They? Hi everyone.
Thanks so much for coming back to Lecture five and the last one on Amanuensis and early modern Europe.
So in the lectures so far I've focussed on amanuensis in live interaction with your principals, most iconically taking dictation and copying texts,
but also serving as editors, indexers sounding boards, providers of feedback, messengers, representatives, and occasionally,
as I mentioned last time, hidden co-authors or as someone whose name to borrow when publishing a polemical tract,
amanuensis could also play a central role after the death of the principal in shaping the posthumous reputation and publications of the deceased.
In a few cases, the scholars themselves made plans for the fate of their papers and publications after their death.
In other cases, in the absence of explicit directives, the heirs received the papers, along with the assets most often mentioned in wills.
Particularly, these would be the widow and offspring of the scholar had been married,
but the amanuensis often had a better understanding of the contents and whereabouts of the papers
and of their potential significance to a broader audience and their suitability for publication.
So the amanuensis could be a resource to the heirs. Given this expertise, or if the relationship was not cooperative,
the AMANUENSIS could pursue efforts independently of the family to curate the memory of the deceased.
Amanuensis typically enhance their own standing in the learned world in doing this and that incentive, in addition to feelings of personal loyalty,
or at least enough of those to outweigh alternative sentiments for foster generally favourable portrayals of the deceased.
I have just one example of a hostile tell all.
The expectation of the Secretary revealing juicy secrets formed later and in the vernacular tradition basically in the 18th century.
So in this lecture I will return to a few cases I've mentioned before and introduce some
new ones to illustrate the way amanuensis shaped the legacies of their principles.
My selected examples focussed on the role of Amanuensis are part of a much larger
story about the personal archives of scholars and literary remains of authors.
While specialists of a particular figure have always attended to the formation and transmission of their subjects papers, often by editing them,
there's now recent exciting work by historians examining the more general phenomenon
the factors that have shaped the collections of papers that have come down to us.
Michael Hunter is the Archives of the Science Revolution of 1998 stands out in my experience as a pathbreaking book on this topic.
And since then, the history of archives, especially in early modern period, has grown tremendously, including attention to personal archives.
In their recent studies, Elizabeth, Yale, Vera Keller and Maria Rose, for example,
have paid special attention to the role of women in managing the papers of deceased scientists of the 17th and 18th centuries.
And the papers of literary authors have often been the object of considerable attention for the 16th and 17th centuries,
although principally this means lamenting the absence of surviving manuscripts.
Very shortly in the author's hand and printer's mind has pondered why it was only in the 18th century
that literary authors became attentive to preserving unpublished papers and passing them on to executors,
and that library sought donations of them and later started paying for them, as is the case today.
So the contrast with humanists is quite remarkable in that certainly in the 15th century and even before, in the case of Petrarch,
humanists actively manage their working papers, saving them, organising them,
planning for their transmission, although admittedly not always successfully.
So why do the literary authors wait so long to worry about their novels while the humanists are doing so 300 years earlier?
One reason for this difference, I suggest, is that scholars belong to a more clearly defined community than literary authors.
The Republic of Letters was an actress category, a term in use at the time.
It designated an abstraction, of course, one of those imagined communities that many of Anderson had made us attentive to,
but a powerful one that gave its members a sense of participating in a collective project they would extend beyond the individual in space and time.
Scholars hope to contribute to that collective project and also to build their own reputation as participants in it,
both during their lifetime and through the posthumous legacy of what they left at their death.
In manuscript or in print. Even if what actually happened after death depended entirely on the actions of others.
The first element in shaping Scalia's posthumous legacy was a scar his own behaviour
toward his papers and publications in the arrangements he put in place before death.
The outcomes in the people involved varied widely.
I'll offer my examples in two clusters, starting with cases of the planners and then cases in which the heirs had no directives concerning the papers.
So among those who planned for their posthumous legacy, Erasmus takes the top prize.
Given that he spent the last 20 years of life warding off Lutherans on the one hand and
conservative Catholics on the other who lobbed virulent attacks and attempts to co-opt him.
Erasmus was keenly aware of the potential for the use and abuse of his name and works after his death.
Erasmus used a variety of methods to exert maximal control over the dissemination of his publication in his lifetime,
threatening and punishing printers who did not follow his directives,
but also pushing out a late work while in poor health so as not to leave it in manuscript.
In 1535, Erasmus announced to correspondent the publication of his Ecclesiastes A Massive Guide to preaching that he'd been working on for many years.
Explaining, Given the weakness of my body, I would rather bring it out even half finished than leave it to appear as a posthumous child.
Because I know only too well how unscrupulously the works of dead authors are treated.
Erasmus, of course, had devoted much of his intellectual energy to identifying and correcting errors that had accumulated
in the transmission of ancient and early Christian texts and also in his own publication,
offering a model for a very detailed erotic list. Here is one such example where one of the points, I suppose, is, Yeah, I'll get into it.
He issued warnings also to those who would reprint his works, not to modify them,
and in particular already with Jerome's edition in 1516, he introduced a injunction which you see is reported used by Jerome.
And so here is Erasmus talking about using this. It seemed appropriate to prefix that summons of erroneous which Jerome had placed before.
You see his chronicle reading I adore you,
you who may copy this book by our Lord Jesus Christ and by His glorious Advent when he comes to judge the quick and the dead,
to compare what you show right and correct it carefully by the exemplars which you have followed,
and also to transcribe this admiration and place it in the copy which you have written out.
So Erasmus is transmitting this as you are going to go forward with what he has left.
You do so carefully and transcribe again.
Another kind of injunction appeared in what turned out to be the last edition of The Adages in Erasmus's lifetime,
1536, a few months before his death, and on the last page in lieu of an orator, there is an Erasmus to the reader.
In which he. Explains.
In the proverb, the median plus two toes a half is more than the whole.
The following words are to be deleted from sweet us sites. Marinus is down to and so kings.
They are an intrusion and have nothing to do with this passage.
I had a secretary who took delight in secretly weaving into my work something of his own.
I cited that passage from sweetness in the proverb well beyond is half done where it fits.
But he, either through ignorance or forgetfulness, included the same passage in this most inappropriate place.
I ask you, reader, is this the work of a secretary or a forger?
Is there a drunkard or an imbecile who would write anything more foolish?
I do not say these things merely on suspicion. I have called his chicanery in other places.
When I was going over the text and was struck by the incongruous of what had been inserted because this was added to the copy secretly,
I could not detect it and it would have escaped our notice forever if a character puzzled by the passage had not drawn it to our attention.
I only hope the fellow has not played the same trick in other places.
If he had been a deadly enemy, could he have done anything more unkind than by such additions to hold me up to the mockery of learned men?
So that is quite a parting shot after a very long book.
We know to have included repetitions and very hard to keep track of.
It's interesting that he mentions the shocked corrector.
This might well be Sigismund genius I in an earlier pair of text Erasmus thanks him for careful correction.
Erasmus also names him in his will as one of the team of people who will prepare his work after death.
Who knows? And in any case, he's blaming the positioning of this sentence.
So I just want to point out, this work is thousands of pages long, 4151 edges,
and there's one line there with a Greek quote in it which doesn't belong.
According to Erasmus, Erasmus is right that the Greek line also appears in another adage.
This is also from 1536, where he's happy for it to be.
But as you recall, we have the copy of a copy of 1523 adages that was used by Erasmus and Nicholas can use to prepare the edition of 1526.
Of course, here we're looking at 1536 where he's complaining back and looking back at this wrongly positioned sentence.
But as it turns out, this sentence from Sweet US Ketut at Mariano to tour appears in the working copy of the ages of 1523.
And in whose hand is this? Erasmus's.
So Erasmus is moaning about the forging secretary, introducing stuff of his own about a sentence which he had introduced ten years earlier,
13 years earlier, sometime 10 to 13 years earlier. He may well have completely forgotten about that.
So it just shows how he you know, it's very hard to master the whole thing.
It's also, I think, what the real significance of this erratum is to tell people, do not mess with my text.
Right. He's even complaining wrongly about an amanuensis who did.
And as it happens, the frozen shop did not mind this to the reader and removed their in the next edition.
1541 removed the offending passage.
And this has brought to my attention that irregardless actually may not just be for readers to correct their copy,
because I haven't actually found that many readers who do that using a pen to correct their copy.
But it's also for printers of future editions, especially for someone like Erasmus who knows he's going to die.
He doesn't know where the last edition is, and he wants these mistakes to be purged of the posthumous editions.
And so there's another audience for Iraq to list, although I would point out that one edition, which is less scholarly,
did not attend to the erotic list and ends up using the bad sentence which represents putting himself.
As it happens, of course, the Elegies were abridged, re-arranged.
Even in his lifetime, they were quite beyond his control, given their commercial success.
But clearly, Erasmus is disapproving of any modification to his work.
Erasmus was more successful in controlling outcomes through the arrangements he made in his will.
First composed in 1527, updated in 1533 and February 15, 36, five months before his death in July 1536 at age 70.
These wills, all of them in Latin, appoint an heir, Boniface Amara, a basil jurist and humanist,
about 30 years younger than he was, and with whom he'd formed a close friendship in the course of his 20 years in Basil.
Erasmus also named two executors who were Basil Printers, whom Erasmus trusted Hieronymus Roban and Nicholas Episcopacy.
This makes eminent sense because after his signing a few gifts with sentimental and economic value to a variety of close friends and associates,
Erasmus devoted most of the will to describing how the posthumous publication of his collected works should be carried out.
He had already sold his library, printed books and manuscripts he owned to Joanna Lasko,
a Polish nobleman who collected them from Basel after Erasmus his death.
So the will is about the disposition of Erasmus's writing, calling for the publication of his opera Omnia as soon as possible.
He designated the printers for Oberlin Episcopal as the two executors, the editors.
He lists five men who he trusted for the task, even how many correctors to employ and whom?
At least two, maximum four. And he set aside good sums of money to be paid to each person involved.
Erasmus had also detailed in a letter. So here are the opera Omnia in four volumes 1540, which is a remarkably speedy outcome.
And already in 1523 he had identified nine categories of works or readiness that he
outlined that are observed today in the Latin Amsterdam edition of Erasmus Opera,
which is nearing completion after being underway for nearly 60 years.
So he is really, you know, envisioning his opus and setting up good resources for people to carry out his will.
He'd also been publishing readily throughout his career, so he left just one work in progress when he died.
In addition of Origin, which was published a few months later under a dedication by Beatrice,
renown as one of the scholars of the Jerome Édition team, in fact.
So Erasmus tapped a circle of expert friends and scholars to manage his legacy and not his amanuensis.
