unus. Philonis iudaei de mundo, liber unus. Theophrasti de igne, liber unus. Eiusdem de Ventis liber unus. De signis aquarum & uentorum, incerti auctoris. Theophrasti de lapidibus, liber unus. Excriptum Venetiis manu stamnea ı̂ domo Aldi manutii Romani, & graecorum studiosi. Mense Februario. M.III.D Maranta B (1572) Della Theriaca et del Mithridato libri due di m. Bartolommeo Maranta a m. Ferrante Imperato; Ne qual s’insegna il vero modo di comporre i suddetti antidote, et s’esaminano con diligenza tutti i medicamenti che v’entrano. Marcantonio Olmo, Vinegia Moffitt JK (1840) A view of the early Parisian Greek press, including the lives of the Stephani or Estiennes; notices of other contemporary Greek printers of Paris; various particulars of the literary and ecclesistical history of their times; and an appendix of Casauboniana. Combe, Oxford Morello N (2003) The question on the nature of fossils in the 16th and 17th centuries. In: Vai GB, Cavazza W (eds) Four centuries of the word geology. Ulisse Aldrovandi 1603 in Bologna. Minerva, Bologna, pp 127–152 Morello N (2006) Agricola and the birth of the mineralogical sciences in Italy in the sixteenth century. In: Vai GB, Caldwell WGE (eds) The origins of geology in Italy. Geological Society of America Special Paper 411, pp 23–30 Mortimer R (1974) (under supervision of Hofer P. & Jackson W. A.) Italian 16th century books, vol 2. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mottana A (2006) Italian gemology during the renaissance: a step toward modern mineralogy. In: Vai GB, Caldwell WGE (eds) The origins of geology in Italy. Geological Society of America Special Paper 411, pp 1–22 Mottana A, Napolitano M (1997) Il libro ‘‘Sulle pietre’’ di Teofrasto. Prima traduzione italiana con vocabolario dei termini mineralogici. Rend Lincei Sci Fis Nat 9(8):151–234 Muraro L (1978) Giambattista Della Porta mago e scienziato. Feltrinelli, Milan Neviani A (1936) Ferrante Imperato speziale e naturalista napoletano. Con documenti inediti. Atti Mem Accad Stor Arte Sanit 35:57–74, 124–145, 191–210, 243–267 Olmi G (1992) L’inventario del mondo. Catalogazione della natura e luoghi del sapere nella prima età moderna (Istituto storico italo-germanico Monografie, 17). Il Mulino, Bologna Orlandi G (1976) Aldo Manuzio, editore, vol 2. Il Polifilo, Milan Placcio V (1674) De scriptoribus anonymis et pseudonymis syntagma. Christiani Juthii, Hamburgae Prato G (1979) Scritture librarie arcaizzanti della prima età dei Paleologi e loro modelli. Scri Civ 3:151–193 Rossi P (1974) Francesco Bacone: dalla magia alla scienza. Einaudi, Torino Rossi P (1997) La nascita della scienza moderna in Europa. Roma-Bari, Laterza (Fare l’Europa) Russo A (1958) Ferrante Imperato farmacista naturalista. In: Atti del II Convegno della Marca Fermana per la Storia della Medicina, Fermo, 4–5 maggio 1957. Fermo, s.i.e., pp 111–115 Schmitt CB (1971a) Theophrastus. In: Kristeller PO, Cranz FE (eds) Catalogus translationum et commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin translations and commentaries. Annotated lists and guides, II. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC Schmitt CB (1971b) Theophrastus in the Middle Ages. Viator 2:251–270 Schneider JG (1818) Heo/qarsot Eqeriot sa rofolgma. Theophrasti Eresii qvae svpersunt opera et excerpta librorum qvatvor tomis comprehensa. Tomvs qvartvs. Annotationes ad libros De cavsis plantarvm, Opvscvla et Fragmenta continens. Vogelii, Lipsiae Sharples RW (1984) Some medieval and renaissance citations of Theophrastus. J Warburg Courtauld Inst 47:186–190 Simili R (ed) (2001) Il teatro della natura di Ulisse Androvandi. Editrice Compositori, Bologna Stendardo E (1991) Ferrante Imperato. Il collezionismo naturalistico a Napoli tra ‘500 e ‘600. Ed alcuni documenti inediti. Atti Mem Accad Clementina 28–29:43–79 Stendardo E (2001a) Ferrante Imperato. Collezionismo e studio della natura a Napoli tra cinque e seicento (Quaderni dell’Accademia Pontaniana, vol 31). Accademia Pontaniana, Napoli Stendardo E (2001b) Francesco Imperato e i Lincei. Con alcune lettere inedite. Aprosiana 9:159–168 123 Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei (2010) 21:1–25 25 Turnebus A (1577) HEOUQARSOT PEQI KIHXM. Theophrasti Lib. De Lapidibus. Lvtetiae, Ex Officina Federici Morelli Typographi Regij Turnebus A (1578) Theophrasti De Lapidibus Liber, ab Adriano Turnebo Latinitate donatus. Lvtetiae, Ex Officina Federici Morelli Typographi Regij, in vico Iacobaeo, ad insigne Fontis Wimmer F (1862) Theophrasti Eresii opera quae supersunt omnia. Ex recognitione Friderici Wimmer. Tomus tertius Fragmenta continens. Accessit Prisciani Lydi metaphrasis in Theophrasti libros De Sensu et De Phantasia. B. G. Teubneri, Lipsiae 123

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The first modern translation of Theophrastus' ''On Stones'' (peqı`kíhxm; De lapidibus): Ferrante Imperato (1599

The first modern translation of Theophrastus' ''On Stones'' (peqı`kíhxm; De lapidibus): Ferrante Imperato (1599

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS