They? Hi everyone.
Thank you very much for coming to Lecture four in this series on Amanuensis and Early Modern Europe.
So, so far I've emphasised that Amanuensis were a regular part of the working environment of scholars and authors in many periods.
But as they became more visible and likely more numerous in the early modern period,
like other servants, they were generally taken for granted and hidden from public view.
But they surfaced in letters, working papers and in print to who they were.
And what they did depended on each specific context.
At one end of the spectrum, we've heard about ten year old Heinrich Bullinger copying a theological letter for his father.
And at the other end, Nicolaus Copernicus helped Erasmus revise the adages by improving the index,
removing repetitions that Erasmus himself hadn't noticed, and adding many passages, whether under dictation or based on his own research.
It's hard to tell. So today I'll argue that a focus on Amanuensis can complicate our understanding
of the authorship of various parts of a learned book in the Renaissance,
counteracting the impact of title pages, bibliographies and catalogues which have often emphasised single authorship.
I'll also present evidence of some cases of false authorship involving helpers.
We expect the pattern of an amanuensis writing a text published under the principals name, but we'll also encounter that.
But also, more interestingly, in my view, the reverse. For reasons I'll explore.
In attributing authorship,
Harold Love provides a handy breakdown of authorship in two phases the precursory phase in which existing sources shape the work being written.
The way Erasmus pulls from Athanasius, for example,
to put into his adages the executive phase or what we usually think of as authorship itself to core is the work of composing the text.
Next come declarative authorship or the act of publicly associating one or more names with the work on the title page.
For example, sort of like Falco's author function. It need not be identical with the executive authorship.
And finally, revisionary authorship comprises editorial interventions that follow the author's work for the first or subsequent editions.
And it seems to me that many Wences or other helpers can be present in all of these phases.
So first I'm going to talk about attribution in Perry texts.
In the early decades of the new technology, printed books were designed to look like manuscripts.
But by the early 16th century,
the printed book had developed various conventions by which the text was identified and packaged to maximise its appeal to buyers.
The title page in particular typically aims to provide an attribution for the text within.
It's the place to identify the book among a new plethora of options available,
whether in a store or in a book fair or perhaps in your own library after you've bought a few.
The title page typically boasts about the book's qualities, signalling also its content and genre, all in the hope of luring a buyer.
The title pages typically mention an author and title and were soon mandated to carry information about when, where and by whom.
The book was printed so that the producer's author and printer could be held responsible for content deemed incriminating.
So the title page was meant as a sales device, not a source of accurate information for future book historians.
But of course, we couldn't do without the claims made there. But I love Roger.
Starter's memorable observation, in short, that most books lie to you in some way.
So we need to read these claims critically. In particular, title pages rarely suggest the number of people involved in preparing a work.
And I'm going to use here a nine volume edition of the works of the Church,
Father Jerome, which had been in preparation at Basil before Erasmus arrived in 1516.
Already underway the print shop of Johann Robin. And when the book came out, though, in 1516,
it was published as the work of Jerome was just one of the humanist editors named Erasmus who had the name recognition
to help sell the copies and the international connections to dedicate the book to a high ranking prelate,
William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury. But the title page was just one of multiple pair of texts that is shorter texts that package
the main body of the text with AIDS to reader further details about his composition.
And among these, the call often carried over from medieval practice was less sales oriented maybe,
and might offer additional detail, sometimes contradictory, to the title page with a different date, for example.
And here in the California, the first volume of the Jerome the California ads enjoy reader and remember that
these books rest on several learned men and efforts that can hardly be counted.
So these other people aren't named, but they are motion to and in correspondence around the time,
including a letter to Pope Leo, the 10th Erasmus named the distinguished scholars who participated in the addition.
And he also names them inside the book.
Yohannes, Franklin, Yohannes, Kono, the artist renowned us, and the three Amir brothers, Basil Boniface and Bruno.
So these names appear at various points in the pair texts inside the volumes.
For example, here in a five line blurb, prefacing a letter of Jerome's on his principles of biblical translation.
This located inside Volume four. So given the high level of expertise and the independent publications of these men, I wouldn't call them amanuensis.
They're rather collaborators. Some of them had skills that Erasmus did not have, notably knowledge of Hebrew.
And no doubt Amanuensis were involved in the preparation of this edition too.
But they go unmentioned.
Not surprisingly, given how little attention is paid even to the other major scholars involved, so long was the shadow cast by Erasmus.
And so weak were the conventions about announcing multiple authorship in a printed book.
So I want to think a little bit about when we see multiple authors on the title page of Latin books.
This happens in composite volumes which contain texts by different authors who are then mentioned on the title page.
And here we have an example from the Gessner Corpus of a collection of treatises on The Anima by Vives Amor, both Melanchthon and Gessner.
So each of those names appear of more interest to me is when multiple people have contributed a single text.
And here is a genre that I studied in too much to know the sort of the Polish tale of Domenico Mirabelli,
first published in 1503, which in successive editions sometimes mentions the editions of other people.
So in particular, there are three editions in Cologne by Colinas,
the first of which here boasts that in addition to Mirabelli, you're going to get Bartolomé Aciman to use.
And then the later edition boasted, in addition to Mirabelli in a month, yes, you're also going to get Francisco's tortillas.
And the argument here is this is a lure to the buyer.
You're going to get new stuff. So maybe if you bought an old edition, you might still want to buy this new one.
But the other point, too,
is it's extending the justification for the privilege which has expired by the time these new editions come along about every ten years.
And you can see it says a privilege of ten years. In order to justify a new book getting a new privilege.
And that's a great argument that George Hofmann developed around Montana.
I think it applies to a lot of other genres. So if we take this further, we get a Pollyanna here in the 17th century where we see.
Maribel Amancio is tortillas and then Joseph Lungu who gets a very big billing and and still Francisco Sylvia's.
So this is an example of collaborative authorship over time.
DYER Chronic, spanning more than 100 years.
It's only in the late 17th century that I've encountered a category term for a work of scholarship that was written collaboratively at one time.
And that's the Liberal Socialists, Vincent Fluxus and Daniel Gerhard more.
Use talked about them and give examples of them.
The Coimbra commentaries by a bunch of Jesuits and the academic dictionaries, the first of which is the Dictionary of the Accademia de la Fusco.
So here the title page is just mentioned the institution. And of course, then how they're classified in library catalogues is an interesting issue.
Historians have also studied different kinds of collaborative books.
So, for example, the King James Bible was produced by 47 men, grouped in six committees.
This is a form of division of labour, some non-hierarchical each one just assigned a different piece of the Bible to proceed similarly.
And I'd call attention to Jeffrey Alan Miller's wonderful find of Samuel Ward's draft of his work on his portion of the King James Bible.
It hasn't come out in publication yet, but you can read about it in blog posts.
Another form of collaboration is that detailed by Anthony Grafton, but also Harold Bell book The Magdeburg Century, so called by.
So we associate them with Matthias Fluxus because in particular because he was the PI.
He described in another document how he was going to proceed with 15 different people hierarchically organised.
So he's got. Seven students to select and copy out excerpts to holders of M.A. degrees to arrange the material into a narrative.
Five Inspectors to advise the others and contribute to the writing.
A copy is to make clean copies and the h.r.
To keep accounts and manage the hiring. So here are some examples of successful works.
And you can see here actually multiple people signing the dedication.
Even though their names were not on the title page. Dedication is a really important way of claiming authorship.
Vintage luckiest, however, concludes that Liberty scholars are not frequent due to the dissension among men.
And indeed, we can think of the Academy France's dictionary,
which took almost hundred years to come out with because they couldn't agree on a variety of things.
Other projects sometimes offer more detail. And Richard Ostrov has brought to light a fascinating and to my not quite unique cluster
of acknowledgements in the collar fans of mathematical books from the 1490s in Paris.
This is still the period of Nabila before the conventions are have become rigid.
I think about what you say and what you don't wear. Osterholm argues that the faculty Tapp, who taught at the college cardinal,
the one in Paris, depended on a coterie of his students to bring his manuscripts to print.
And he even made this explicit in the early years.
So publishing here, the discoverer of Sacra Bosco in 1494 was the complex book containing multiple kinds of mathematical charts and tables.
The the title page explains that the books for use of the university at the University of Paris of students at the University of Paris,
the fellows name does not appear, but it does appear on the version of the title page and the dedication to celebrate Royal Treasurer.
And in his preface there he goes on to thank our domestic Yohannes returnees who ease
the burden skilled in the study of counting on the abacus and other mathematics.
And then in the call of fun, he goes on to name more people, a nice little motto.
Great things were achieved not by the forces or speeds of bodies, but by judgement,
wisdom and authority and by the most diligent editing of Lucas Voltaire.
Quality is Guillaume Gaultier, Yohannes, St Thomas and Petro Brazil lovers of Mathematics.
Interestingly, in later editions these details are dropped.
So there's the call often and it's most detailed.
And then in subsequent editions we just get down to printed in Paris.
So that's I think it becomes the convention the norm. Let's look at the arithmetic.
1496 by the they data which on its title page sports an 18 line poem by Guillaume Gautier, who is clearly a member of the Circle.
He was named in the previous one. And in the course of fun, we get a thank you to the proofreader.
One David locks the Briton from Edinburgh, who diligently corrected the whole thing from the exemplar.
Again. Then in 1514, the name of David Locks is dropped.
But that poem that used to be on the title page is now on the back page, where apparently there was some extra space.
And it's not conventional by the end to put a poem on the title page.
So well. I'm not aware of other colour phones used for acknowledgement.
The pair textual poem was commonly used as an option for gathering words of praise and support,
usually from the author's peers, but occasionally from students. And I have one example of this from the 1613 Lexicon Philosophy.
Com by Rudolf Linnaeus, a professor of logic at Marburg.
So in his to the reader Googling his notes that this work was slow to appear.
He was 66 when it did, but that it would have been even slower to print without,
quote, the industry and remarkable erudition in both languages of Johann of Zurich,
who not only copied a large part of this work, but even corrected it so that students of philosophy should be grateful to his name.
So it's very unusual.
You know, teachers acknowledgement of students help in turn, then virtuous is composed the longest of the luminary odes in the book,
following three shorter poems by colleagues of Good Clean You Celebrating the
author in his work verses is a long Latin poem ending with a chronic ram.
I'm no pro, but it has a special gloss to explain it,
and I think we know who he is because he became a professor of theology at the Carolina in Zurich and they published little,
you know, write ups of all their professors. So he was age 22 at the time.
He was helping Linnaeus. And I think here we have an example of a mutual admiration going on in prints between teacher and students.
This teacher praises his student. The student praises the teacher. Everybody's advantaged by this.
Another kind of helper, saint by name and prince in the pretext of learned books are family members.
So here is Kitten Singer, whom I introduced last time, but is Tatra Mamani.
We talked about the interesting definition of mechanical. He has an extensive preface here in the last edition, which is the largest one,
1586, which was basically three times the size of the first edition of 5065.
He says. If you ask about help in this third edition, the growth of which you can gather from its bulk first,
but much more correctly from the number of volumes I relied for three years and more only on Brazilians.
Lucas, my very dear cousin, to copy with a faithful, elegant hand and to glue things which needed to be put together.
And this Brazilians. Lucas was likely the older brother of Ludovica Lucas, who was born in 1577,
started learning Latin at age six and entered Singer's household as an amanuensis in 1587, i.e. the year after this work comes out in print.
And not for long because Singer died the following year in 1588.
So we know about this because Ludovico became a professor at Basel.
And we also know then that Basilio Lucas, his older brother, died of the plague or something bad an epidemic in 1610.
So it's interesting to think about what's going on here, that by mentioning Basilio,
he's encouraging the father of Ludovico to send the other brother to him because he's getting a nice shout out there.
And interestingly, the singer also mentions another young relative is Luca Iselin, his dearest stepson,
explaining that he had outlined the method of study for him to take on his travels to France and Italy.
This seems to be just sort of name dropping for the sake of mentioning this and not quite so.
The Shoutout does exist in the Renaissance. Sometimes helpers were thanked anonymously, for example, in the one of the Carolinas volunteers,
one of them he thanks one Petrus, Lina, Ros, and to whom about whom I have zero detail.
And another one. He thanked a friend not unlearned, who helped correct the Greek quotations.
And an unusual instance of anonymous credit occurs in an early imprint by Conrad Gessner, his eponymous deacon or Dictionary of Proper Names,
first published in 1544 and much reprinted along with the Dictionary of Colapinto, which was for not common names.
And here the title page reads, gathered in part by Konrad Gesner, in part by his friends.
This mention of friends in the title of the work was dropped from all later editions.
But Gessner himself repeats mention of the friends each time he can, so he has a fair number of auto bibliographies.
One is his own, his bibliotheque universalis, and here he is in 14 1545, talking about those friends who helped.
And he does so again in his auto bibliography of 1562, mentioning the friends.
And interestingly, in the second edition of the A.M.E. Con, he gives a bit more detail.
He says that his he he explains it in the first edition.
He had worked on letters starting with A, B, R, S vs X and Z, and his friends worked on words beginning with the other 19 letters of the alphabet.
And he continues now in the second edition, we made many corrections nonetheless, especially the errors of our friends.
And in addition, we added the draft geography vocab of Stansberry Grammar, along with other words.
So he can't resist blaming those anonymous friends for introducing errors into his work, even while he's also thanking them.
Maybe they're happy not to have been named. So what purposes did anonymity serve in these cases of thanks in the power of text?
And sometimes the author mentions that to help her wish to remain anonymous out of modesty.
But he might want to avoid embarrassment. We talked about how Joseph Gallagher did not refuse to have his name associated with the index of
Groucho's inscriptions because he considered it a lowly work compared to his intellectual status.
But I like the hypothesis of Martin should know that Anonymous thanks can also hide the author's own work.
This is the hypothesis that she makes when Roberta Easton thinks a certain friend of ours for doing various things,
putting him in touch with manuscripts, correcting things.
Especially for a printer, she argues, who doesn't have the status to sort of claim a scholarly authority for his work,
although he was very learned and therefore rather would like to thank an anonymous friend for doing the work to lend authority to the final product.
Foremost hypothesis seems plausible to me in the case of Konrad Gessner in his historic animal room on Fish,
he's got 2 to 3 poems by John Parkhurst, and then he has a figure of August Quidam poem.
Gessner, of course, wrote at least three dozen poems in Latin and Greek for other people.
And I would not be surprised if he's written a poem to perform his own work, but he can't say so.
But of course, that be hard to prove.
So anonymity is one way that authors might mask their voice to achieve a desired effect of gathering voices and contribution or support of their work.
More actively still, authors could mask their own voice in the pair text by using others as mouthpiece.
So Alexander Bernard Garden has shown convincingly to my mind that Erasmus, for example, or perhaps someone in his household,
composed the addresses to the reader by his printer, Froman, which surfaced regularly in his publications.
But not, Gurdon mentions that Froman did not know Latin that needed help to read Latin letters,
in particular that these Latin pair of text did not appear in the Latin works of Robin printed with other authors that the same is likely
true of charity merchants in the little countries whose production of Latin pair texts coincided exclusively with Erasmus imprints.
So why do this? But again argues that Erasmus sought to portray these printers as learned on the model of Aldus of Venice,
whom he so admired and in enhanced Erasmus's prestige to work with a printer who himself could turn out good Latin prose.
Erasmus was exceptionally shrewd in his management of his persona,
but this behaviour was not unique to him and one clue is to look for unpublished manuscripts that include a printer to the reader.
Since no printer was found to publish that manuscript, it's more likely that the author composed this pair of text from the get go,
and I've encountered this in an unpublished manuscript, or at least where you get going to research by Rebecca, which is in the Basil Library,
complete with a tip over of us victory in quiz at hand, ready for a printer who might agree to print it.
Danny Yamaguchi has also reported the same is true of a second edition of Fox's Historia store.
HUME, which was never printed but survives as a manuscript in Vienna, along with a typographer to the reader.
So the takeaways here are that Perry Tex regularly included contributions from others.
A preface by the Printer Odes of Praise by Friends Indexes are about a list drawn up by amanuensis or someone hired by the printer,
or an acknowledgement of help received by the author in a preface or dedication.
But given their importance in packaging the texts,
percent pair text could also be misleading in ways that were thought to enhance the authority of the book by using anonymity or false attributions,
including the pair of texts of books in the catalogue of rare books is a practice that has ebbed and
flowed since the professionalisation of this in the book trade as well as in the library world.
And I hope it will continue to grow and maybe become standard.
Taking advantage of opportunities to share these records through the Internet.
Detailed cataloguing distributes attribution across more of the players involved in making a book,
even though some contributors no doubt still remain unnamed and unknown.
And I have the idea of developing a spreadsheet of the amanuensis I've encountered in case these names can be correlated with work on other texts.
So I'm moving to my second part here. Of course, the attributions we care most and most about are not pair texts, but texts themselves.
And so now I'm going to turn to the example of giant Alba,
who in Geneva offers a nice overview thanks to recent work by Max Ngema and Olivier of different ways of composing
text with helpers and of the kinds of attributions that appear in title pages and in modern cataloguing.
So like Bullinger, Calvin was a busy man running the church in Geneva, delivering sermons and lectures, engaging in polemics.
In addition, he was often in ill health and would work from his bed. When that happened, he relied on multiple helpers his younger brother Antoine,
and a range of secretaries who were not students but most often devoted colleagues,
fellow ministers, not too much younger than he was, some of whom worked for him for most of his 28 years of leadership in Geneva.
So these are exceptional amanuensis. One category of text published under Calvin's name were based on Calvin's oral delivery.
So there is there is our man. In particular sermons.
So in these cases.
The we have a man who specialised in the Haganah who knew how to take sermons on the fly that Calvin would deliver probably extemporaneously,
mostly, or from very minor notes.
The the note taker then is able to record the whole sermon in French and publishes it, and it never gets vetted by Calvin.
It's just turned around that way. Although his name is not on these title pages, I do find it in some cataloguing.
And of course, Calvin's name is on these vernacular sermons.
Secondly, we have Calvin's lectures on biblical exegesis in Latin delivered orally,
also, in which case two or three secretaries took notes in longhand,
which they collated among themselves to come up with the full text that they read back
to Calvin the next day to make sure the text didn't need correction before printing.
So these publications listed the helpers names on the title page alongside Calvin's.
We've got a GMB Day, I think no connection to accumulate and of the year.
Then we have biblical commentaries, which Calvin composed himself,
although it was often by dictation and is known that his secretaries always had glue and scissors on hand for rearranging texts,
as we've seen as a common way of operating.
And interestingly, there was a a lawsuit. The the Antoine Calvin was angry at the size of the printers mark on this title page,
finding it not suitably large for the prestige and the folio size of this volume.
I don't think I mean, obviously the book was printed, so we didn't really he just lodged his protest.
And we also know of helpers who were instrumental in translating Calvin's work from Latin into French and French into Latin.
And like Erasmus, Calvin wrote his letters in his own hands, barring illness.
Calvin also wrote a few polemical tracts. Oh, I want to just show this.
The errata page here tells you that this paragraph needs to be added because it was on a slip of paper that had fallen out.
So that's where the the slips and the glue come in.
If it's loose, it can fall out.
This is a polemical tract which is attributed to Calvin and all the bibliographies, but you see that his name is not there.
And in fact it is published under the name of Nicola DeGolyer Glasgow's, who was one of his amanuensis.
This is a track against a hated figure, the apostate Pierre Kelly, who had joined the Reformation and then returned to Catholicism.
And we know that it was written by Calvin because he mentions doing so in a letter to Pharrell where he says,
If you feel that carefully was properly handled by us, thank DeGolyer and myself under his name.
I was so inflamed when we started that I sped through to the end with no difficulty.
Indeed, one cause of this facility was that I played more freely and almost exuberantly under the name of another.
So very fun to write under someone else's name, evidently.
I think we can assume that they really knew what was going on and basically tacitly approved.
So but we don't have access to his perspective on this process.
Now, I'd like to just look at the pronoun use in this passage.
The movement between I and we. I realise it's hard to put a lot of weight on pronoun use.
There are cases of authors using the using the first person to designate work they almost likely delegated.
So they use AI to say something that someone else did. And we also have people using we to say things that they do.
This is considered more modest perhaps, or meant to embrace the reader in agreement.
And generally translations have used a lot of singular instead of the weak.
But if we see someone who's shifting between I and we,
I think it might be worth pondering the potential for the we to designate the collaborative activity versus a personal one.
So in this passage we have he's talking about, you know, the things he did himself,
the emotion he felt he was he sped along, he was angry and the things they did together, they started this process.
They yeah. So I also have a passage here from Erasmus, which I find interesting,
especially because he starts the passage by talking about delegation having delegated the business of comparing exemplars to servants.
I write Having delegate to servants, the business of comparing exemplars that would be better expressed.
I took upon myself the task of judging. Having read the whole work without negligence, I ordered the verses of the poems.
When the exemplars varied, either we adopted what was verified or if a decision was uncertain.
We retained both readings one in the text, the other in the margins. We corrected some things without the agreement of the manuscripts,
but that many and where the matter was not obscure for a learned and experienced person and we added some comments, well, I did this.
It was necessary to use two or three days in other studies.
So he is talking about things that he decided to do, but things that were done also perhaps with help and that the time it cost him from other things.
So does the we indicate a process of working together? I think this is certainly piqued my interest.
We know, for example, Hema Pavel notes erasmus's use of Wie in prefatory letters in the edition of Jerome,
where we know a lot of other people were involved.
Stephen sharpened flags Boyle's description of experiments saying things like We pumped and horrible book
about the Magdeburg centuries notes the use of a quote nameless but collective we that they use often.
So of course there are many stylistic conventions that would vary by individual and by context.
But I think this is the idea of pronoun use has piqued my interest and maybe, maybe other people will be interested in trying it out, too.
So I'd now like to turn to a kind of source we haven't encountered yet in a social context.
I've only touched briefly on so far the institutional setting of a Paris college in the mid to late 16th century,
about 50 years later, from the Ulster Hall of Material at the cutting of the one.
This is the college pile where Petrus Ramos was the principal.
He is someone who excited a lot of anger from his colleagues because he was stridently anti Italian.
His colleagues even got him banned from teaching dialectic between 5044 and 47.
But he had a protector who got him back and stated and in fact warranted his being named to the College Royale in 1551.
So which is which is a very high honour because the literature on Ramus is massive.
Here is just a small walk through it with a focus on what we can.
What I've used to talk about his working methods, basically.
Here's what a little glimpse of the college tableau, which is in the Latin Quarter in Paris,
where Ramus spent really almost his entire life, except for a trip to Germany for a couple of years in the early 1970s.
So. We have this lovely biography by Nicola Donnell Sell, which was published,
which was composed ten years after famous death in St Bartholomew's Day massacre,
which led to his being lionised by Protestant geographers and much uptake actually in Calvinist environments,
including Cambridge, England and Fairbourne in Germany. Interestingly, this Vita Ramey was only published in 1599 by Nicola A.L.,
who was a former pupil of his who spent 20 years living with Ramus in the College of Powell and by then has become a successful physician.
And is he has a couple of purposes in this in this life.
We also have a new document that's recently come to life.
ST is a work of Mari Domine Cucina which is now says own notebooks in classes given by Ramos and Talen as this is the raga in Waddington,
which is in a suburb, a little library, the philosophy department library, basically inside the Sorbonne.
So it doesn't, you know, it doesn't surface in the normal ways,
and it has not yet been digitised or studied beyond what Murray Domine has done, which is to list the contents.
We can see here some examples of notes.
No cell is very big on lovely colour phones as here where he's signing, signing off and we'll see that in his later work.
So why is no cell writing this veto around me? I think he is on one hand,
having failed in writing letters and pleading with people he knew to find Greek manuscripts that he describes
writing painstakingly for Ramos from very unique sources that were on loan from Fontainebleau and even Vatican,
he claims that have gone missing since his library was sacked when he was assassinated in 1572.
So these manuscripts actually survive.
At least eight of them do. I'm aware of four of them at the BNF and four of them in Leiden, and they are identified by the call fine in particular.
So here we have Pepys of Alexandria is a long manuscript of 200 plus pages.
We can see that it's got a lot of technical diagrams in there and a colour font by no cell, which helps identify it.
Here's another manuscript where we see the diagrams have not been entered.
Now, I don't know if that was just no cell didn't get to it, or perhaps someone else made the diagrams.
I don't know. Now, says most famous work was published posthumously by his son.
And it's basically a work of medicine because after leaving the college to Pell at age 29, he became a doctor.
He married and he became the physician to the abyss of 44, which is a fairly prestigious and probably well-paid position.
And this is a massive book of 2200 folio pages.
Here is a person crucial to Raimi's career and how he managed to get away with angering all of his colleagues.
The Cardinal Sean DeLorean, whom Ramus met as student and who became impressed with him.
So Nosal describes that although Raimi's condition was that of a servant.
The cardinal could see and admire in him the signs of a liberal mind and the marks of natural learning and nobility.
So clearly, Ramus cultivated a classmate of a very different social rank, and it was a lifelong connection.
Another person very important in Ramos's life was Martello.
This is not the famous one whose name is on the Billboard Techcentral Vive and whose image is available online.
Who was no doubt a just. Well, I'm not sure about a descendant, but a family member, both famous and along,
came from upwardly mobile peasant families and talent came to Paris at the same time as Ramos.
He's slightly younger. We don't exactly know his birth date, and they were really a duo.
So in his will in 1556, Tello explains that he owned nothing neither books, clothes, furnishings, utensils that do not belong to Petrus Ramos.
The principal declared the crowd because they had always lived together and
said Ramos has always provided for all his needs in health and in sickness.
So this is the circumstance of Walter Owens composing in 1958, the famous and telling inventory.
Basically, Ong does not want to pronounce very strongly on who wrote what.
Among their works. And so comes into the mix.
Talent and Ramus are basically the same age.
A younger man, Nicolette A.L., who shows up at age nine at the college play, which is standard for a he had one of nine bursaries.
And fascinatingly, Skolnick has shown that many of these bursaries had the last name of Ramus or of Ramus, his mother.
So he is filling the place with relatives would be the conclusion that Skolnick makes.
But now Sal is not a relative.
He so the usual age to start at the college was eight or nine years old and you let you study there between seven and ten years.
Now, Sal was a whiz kid and finished in just six years his degree and stayed on then as Ramos's assistant and as a teacher until 1568.
And he says, none too modestly, that he spent the same amount of time with Ramos as Aristotle spent with Plato 20 years.
So no sail performed typical tasks of helpers as I've described in other contexts,
but some that are unique also like accompanied Ramos to class where he stood next to him
to hand him the books that he needed and to tug on his coat if he made a silly mistake.
Ramus had such terrible handwriting that only those accustomed to it could read it, and no cell, of course, could.
When Remus returned home from lecturing, he used to jot down in shorthand what he'd lectured and commented on.
And after we had copied out and here's someone I think who's using we for I have copied out these notes in our own hand in a beautiful script.
He kept them at home with the intention of publishing them. Ramus also gave no sale tasks that required skill and judgement,
notably to match Latin texts to their Greek sources, which was a very common activity in Paris at the time.
Ramus asked A.L. to memorise Vergil so that he would be able to find theocracies in Vergil and vice versa.
So, he says,
we ourselves have indicated every quotation from the apparatus or any imitation of him with extension cites extensive citation of the Greek text.
And finally, Ramus asked Noel to write a grammar book.
In the first place. He perceived that grammar was rude and unpolished, and he tried to give it special elegance and found an easy method for it,
dealing thoroughly with the grammar of three languages French, Latin and Greek.
I feel that I myself made a great contribution to this work. Interesting, he saying.
I know of building by my collaboration and support, discussing the whole project with the architect himself in order to produce a more perfect result.
He had already entrusted this aspect of the work to me when I was a young man.
But when I realised how difficult the subject was,
I felt the need of a better qualified architect and that such a vast and complex matter could scarcely be undertaken properly by one man.