Erasmus bequeathed a considerable sum of 200 gulden to the amanuensis in place at the time of his death.
When Le Lombard commands,
we see here he's signing the receipt and here he is signing from his new position as amanuensis to the Professor of Hebrew in Leuven,
one Andreas von Guinea. So there's an amanuensis who went on to another position as amanuensis.
He'd been with Erasmus less than one year because, as Gilbert Coosa, the long serving amanuensis,
had left to take up a pen and read his hometown, much to Erasmus his displeasure and hesitating to come back never did.
Gilbert Kooser nonetheless managed to be a part of Erasmus's legacy in a couple of ways.
He got a poem of his included in the collection of epitaphs that Amaranth swiftly organised in Basel in 1537.
Coosa had a relationship with Auerbach, perhaps not only through his time with Erasmus.
They may have met while Cousins studied at the University of Basel.
Indeed, Amir Bach may have brokered Couzens entry into the Erasmus household.
In any case, Koussa was the only amanuensis, former or current to place a poem in this volume.
It's on the last page, which in a way just preceding poems by episcopate and probing the two printers is kind of pride of place.
Easy to find. And I would point out that on The Verso this poem is the Oh, you had it.
There is the a Hebrew statement by Sebastian Minster, which I am unable to read.
But so it's interesting that Kooser had in fact already managed to get a poem of praise for Erasmus
in print in a work of Erasmus at a time when things were going well before he left for another war.
And so you can see a Latin poem and a two line Greek couplet in this edition of the Ecclesiastes.
And of course he reprints these poems later on.
And in addition, in his pamphlet, The Effigies, we get a poem by when Yost sets foot where he is praising hussars work, indexing Erasmus's work.
And my hypothesis is that Quasar was responsible for the long index of the opera Omnia published in 1540.
Although I only have this poem to go on to make that statement.
So Kusama was definitely involved, but not in a responsible capacity, the way Auerbach and the printers were.
But Erasmus was exceptionally successful and obviously he left money.
He had no other heirs having never married, etc.
And he also had a reputation that by producing the opera, everyone would benefit from who was involved.
My second example of a scholar who manages his own legacy is Conrad Gessner of Zurich, 50 years younger than Erasmus.
Not as famous, not as long lived, nor as wealthy,
but nonetheless a scholar with an international reputation and multiple roles in his native Zurich as city physician,
lecturer at the university, publisher of Famous Folios, the Natural Histories, for example, and many works besides.
And he well knew the challenges of leaving manuscripts unpublished after death.
In fact, he, in his auto bibliography, he ends it where he lists some 65 publications of his own with 18 works he's left in manuscript,
and he explains why I wanted to list my writings, even those which are not yet dedicated,
edited and incomplete in part so that if some educated men have stronger age and health and more leisure than himself,
and similarly inclined to good studies could be found to wish to bring them to completion, they could easily ask me.
So basically he's shopping around for young men who might be willing to publish some of his unpublished materials.
And in fact, Gessner also did that work for other people.
Seven of his 65 books are additions that Gessner made of the manuscripts left
and published it death by scholars whom he knew sometimes or did not know.
So it's unclear if Gessner had an amanuensis in place at the time of his death.
I mentioned in earlier lecture a letter he wrote in the year of his death, asking for help,
identifying a student of medicine who would be poor and willing to live in his house and being amanuensis.
And the more learned, the better. Gessner had sold his biblioteca, though, to a former student, one Kasbah Wolf.
And we we don't know too much about Kaspar Volf.
He's making this arrangement outside his will.
Kaspar Volf noted in one of his posthumous editions of Gessner that he had paid, quote, no small sum for Gessner, his library.
Other sources revealed that it was 150 Gulden or about one year of Gessner annual income.
So it was a considerable sum. What he got for it was not only the books that Gessner owned, but also the manuscripts.
And another contemporary former student, Josiah Similar, noted in his biography of Gessner that both had bought Garcia's library for a fair price.
So we can presume that the purpose of getting or selling this material to both
on both sides was that both wanted to publish some or many of these works.
But it was a very big job. Unlike Erasmus,
Gessner had left a lot of things in manuscript and we so in some cases he prepared material for publication and never did bring it about,
which is actually a boon for us as historians, because we can see here what it looked like.
These are clippings from manuscripts and letters and printed books, including Marked Up with Red Pencil, the second printed excerpt.
Things that Gesner found of interest probably kept in envelopes or pigeon holes.
And then Conrad Kasbah wolf has glued them in place in their correct order, and this sheet,
along with the whole manuscript, would go straight to the printer and become a book.
Except that it didn't. And then, of course, once it's used to be a book, it's destroyed in the process, basically.
Most famously, Vogue failed to publish what might have been a major botanical work by Gessner,
who had published on Animals, but who also had written a Historia Plantarum.
Instead, Wolfe sold Gessner his botanical notes and 1500 illustrations.
And here is the long trail of sales and bequests, which brought it down to being published 200 years later.
Between 1753 and 1771.
So of course, the work did not have the impact that it might have had if it had appeared in the late 16th century rather than in the 18th century.
This saga, of course,
presents some advantages for historians because we now have a recent edition of all of these images which had been saved and preserved,
and some of them annotated by Gessner. Given this rather well-known catastrophe of falling down on the job,
it may come as a surprise that both actually did publish several of Kushner's works.
So we have two books on diseases of women. We have a collection of guest news letters.
We have a collection of guest news notes on physics at the Collegium in Zurich.
