Typographical Translations: Spanish Refashioning of Lipsius'sPoliticorum libri sex

Typographical Translations: Spanish Refashioning of Lipsius's Politicorum libri sexAuthor(s): Carmen PeraitaSource: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter 2011), pp. 1106-1147Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/664086 .

Accessed: 27/11/2014 21:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Renaissance Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 155.97.178.73 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 21:33:32 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/664086?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Typographical Translations: SpanishRefashioning of Lipsius’sPoliticorum libri sex*

by C A R M E N P E R A I T A

The typographical language of Justus Lipsius’s Politicorum libri sex (1589) is a crucial elementfor understanding its compositio. The page layout, designed by Lipsius (1547 –1606) probablyin collaboration with his printer, displayed the author’s inventive methods and writing strategies.All Latin editions of the Politica followed the precise typographic design of the editio princeps. Thework was disseminated across seventeenth-century Europe by different printers without changesto its fundamental material features, including its typography. Something different happened,however, with the various vernacular editions of the Politica. All of them redesigned Lipsius’stypography. These editions refashioned the display of sententiae and provided visual uniformityto the page, transforming the text from a compendium of interrelated commonplaces into a densetreatise. In this article I focus on the changes and accommodations evidenced in Bernardino deMendoza’s Spanish translation. In this case, an exceptional document survived that allows one toexamine the different interventions in the process of accommodation of the Politica: the printer’scopy and the manuscript supervised by Mendoza, approved and licensed by the Council of Castile,and used by the Imprenta Real in Madrid to print Los seis libros de las Polıticas (1604).

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N

I n his speech on the nobility of the printing press, the Spanish licentiateMelchor de Cabrera Nunez de Guzman states that ‘‘The printing press

receives nothing from books; books, on the other hand, receive everythingfrom the printing press since it reproduces them and gives them a new life;because books arrive at the printing press shapeless and without form, but

*Earlier versions of this article were presented in the Seminario Interdisciplinar deEstudios sobre Cultura Escrita, at the Universidad de Alcala in Spain (20 March 2009); theEuropean Society for Textual Scholarship Conference (19–21 November 2009); and

‘‘Pruebas de imprenta: simposio sobre la cultura grafica del libro en la Espana moderna,’’a colloquium at Queen’s University in Belfast (12–13 November 2010). I thank theparticipants for their comments. Thanks also to Jeanine De Landtsheer for a meticulous andgenerous reading of an earlier draft, and to Roger Chartier and two anonymous RQ readers

for their detailed and pertinent comments. Thanks as well to Anne Cruz, Gabriel SanchezEspinosa, Victoria Pineda, Antonio Castillo, and Nicolas M. Defina for their suggestions. Alltranslations are the author’s, except where otherwise noted.

Renaissance Quarterly 64 (2011): 1106–47 [1106]



they leave being readable and communicating the light and doctrine thatthey contain.’’1

Framed within a defense of printing as a liberal art and arguing for legalprivileges and tax exemptions for the trade, Cabrera’s statement mightappear hyperbolic in its praise of the role entrusted to the printer in givingshape and legibility to books. It is well known, however, that the printercarried out decisive transformations when converting the manuscript intoa printed book.2 Nevertheless, early modern authors who perceived thelayout as a fundamental mechanism in the production of meaning of theirtext not infrequently assumed an active role in their book’s typographicdesign and participated in decisions usually made by the printer.

This article deals with the logic of the typographic design, thedistribution of emphasis — ‘‘toning and laying Emphasis,’’ to quote theearly modern printer Joseph Moxon (1627–91) — in the mise en texteimplicated in producing Justus Lipsius’s Politicorum sive civilis doctrinae librisex (Leyden, Franciscus Raphelengium, 1589, henceforth the Politica), oneof seventeenth-century Europe’s most frequently printed political treatises(f ig. 1).3 Building on previous critical attention to the layout of the Politica,especially Moss’s seminal article, my study further examines the layoutas a multifaceted process, exploring the inventive refashioning of thetypography, the transformation in the readability of the distinctive visualstyle of the Latin page, carried out in vernacular translations. Thetypography was instrumental in shaping the hybrid textual genre that wasthe Politica, an unconventional cento, or commonplace book, that inviteda variety of humanist reading practices.

Lipsius considered the typography a crucial component of the Politica,of the construction of the textual genre of his cento. Vernacular translationssignificantly altered the Latin layout, thus transforming the genre of thework. In exploring various typographical stages in the Politica, my articlemakes the case for the need to examine the refashioning of the typographyand its material emergence of meaning, as well as its implications for readingpractices. I focus on Bernardino de Mendoza’s Spanish translation (ca.1540–1604), and the reworking of the Politica’s layout, which I contextualizewithin its cultural, social, and political framework of production. In this case,

1Cabrera Nunez de Guzman, 36: ‘‘La Imprenta, nada recibe de los Libros; Ellos si, pueslos reengendra, y da nuevo ser; porque llegando a ella informes, y faltos de disposicion, salen

tratables, y comunicando la luz, y doctrina que encierran.’’2See McKenzie, 1999; Chartier, 2000 and 2001; Bouza, 1998 and 2004.3Oestrich calculates that ninety-six editions were printed between 1589 and the middle

of the eighteenth century; see also Van der Haeghen, 3:1040–60.

1107TYPOGRAPHICAL TRANSLATIONS



an extraordinary manuscript is extant that helps to better understand themultiple levels of collaboration and intervention in typographic decisions:the printer’s copy used by Juan Flamenco to print in the Imprenta Real,

FIGURE 1. Politicorum libri sex, front page. Moretus, Antwerp, 1599. SalaCervantes, R-38059, Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid.

RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY1108



Los seis libros de las Polıticas o doctrina civil de Justo Lipsio, que siruen parael gouierno del Reyno, o Principado (Madrid, 1604, henceforth Polıticas)(f ig. 2).4

FIGURE 2. Los seis libros de las Polıticas, front page. Imprenta Real, Madrid, 1604.Sala Cervantes, R-15252, Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid.

4The manuscript is in Archivo Historico Nacional, Leg 4513, ex 2, Seccion Inquisicion,

Madrid. Juan Flamenco managed the Imprenta Real — the printing press of Tomas de Junti,a distant relative of the Giunti dynasty of Italian printers — from its beginning in 1596 until hisdeath in 1612; see Delgado; and Petras for the Giunti printers in Spain. Grafton presents a concise

and vibrant portrait of Lipsius’s erudition, and pays attention to the humanist’s reception in Spain.




2. A U T H O R I A L E N G A G E M E N T W I T H T H E P O L I T I C A ’ S

T Y P O G R A P H I C L A N G U A G E

Conceived as a concise discourse on the reason of state and the art ofgoverning the monarchy, the Politica articulated a wide range of concernssurrounding moral, political, and religious issues, such as the role ofprudence in dealing with religious dissension and the importance andrestrictions of freedom of conscience. The work is a cento composed of morethan 2,000 ‘‘beautiful, sharp’’ sententiae from an array of classical authors, offragments in both prose and poetry, Latin and Greek.5 The sentencesadroitly combine clusters of decontextualized, fragmented, and juxtaposedmaxims — compared by Lipsius to seeds planted in good soil — connectedthrough the humanist’s own words.