Therefore, Ramos took his brush and he sketched in the first natural colours and the primitive structure and method of the work.
And I helped him to arrange in his proper place material gathered from various sources.
I hunted out all over the place whatever would help make a complete survey of the art,
often discussing with Ramos how best to arrange and present everything.
Finally, I wrote it out all myself, corrected the proofs and under the leadership and authorship of Ramos,
offered it to the public in its present form. And so here are the options of the books of grammar that might be involved in this.
I don't really know which it is. They all came out in 1559 and all under Amos's name with no mention of no cell.
Interestingly, no cell seems proud of his contributions.
He mentions probably that Ramos would come to see me or ask me to go see him in order to try out on me.
His ideas on the subject, whether written down or not, and mentioning possible objections, additions and improvements.
So now I'll tell the junior colleague was valued as an intellectual interlocutor, a sounding board, a source of feedback.
And that seems bright enough. No cell shows, no resentment of what looks like.
You know, Ramus told him to do something, outlined it for him, and he filled it in and did everything.
And it came out under the principal's name. Interesting what those shark nets sell is how Remus treated.
Oh, yes. This is a nice passage here.
And also reports how Remus learned and taught Greek and mathematics, which was by bringing people into the college to teach him.
And then he would turn around and teach other people on the same day.
Right. He learned Greek or mathematics at home by himself or with the help of a suit monitor.
And, you know, he went he used to see John come, who would come early in the morning, discuss Greek grammar with him, the elements of Greek language.
And then after a few hours,
grammars would lecture on and teach what he had looked through beforehand and learn by himself and what he had heard from him being at the same time,
teacher and pupil. And similarly for mathematics, he talks about mathematics, domestics, you know, brought into the household,
including John Pinner, who actually gained quite a reputation and was brought in because he had lovely handwriting.
But it turned out he was really good at math. But then he died very young at less than 30 years old.
So what does anger note? So in this biography is how Ramus treated TALOS rhetoric after Talon's death after Tuttle's death.
When Ramus was engaged on the building up of his edifice of the arts, he appropriate to himself was what?
Right. I do not know the rhetoric which had been published in telling his name,
and he published it in an altered form as though it had been first invented and described by himself and merely adorned with TALOS commentaries,
as was in fact, originally the case was the dialectic of which Ramus is the true author and tell on the commentator.
I once wanted to find out the reason for this by asking Ramus,
but I was afraid of annoying such a serious and irascible man and preferred to judge for myself as follows.
At one time, Ramus and Talon were closely together on the same subjects,
and Ramus showed him the way and indicated the method of reducing rhetoric to an art because
talent seemed to have contributed more to the art and to have enhanced it with his own style,
which is much more familiar, more easygoing, and more popular than Ramos's, yet without sacrificing elegance.
Ramus allowed learn during his lifetime the full credit for inventing it and reclaimed it from him like usury once he was dead,
so that he himself would then be accepted as the true primary author of a work which he merely originated and inspired.
So we see how Nasrallah is trying to protect Ramus from charges, plagiarism.
He and he has this idea of usury that he lent to allow rhetoric to to work on in his lifetime and then gets it back.
So here are the two books. And what so this is the second book.
On the right is the later one after telling us dead date in 1559.
And oh, it's 69, actually, which is important because telling it died in 63 or something like that.
And so it's it's not I mean, tell don't get still capital big billing on the title page.
But what I think makes no sale indignities is the innards have changed,
the organisation has changed and the claim is that almost rhetoric is explained in Ramos's lectures, which you now have.
So but on the other hand, he doesn't want to go overboard in criticising Ramus.
And clearly Ramus was not easy to live with. That anger of the principal is something that he seeks to avoid.
Finally, there is a very interesting story.
Now Shell reveals the true origins of a work that in the opposite direction appeared under Talon's name, though it was written by Ramus.
Among Ramus is many critics. One of them stood out for his prestige and seemed worth responding to.
This is as we until nab a scholar of Greek and a colleague of Ramesses at the College Royal who had not been pleased by Ramos's appointment there,
and also explains that Ramus felt that this was an antagonist with whom it would be glorious to fight.
So Ramus deviated from his policy of not replying to as many critics and composed a reply in the space of two or three days.
So we start with Ramos commenting on Cicero turn AB attacks Ramos for his lack of appreciation for Cicero.
And this is the work the 22 pager which is the one that that Nossal describes Ramos composing.
And then we get a response by Churchill, Neb. So here is the description.
Right. It would be glorious. So Ramos wrote his reply to Till now, in the space of two or three days writing day and night.
He composed and wrote out himself an original, penetrating, subtle and witty reply in this short space of time.
With equal speed, I read it over, punctuated it, copied it out, and delivered it to the printer,
spending the night at vigils in order to speed on the work by day and night.