We have some editions of classical texts and some reprints of earlier Gessner imprints.
So there are about six works listed as in progress in 1562, of which we have no trace.
Now, items that Volf did not curate or pass on,
perhaps because unlike the botanical materials with their large number of illustrations, these had no special commercial value.
In each of his publications, Wolff played up his role as editor of the material, and all told, basically,
Wolf was able to produce about a dozen items a respectable over pretty much consisting exclusively of gesner materials.
So my point here is that scholars often plan their own novels as Erasmus and Gessner did, but were not able to control it.
Their success depended on whom they put in charge, how explicitly with how much material support and moral suasion.
It was high for Erasmus and lower for Gessner. In the category of scholars who plan their legacy.
I need to introduce as an outlier to my main geographical focus,
which has basically been a a line from Zurich to Paris with passing through Basel and Strasbourg.
Because the case of Lisa Alderman presents such a great and unusual example of a wife who was
directly involved in the work of her husband and then exercised considerable control of his legacy.
Elder Bondy devoted great attention to the preservation of his collection of natural specimens,
which he will do the City of Bologna, along with funds to ensure its survival and the publication of his works.
He had published only his ornithology in three volumes and de insects before he died in 1605.
So the bulk of his natural histories, nine large folios, appeared posthumously during the 62 years after his death.
And here is an overview of those works and who is named on the title page.
So we can see that starting with the second of these posthumous publications,
the books named Five Different Men in combination or alone as variously gathering,
editing or composing works and usually boasting of the greatest effort.
Most prominent at first was Yohannes Cornelius Tarver,
who succeeded Hildebrand as professor of natural sciences in Bologna and brought to publication the volumes of the natural histories in 16,
12, 16 and 21, but very noticeably the first posthumous volume.
Of bloodless animals appeared after the the year after 11 days death with no one named in the title page.
But a Latin dedication signed by Francesca Calderon.
D In this two folio page Latin dedication to the City Council of Wallonia,
Francesca invoked her husband's 50 years of devotion to the cause of the éditions, bearing neither effort nor expense for the public good,
and bringing reputation to the city and for Jessica requested the honour of being counted herself among the clients of the city councillors,
as in, she hoped for financial support from them in return.
I don't know what came of that, but Francesca did parley her situation as heir into some revenue.
Although Elder Bondy had bequeathed his collections to the city.
Francesca had immediate control of them after his death, and she did not release them until years later.
Once she had secured an annual stipend for herself from the printer who bought the rights to other publications.
Francesca's is the only learned dedication signed by a woman that I've encountered so
far and signals a woman with exceptional skills and involvement in her husband's work.
They had two children who died in infancy, and Francesca's son, by a previous illegitimate relationship, died in adolescence.
So in later years, the household comprised a studious couple and whatever domestically they housed.
Francesca Fontana was older than the second wife from a family of status and means elder,
and his biographer describes her as a young woman of incomparable beauty and wisdom with ingenious capacities for every discipline.
I mean, this is much later. I do not know on what grounds exactly, but we do have a wonderful call.
Often at the end of Elder Bondi's five volume lexicon of inanimate things, noting in Italian that Francesca Fontana,
wife of the most excellent Lucia 11, glued these books of observations on inanimate things.
And then. Nothing is so base or common that some game gain cannot be perceived of it.
A variation of a plenty in tag. There's no book so bad that some good cannot be gotten of it.
So I suppose the implication is that the act of gluing might be considered below her station.
And yet it too was fruitful. Francisca probably also helped copy excerpts from ancient modern authorities on natural historical topics onto slips.
So here you can see classic elder Randi method of operation, much like the guest materials.
But here, rather than re-using letters or manuscripts made by others or printed books, it's really his own hand.
But it's been alphabetised and arranged properly by being cut up and moved around and glued.
In addition, Francesca brought money into the marriage that allowed them to move into a bigger house, which allowed more space for his work.
So the principle of the wife has helped me to the scholar articulate by the Poitiers in 1505,
with references to the wives of antiquity holding up lanterns for their husbands, was very concretely put into practice, in this case a century later.
And by 1700, I would say there are considerably more such examples facilitated by this shift
to the vernacular of many scholarly disciplines and during the 18th century,
to buy a new representation of companionate marriage as productive to the learned man, as Megan Roberts has argued.
But during the Renaissance, the dominant trope is rather a traditional one that marriage risked being a drag on scholarship.
Thomas more famously portrayed his family obligation as detracting from his books in the preface to his utopia.
I leave to myself. I'm into my book, no time for when I am home.
I must come and with my wife, chat with my children, talk with my servants,
all the which things I reckon and account among business for as much as they must be of necessity.
Be done. Unless a man will be a stranger in this house.
The Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives signals a similar expectation about marriage when he congratulating himself in a letter to a friend.
It's been more than three years since I've been married. Up until the present, thanks be to God.
Matrimony has not taken away a single hour of study from me, for which I cannot give clearer proof than my poverty, which sometimes frightens me.
He attributed his successful marriage to his wife's excellent upbringing by her mother and grandmother,
and since she was a cousin of his margaret of Eldora.
This was also a compliment to his own relatives.
VVS also praised his mother in law and his own mother in print in his treatise on the Education of Women published in the Year of his marriage.
But Erasmus's reaction to that book makes clear that mentioning family members in print was not the norm.
Erasmus scolded VVS for doing so in a in a letter.