Lipsius was aware of the distinctive composition of his work, stating: ‘‘Ihave instituted an unusual kind of genre, in which I could truly say thateverything is mine, and nothing.’’6 The selection and arrangement (therhetorical inventio and dispositio) are his own. He borrowed the phrases —largely from historians, especially Tacitus — and provided the artificio, thecriteria of selecting and sorting the material, which was arranged on therhetorical principle of brevitas — expressive, concise discourse — and argutadictio. Certainly the Politica displayed Lipsius’s resourceful method oforganizing his remarkable erudition and extraordinary memory, of which hewas so proud.7

The Politica’s typography provided graphic significance to the text. Thelayout of the Latin page displays a functional quality that contributed to thework’s extraordinary success for 150 years. Lipsius claimed that the precisemise en page — a substantial mechanism that made visible his inventiveapproach in composing the cento — was indispensable for an accurateunderstanding of the Politica. Moreover, the layout makes visible the‘‘intimate connection between remembering and re-marking a text,’’

5Lipsius, 2004, 232–33: ‘‘quam tot Sententias in unum concudere; pulchras, acres.’’All the Politica’s Latin and English quotations are from this source, Waszink’s bilingual

edition.6Ibid., 230–32: ‘‘Nam inopinatum quoddam stili genus instituimos: in quo vere possim

dicere, omnia Nostra esse, et nihil.’’7M. W. Thomas, 410: ‘‘Common-place books are about memory, which takes both

immaterial and material form; the commonplace book is like a record of what that memorymight look like.’’ For the function of memory in early modern information management, see

Blair.




between the reading and writing that constitute a central dimension of thestructure of centos and commonplace books.8

In its novelty, the Politica was arguably an eccentric cento. Lipsiusclaimed that the creation of meaning in the Politica by means of a strategicalignment of disjointed sententiae placed the book in ‘‘a textual genre neverbefore invented.’’9 The extravagant juxtaposition and recontextualization ofsententiae fashion a thematically cohesive and elegant text. It successfullyconveyed to the reader the feeling of negotiating between ancient textsand modern discourse, between the authority of historians — who werethe source itself of ‘‘Political Prudence’’ — and creative guidance on howto govern European monarchies in turbulent times. Most importantly,Lipsius’s crafted layout and his precise typography were instrumentalin fashioning the direct impression and graphic semblance of a directtransaction with the words of the classics.

Lipsius stressed that his approach did not simply offer scattered maxims.His words were necessary, he observed, to articulate an all-encompassingnew meaning, elaborated from the ingenious combination of the fragmentedmaxims. Turning to an architectonic metaphor (a reference to Seneca’sstyle), Lipsius affirms that his words prevented the sententiae from fallingapart as if they were ‘‘limestone without mortar’’: ‘‘I have either connectedthem fittingly or I have . . . joined them together with the cement, so tospeak, of my own words.’’10 The cement of the humanist’s words joins andsets the auctores’ maxims, provides consistency, adds structure, producesmeaning, and creates unity within textual diversity. Moreover, I will show,the function of cementing is immediately visible on the page, through thetypographic use of roman type when printing the humanist’s connectingwords.

In order to stress both the discrete textual pieces and their contiguitywithin a thematically coherent discourse, Lipsius chooses a textile metaphor

8Lipsius, 2004, 722, refers to his work as a commonplace book only in one passage,

included at the end in NOTAE: ‘‘Quid enim aliud ista, quam velut tabulae quaedamdispositae, et LOCI COMMUNES sunt?’’ (‘‘For what is it but a well-arranged register ofaccounts or COMMONPLACES?’’). The passage disappeared in the revised version ofPolitica; see Moss, 1998, 422, 431; Lipsius, 2004, 191–92. Waszink, 1997a and 1997b,

study Lipsius’s possible use of commonplace books when composing the Politica. Forcommonplace books, see Moss, 1996a, 1996b, 1998, and 2005; Goyet; M. W. Thomas;Havens. See Darnton for a general overview on commonplace books; Sharpe for the

relevance of Sir William Drake’s commonplace books for the historian.9Lipsius, 2004, 230–31: ‘‘praesertim alio quodam et novo plane modo.’’10Ibid., 232–33: ‘‘arena sine calce’’; ‘‘aut interdum velut caemento quodam

commisimus nostrorum verborum.’’