It came out more quickly than anyone could have hoped or expected.
Now Ram is published this rapidly produced work under Talon's name so as not to appear to be departing
from his steadfast forbearance and allowed to loan all the credit for this penetrating piece of writing,
even though he did not write one single page of it except to insert a few witticisms and jokes for these was truly an ironic temperament.
I am aware as I declare this that I am the sole survivor, for there were only three of us who were party to this matter.
So we have this very, you know, grand statement.
However, you know, I don't know that contemporaries were all that surprised because the way to NAB replies is not in his own name,
but in the name of logician, who was a real person, a friend of John Ed's.
And whether we think that that wrote a response or the real Duchenne did, who knows?
But I think we are getting a classic example here of what Valerie Robert has called hypo actors and hypo polemics.
And Queenie has an interesting hypothesis of the at root of the anger between Shanab and Ramus is that Ramus was a big fan of John Ed's teacher.
Toussaint didn't like how Schnepp had been appointed to replace him. John had didn't like how Ramus was appointed.
So it all goes back to academic hiring and that these are the unspoken sources of anger.
And then the idea is that they're hypo actors,
that neither of the two main players ramus until they appear in the later phases, the most polemical phases of this argument.
So no sales account. As a former student and junior colleague, Tori Amos activates another strand of the servant function,
the claim to special insight and authenticity afforded by the insider.
Of course, no sales statements need to be read critically, but the source, unique among the ones I've used so far,
offers a valuable window on collaborations carrying out in person and orally among men living together in college, which otherwise needs no trace.
So of the 73 imprints from the famous and talent and none so famous and I don't really know also mentions three
cases in which the attribution of the title page does not correspond to what we would consider executive authorship.
The grammar book that Noel wrote under Amos's name the The Ritual Rhetoric, which Amos modified and published under his name,
which irked Nossel and Amos Polemical Feet, published under Teller's name, which no sale admires.
Without knowing sales account, we wouldn't know about these 5% of cases in which the declared of authorship is misleading.
We do know of some ghostwriting arrangements. Paragraph also has a very nice book on a French language ghostwriting, and we can talk about that more.
But Latin ghostwriting actually hasn't gotten its due.
And here are a few examples perhaps, although we're not the contractual ones that we associate with, but Greg Walters has commented on.
In versions of the hierarchical dynamic we expect in misleading attribution seem especially interesting,
and I've encountered a few other cases beyond the polemical ones I want to share with you.
So here we have is an epitome of moral philosophy by Elias Baldino, the son of John Bodin, collection of moral sayings.
Elias Bertino is completely unknown. He clearly didn't live very long.
And as far as I know, he he didn't publish anything else.
But Bowden is setting up his son to be a scholar. And someone who did get set up very nicely is Hugo Grotius,
whose first publication with notes in Inundations de Marchioness Capella appeared when he was 16.
And in the book, there is a an engraving of the boy and an ode of praise from Joseph Gallagher, who surely had a hand in all this.
So then Grotius goes on to rely on his wife and other family members, including daughters who wrote letters and poems, none of which survive.
So here we have a problem with. It's hard enough to get stuff surviving from famous men, but the helpers or even family members.
The stuff didn't seem worth saving at various points, so it makes it all the more difficult to have sources from wife and daughters, for example.
And on that note, there is a kind of pointing her and Margaret pointing her are the main example of a learned couple.
She was naval, sir, and was wealthy and well-educated.
And Pottinger like to show her off, basically.
There's a famous letter to Erasmus in which Pottinger describes the two of them poring over
Erasmus's commentary on the New Testament while reading the Bible on a Sunday at home.
And there's also a letter which was probably never sent, which is in there, two copies of this.
This is the one in Margaret's hand with annotations by Conrad, which was meant to be sent to her brother,
which is discussed in good detail and nicely reproduced here by Helmut.
Say. And for the the letter to, first of all, introduces Conrad's collection of coins, but secondly,
also talks about the lovely ladies who helped their their husbands in antiquity by holding lanterns for them.
The wives of Pliny and Cicero, who held lanterns for their husbands while they worked.
So phase analysis is supporting or is looking to credit a feminist.
Germano Who if Germany can come up with such a learned lady, surely, you know, Germany's as good as Italy, basically.
And he wants to boast of her achievements without seeming pretentious on his own account.
So this matter was never sent, and it was published in the 18th century much later.
But we can see how even this the authorship of this is in her hand.
But who's actually written it is an interesting puzzle.
So I'd just like to say that, you know, basically, given the uncertainties of analysing the authorship of texts like these,
no sales account is precious and providing insight into some of the many gaps between executive and declarative authorship in manuscript and in print.
And on Tuesday, my last lecture, I will discuss how many one sees shaped the legacy of their principles.
And I'll mention as possible, two or more women will appear. So thank you.