You take pleasure in naming your parents as Cicero did, and this is certainly a sign of filial piety.
But the human mind is envious. They bear it more willingly when strangers to you are praised.
In other words, he's warning. Boasting of your family is no better than boasting of yourself.
Vaze responded in a letter defensively that he'd only mentioned his relatives three times, and many ancient authors had done the same.
This interaction, though, gives us some insight into why family members, and maybe especially women, are so rarely mentioned in print.
The potential for disapproval was ever present in the early 16th century still.
The real human relations were certainly more favourable than these tropes allowed.
We know that Thomas Moore took pride and joy in raising his daughters with considerable learning,
and we catch glimpses of the many ways that wives could help now and then.
So, for example, from the History of Plants by Gessner,
we have this note on a so it's a dillsburg root beer line little pair identified in Latin by the editors as surplus area or white beam.
My wife told me about this. They're red, wild and become ripe and soft soon after the cherries do with rather similar leaves.
One mile from Ohio. So. And of course that's in German.
In addition. And we know about the pointing errors.
I talked about how, you know, the wife was basically showcased as a learned lady.
But we also have private references to her.
So when Conrad is travelling and he needs to access some of his business, he asks his wife to look for them in his papers at home.
So this gives you some sense that she knew where stuff was, etc.
Of course, women contributed crucially to running the domestic sphere.
In any case, many an academic wife was the pillar of the practice of boarding students in the
professor's home for extra instruction for the former and extra income for the latter,
along with other potentially textual tasks. If the wife died or became seriously ill, the boarding was suspended,
as Elizabeth Harding has shown of 17th century German Protestant professors who
often preferred to do their teaching at home rather than more public settings.
The case of Martin Boots. His household, to which I turn now, offers a good example,
on the one hand of how students who boarded could render services of many kinds domestic and textual.
And on the other hand, is one of a pair of cases in which the family amanuensis managed to score was not lost in the absence of prior arrangements.
In short, the relations in this skirt scholar's inner circle could be discordant,
as in the case of butcher or cooperative in the next case of Atlanta or Neb.
So Martin Butcher was the principal reformer in Strasbourg until Catholic victories
led Charles wife to impose the Augsburg Interim on the city and butcher,
who attacked the interim, although he had initially signed it, was forced into exile at age 58.
He accepted the invitation of Thomas Cranmer to come to England and in 1549 he took up the region's
professorship of divinity at the University of Cambridge and moved there with his family.
His family consisted of his wife, the Brandis neigh Rosenblatt, who is an amazing woman.
She married four times, including three major reformers and bore 11 children.
So her first husband died very young. Then she married the first of the reformers, Johann Ackermann Porteous,
who was 22 years her senior and lived for just three more years after marrying her.
Then when Wolfgang Capito in neighbouring Strasbourg lost his wife Marten boots,
her recommended vibrant is to him and they were married for nine years.
When Booster's first wife, Elizabeth Silber Aizen, was dying, she urged her husband and the recently widowed, vibrant is to marry.
And interestingly, you see, Capito and Boots are also close intellectual allies.
They were reformers who tried to patch up swing lions and Lutherans.
And basically politics was more salient than the swing lions bulked on these this document that Boozer and Capito had drafted.
So coming to England, we have a very blended family.
And many of these are named in his will. We have the wife, we have a son of butchers by his first marriage who was weak in mind and body.
A daughter of a brand is in local and produce. A son and a daughter.
Agnes of the brand is in capital. And then two small children born of this new marriage, Martin, Junior and Elizabeth.
Then we have the Baroness's elderly mother and a granddaughter of hers through another offspring.
There's a servant girl, Margherita, and two servant pupils, one Guillermo's, who I think came from France.
So I'm calling him Guillaume and Martin BREAM. And for them, Butcher wrote up seven pages of rules known as the formula Vivendi.
So basically I'm zeroing in on another very cool source to catch a glimpse of what it's like to be a servant pupil in butchers household.
So the document is written in the hand of Martin Bram with annotations in butcher's hand.
It has 25 articles. The first part of the formula, Vivendi describes their activities as students.
They need to be pious, honest, obedient and studious of all the usual disciplines.
They should attend disputation at Cambridge, read text books are assigned and submit every week something written about their progress.
The second part describes their roles as servants.
They will light fires in the morning, clean butchers, clothes and shoes, set the table, lead the prayer at mealtime,
serve at table when their guests put books and other things away and keep the clocks on time.
One of them was expected to be available to attend to Boozer at all times. Butera also noted that he and his wife were the criterias familiar.
They had the authority to give them commands and hear complaints both. Finally, the two young men also served as boozer secretaries.
They were responsible for teaching the daughters, keeping a record of incoming and outgoing letters,
keeping Boozer apprised of his schedule and copying texts as requested.
Boozer added about this very important task and difficult for it was said that Boozer had trouble reading his own handwriting.
Quote, When I have given something to copy, let them insofar as possible guard against writing effectively.
Let them inspect each page to ensure they have written it with care and not omit any passage about which they have died.
Doubts. It seems like he may be speaking from experience here, but many, many teens who sort of skip over hard bits.
Despite these admonitions, they clearly did good work. Two of them have been identified as the scribes of a manuscript copy of Butchers de
Regno Christi presented to King Edward the Sixth and now in the British Library.
Sadly, this wonderful article chose as the beautiful binding of this manuscript, but not any of the insights.
So I have not seen the insights, but I think they were probably very nicely written.
These arrangements, though,
didn't last very long because Boots had died two years after moving to Cambridge in the will he finalised during his final illness.
Boots are left small sums and clothing to various children. So I'll just to remind you of who's in the will.
He left and larger ones to Capito's daughter Agnes, who nursed him in his illness.
She got 100 Florence and to his wife rebranded 600 florins of the servant pupils villainous was not mentioned,
but Martin Brim was to receive 12 crowns that he could take in cash or in books in addition to reimbursement for his return to the continent.
So he probably had come from Strasbourg.
The will also provided the same terms for margarita mates that has made servants 12 crowns plus moving expenses.
In addition quote because given her very young age, she will look for many things.
Henceforth, I adjudge to her alone the Golden Cup, which the King of England had recently given me at Christmas.
The will. Also remember, Dear Compatriots in Strasbourg, Ulrich Kelly was responsible for many favours to butcher.
He willed that his office linkway lighting in two big volumes,
and Butcher especially remembered a former amanuensis turned colleague, Conrad Joubert, a most learned man.
Dear brother in the Lord and companion in the service of God, Hubert.
This is in the will, quote, carried out many labours for me and my family and does so every day until now.
Even though Hubert was still in Strasbourg, but clearly carrying out business, their boozer gave him quote from my books Whichever he wants,
up to the sum of 12 gold coins of Strasbourg, and the books should be appraised as low as possible for him and to his wife.
A piece of cloth commonly called us should be bought to make a dress.
So although Boozer had addressed him as a colleague, Hubert had started as an amanuensis.
As a boy of 12. He left home to study in Heidelberg, then Basel, just as the Reformation was underway there,
which culminated in the ousting of the bishop in 1529 so soon after his arrival.
He started as a formal, loose and student of excellent ideas. What a husband number two of Brandies Basil's principal reformer Ocalan Porteous
appreciated excellent handwriting and shortly before his death recommended him to boot.
Sir Hubert was 24 years old, was paid 80 gulden per year when he entered Butcher's household in 1531.
And documents in the Strasbourg archive show how Hubert rewrote, which his drafts clarified his manuscripts, annotated his letters,
adding the topic of the letter, for example, the date, the identity of the correspondent in order to facilitate storing and retrieving them.
We know of other amanuensis who worked with Butcher in the Strasbourg years. Wolfgang Mukhlas went on to teach theology in Baron Johann Langland,
who translated into Latin a German treatise on the care of the soul and Christoph Soul,
who joined Butcher's family by marrying the daughter of a Brandeis and uncle in Paris.
So we see a very tightly knit community here. Of all these men, two played a crucial role in curating butcher's paper.
After his death, Martin Bram, the young servant pupil listed in the formula of Andy and Konrad Herbert,
the long loyal and then under his turn, pastor and defender in Strasbourg.
So strangely, despite detailed requests of many things, Butcher did not mention the many papers and manuscripts he left at his death.
And in this, her third time as a widow of a reformer, if everyone just knew her mind, she dissolved the Cambridge household as fast as possible.
So the bulk of the books and papers that were in England and went back to Strasbourg first and then on to her hometown in Basel.
She did not remarry. As one of the two executors named by butcher Matthew Parker played a key role in these negotiations.
Edward the Sixth and Cranmer were main buyers of the papers,
and one scholar has estimated that the price that the papers fetched represented one quarter of the total value of Bruce's estate.
Parker, though, ended up owning a substantial portion of the manuscripts,
whether immediately in his capacity as executor or through later acquisition.
At the time, he was vice chancellor of the city of Cambridge.
He went on to become Archbishop of Canterbury under Elizabeth and to bequeath his exceptional collection of manuscripts to Corpus Christi College,
where they form the Parker Library. And as a result, some butcher manuscripts are now there.
And one of them, this one contains butchers Constance Defence SEO and the apologia of Herman Van Vliet,
which is a 700 page manuscript prepared for publication but not used.
The texts were only printed in 1613 in Geneva with a different dedication, different dedicated.
This manuscript was scribed by Martin Bram, which is sort of an pupil, and he also wrote a dedication to Parker in his own voice.
This dedication added after Butcher's death. Bram describes himself as not only a friend, but a client of Parker.
The book is a New Year's gift, he says. I'm not in your household, but in order to demonstrate my gratitude for your many kindnesses,
I offer you my work and activity which I have expended in copying this book for several weeks to give you.
So there's a sample of Bram's handwriting. And Bram went on to study at Paris and became rector of a gymnasium in Lindow in Lake Constance.
So vibrant is did return with one of butcher's drafts back with her, which had been presented in manuscript to Edward.
And that is the direct know Christie. This work was created for the first time in Brazil in 1557 with the dedication
of the King of Denmark signed by the most devoted heirs of the deceased,
Martin Boozer. No one being named, but we do know that Conrad Hubert was involved in this publication.
He must have gotten the manuscript from V Brandis because we have a Lutheran pastor complaining that Butcher's views on divorce
in this work were deviant and the butcher surely would not have wanted them to be publicised and published after his death.
So Conrad Hubert is taking the angry, you know, the heat of the angry reader.
They brought us. His otherwise hasty dispersal of butcher's papers certainly complicates thing for Hubert,
who worked for years to gather Bush's manuscript for publication, including exchanging some letters with Brame.
The process was stalled during the reign of Mary in 1553 to 58, when these hard core and high profile Protestants in England went into exile,
hiding or to their death since Butcher was already dead, the most Mary could do to him was to disinter his remains.
Burn them. And so actually,
the first book that Hubert published was an account of how Butcher had been buried and the remains burned and then reburied under Elizabeth.
This moment of great relief for these Protestants in 1561.
So this book was printed in Strasbourg at the expense of the Basel printer up arenas,
who was also committed to publishing the unpublished manuscripts of Butcher.
But then parentheses, Death in 1568 was a further complication.
So it was another nine years before the script.
The ugly canon of Martin Luther appeared in 1577 with a dedication by Hubert,
who used the opportunity to praise the deceased to attack butchers enemies and mention his own contributions.
I was not only a spectator, but his helper for about 18 years in his writings, his sermons,
and visiting the sick in resolving the disagreements of the faithful,
helping the poor, and recalling those who aired whatever sect they started to join.
Hubert had completed the second volume of scripture on the corner, which would have encompassed Butcher's remaining opera.
But the printer of the first volume,
Petra's paranoia of Basel came under pressure from reformed factions hostile to butcher and baulked at publishing it.
So we see a further problem here is that the you know, the confessional conflicts are still continuing and butcher is out of fashion.
So Hubert was lucky to get one volume published. He then died a few months later,
and the efforts of Hubert's son Samuel to try and publish the second volume of the script on the counter were not successful.
But Hubert is best known. His longest legacy is some hymns, which had a long Fortuna and evangelical repertoire, but largely unattributed.
So basically his public legacy to add to it was to have recovered and published the English writings of his principle.
He did so despite the fact that far from helping in that endeavour, Butcher's wife took pretty active measures to limit and complicate the process.
So for a more positive dynamic between AMANUENSIS and family members, I offer the case of advantage on EB Professor at the College Royale,
whose polemic with Ramos I mentioned last time and Neal Kenny has featured growing up family in his
fascinating analysis of the strategies of families for upward mobility in the world of literary reputation.
Tony was very much the scholar and expert in Greek who'd published more than 30 editions or commentaries or annotations of classical texts.
By the time of his death in 1565, at the age of 53, and the family transmission was off to a good start with his wife, Maiden Kimo.
Two daughters, three sons. From what was likely a modest background for seniors.
The two sons reached higher office. O'Day was appointed first president of the Mint at the young age of 28.
But he died before he could take office. Etienne, the longest lived of the brothers, became cosier in the parliament of Paris.
They were all involved in publishing the literary remains of other senior.
Neil Kenny makes a salutary point that printed statements in the pair text of posthumous
publications need not correspond to the realities of the production of these books,
but they serve principally to create a persona for the individuals involved and for the standing of the family as a whole,
which will draw down to all its members. This is what he calls a family function.
I love it. In addition to the author function, the serve and function, we have the family function.
So I have not used any manuscript sources to probe for gaps between printed claims and more private interactions in the case of the tyranny of family.
And only a handful of letters have been located in any case.
So I will be relying on the printed statements with a special interest in the depiction of those from outside the family who helped.
They are named and thanked warmly in print, which strikes me as unusual.
One Jack Daniel is described as a former student who had become a royal official and the other is described as a
friend of long standing greenfield down to nab himself had referred to fuel down in his lifetime in his adverse area.
In this passage, which is really confusing, it's a comment on Vitruvius.
So it's all about levers and pistons.
And basically the point is that feel that collated a text very carefully, it's not clear whether it is a manuscript or a printed book.
And the question is whether he used the word Charlotte or Calcutt.
But so still that is thanked here and is my friend.
Which he's never determined anyone says has never used. So then we have the first posthumous publication by the eldest son, Otto.
With thanks to Daniel and Fyodor, who, quote, joined with his old father by necessity,
lived with him diligently for many years and had zealously aided him in his studies,
notably because he had learned through long practice how to read his handwriting, which few could.
So if this isn't an amanuensis, you know, we see those telling signs of amanuensis here, even though the word is always friend.
We. I mentioned in lecture three how something work done as a friend is not mechanical
in the sense of perform for another and that may be what's operating here.
So next we have volume three of their adversary, IA which which is published as by Adriano Jr,
posthumous literary offspring liberated from eternal oblivion and brought to
light by the diligence of my mother and the work of the friends of my father.
So the mother is not otherwise named but gets credit. And then a poem by Jane Doe Ha, one of the playwright poets,
actually praises Jeb's wife for her great conscientiousness and then has this
lovely pun asking the dedicated to protect both Johnny Sleep and his liberals,
his books and his friends. So we don't know much about the mother's activities, but nevertheless, she clearly was known to a circle of learned people.
In 1580, then we have a reprint of the whole adversary.
So at this point, oh, actually I wanted to mention the 1557, which is here is a slightly out of date,
out of order 15 5077 is odds turn to sign the front matter.
This is an address to the reader in which he explains he names the amanuensis in order to say that he's dead and can't finish the work.
Which is fascinating and I feel that a most learned man, dearest friend to my father after he'd found this Golia on the first book of poems of Horace.
Among the notes of my deceased father and it copy them from the autograph and added all the places in the published adverse area that concern.
This author decided finally to publish them, but he was prevented from it by death.
And so the son acknowledges this work and carries it on.
So in 1580, we have the complete edition of The Adversary.
And at this point, feel that appears acknowledged explicitly in each of the indexes accompanying the volume totalling 82 pages.
Of course, he was dead by then, but he'd evidently done the work in 1600.
That's near reprints the whole thing. And he interestingly dedicates this opera to the remaining son, Etienne, the other two having died.
And thanks, Etienne, as a printer for giving him the author's autograph.
But that's near the end. Drops mention of fuel down. And from then on, the family ceased, basically taking part in presenting posthumous works.
So basically we have the brothers taking turn, taking turns, publishing a series of posthumous publications,
thanking their mother one another, and in every case, children,
including even after the last year, the latter's death, when the shout out couldn't elicit more work from him,
which might be one of the purposes of of mention in print.
So I want to close with the cases of the longest impact on the reputation of a principal by an amanuensis.
So you have a little quiz here.
This is from Wikipedia page for someone a companion during the Basil years expressed a quite unflattering opinion on this person.
Two years I passed in his company, he spent and drinking and gluttony day and night.
He could not be found sober an hour or two together, in particular after his departure from Basel.
Who is this? Paracelsus.
Who is so? That companion is his amanuensis for two years.
Who is best known as a major printer of basil. You honest uprightness.
Who was a young man at the time and who.
Was invited to was asked by Johan Vier what it was like to work for Paracelsus, and perhaps to his regret,
or at least Oparanya explicitly said he regretted writing this letter, which he wrote after Paracelsus his death.
It's a tell all letter. So he talks about how Paracelsus never changed clothes when going to bed.
He didn't know Latin very well. He got lucky with his treatments.
He made up arenas, sniff some horrible concoction that made him pass out and he barely was revived.
He was prone to violence. He got, you know, and he got drunk.
But he also says that when drunk, he would dictate with such good coherence that the most sober, positive person couldn't have done it better.
I then translated what he had dictated into Latin as well as I could,
and these writings, translated in part by me and in part by others, were later printed.
So this is the letter which you can find in German.
From Steinman. I'm not sure it's been entirely translated into English, and of course it's circulated in Latin.
It was printed at least four different times, down to 1615 by of course, by people hostile to Paracelsus, but also by people favourable to him.
So in this case, we have the intimate portraits of the scholar thanks to the amanuensis.
Although interestingly, a perin is then is also this letter circulated publicly only after uprightness is death,
because speaking ill of the dead was obviously a big no no and people disputed whether or not a parenthesis regretted on his deathbed,
having said spoken ill in writing of Paracelsus.
Fascinatingly this interest in uprightness.
Paracelsus amanuensis is visible in this 18th century print which lists all the various things uprightness did.
And amanuensis to Paracelsus is one of them. I'm not aware of anybody else.
Of course, as a third party long after his death. But we can see how this account has has been nurtured down to the Wikipedia page.
And another one. You have stuck with me so long. And I have not mentioned Milton's daughters.
So basically. Milton's daughters,
the account that he dictated to his daughters in Latin and Greek without their understanding
what he was dictating is told after his death by someone who had served in his household.
However, Milton's. Milton's biography was incredibly politicised.
There is national politics, but there's also family politics. There were lawsuits flying around this family.
There's a lot of resentments of many kinds, so I take it all with a grain of salt.
Of course, Milton became blind. He relied on people to take dictation Daniel Skinner, Thomas Elwood,
his nephews Edward and John Phillips, and famously anybody who walked in the door.
If Milton felt like dictating. So I you know, why are Milton's daughters so iconic?
And basically, there's a spate of representation of this starting in the late 18th century through the 19th century.
So these are some some images we have, you know, Google and Graham on Milton's doors.
And so there was a lot more discussion of them in 1820 than now.
We can speak about this comparatively.
And I love this this book about George Eliot's dialogue with Milton's daughters, I find with Milton and and the story of the daughters,
the repressed potential of women who were not educated enough to appreciate what he was dictating to them.
And so I love this, you know, 1880 Women's magazine talking about Milton's daughters, your selection,
bemoaning the fact that these girls, you know, were survivors of another, whether their father or husbands.
Suppose Milton's daughters had been taught to understand that, to delight in the stately splendour of the folios they abhorred.
Suppose a learned father had gently led them to love the quiet and still air of delightful study.
If we gave our girls mental training instead of the arbitrary curriculum of the schools, they would enjoy their own minds.
They would be full of resources against stagnation, against idleness and discontent, and the besetting sin of extravagance and dress.
So clearly, women's education is a great thing because we won't have Milton's daughters anymore.
So I think Milton's daughter just becomes iconic of this whole message, including, you know, ceasing having extravagant dress.
So but nonetheless, I don't want to deny that daughters were pressed into service when they didn't want to be pressed into service.
I don't tend to believe the Milton's daughters account is particularly trustworthy or representative.
But I have another one for you, which is thanks to the work of Anna maria Rose on Martin Lister and his remarkable daughters.
So Martin Lister. Wrote multiple works entirely engraved with, in this particular case, a history of shells.
And you can see that this the sign office, Susanna and Anna Lister painted the pictures made the images.
It's published at his own expense in London, at great expense and interesting.
The Bodleian is the repository of some of the copper plates that the Lister daughters both so they drew and then they incised,
they limned, the engraving themselves. Of course, this was a huge saving for the father to have this done in house.
And Anna maria Ross quotes this line of a friend of Lister's writing to him I do not wonder that your work women begin to be tired.
You have held them to it so long to it. And on that note, I have held you very long to it.
Thank you very much. I will stop here.