that reinforces the creation of meaning deriving from fragmentation. In thesame way that the Phrygians wove tapestries with threads of a variety ofcolors, he weaves a coherent work that not only has color, is adorned withfigures of speech and a variety of sententiae, but also comes alive: ‘‘I haveventured to embellish with figures of speech and a varied structure ofconnecting sentences, so that the work would not only have color, butbreath, as it were, and life.’’11 As we will see, this readiness to simultaneouslydraw attention to a cento’s typical fragmentation and to the Politica’s textualcohesion is relevant for our understanding of the translators’ approaches tothe material refashioning of the text.

The mise en page has a significant function in configuring the Politicaas a cento, as it reveals the distinct framework of its composite format.Moreover, it emphasizes the extent of Lipsius’s composing strategies, basedon excerpting and combining the sententiae, and cementing them with hisown words. The typography of the Latin page circumscribes and highlightseach segment with remarkable exactitude, inscribing the segments inLipsius’s innovative discourse. Indeed, the mise en page is based ona double movement. On the one hand, it fulfills Lipsius’s intent ofvisually alerting the reader to the distinct constituent parts, to eachsententia, as well as to the variety of genres and texts, the numerous Greekand Latin auctores excerpted; on the other, the layout renders the workintriguingly comprehensive by establishing cohesiveness and by unifyingdisparate fragments within a single enunciation.

Peter Burke has studied the dynamic role of early modern printingin the process of adapting and reinterpreting a text through its diversetranslations. For instance, printers across Europe introduced significantchanges in the format, paratexts, and layout of Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano inits various languages and editions, even refashioning the genre of the workfrom dialogue into recipe-book.12 Interestingly, the case of the Politica andits Latin printers is conspicuously different. The typographic language ofRaphelengius’s editio princeps was reproduced with few alterations in thenumerous Latin editions produced throughout decades by diverse printers in

11Ibid.: ‘‘Quod ipsum figuris etiam et vario sermonis ductu ornare ausus sum: ut noncolorem solum haberet, sed quasi spiritum et vitam.’’ The word color had a rhetorical

dimension as ornatio. Lanham, 37, explains that for Quintilian, color meant ‘‘a particularslant or gloss one seeks to give an argument or a sequence of events.’’ Moss, 1998, 431,comments on the passage, explaining that the Politica was offered ‘‘as an image of a political

system which holds together unity and diversity in steady balance.’’12Burke, 43: ‘‘In this case, the paratext helped transform the Courtier from an open

dialogue, probably designed to be read aloud, into a closed treatise, an instruction manual, or

one might even say a ‘recipe book.’’’




different countries. Indeed, the successive printings maintained the layoutdevised by Lipsius and his first printer, since it was perceived as an expressivecomponent for an appropriate reading, for interpreting the text,understanding its meaning, and even using the book. The main changesin later Latin printings reduced the format and, occasionally, added anengraved frontispiece. From the large quarto printed in Leiden or Antwerp,the format became smaller in size, the book more portable, and lessexpensive. Aiming at a broader market, Raphelengius printed the Politica inoctavo the very same year he produced the elegant quarto editio princeps: thelatter cost twice as much as the former. However, the smaller formats left thelayout almost unchanged: such was the case for the octavo of Lyon andLondon, the duodecimo of Paris, and the sixteenmo printed in Leiden byMaire and in Amsterdam by Blaue, which included frontispieces. Even Blaue’sremarkable minuscule edition kept the editio princeps’s excellent legibility.

Precisely why numerous European printers of the Politica did notmodify the layout and typography of the Latin page remains debatable: itmay have been due to the ease in sharing typographic criteria across thevarious humanist cultural communities connected by Latin.13 Relying on theoriginal layout likely facilitated its dissemination, especially across such avast geographic territory that, while unified by Latin, was characterized bydiverse social, political, and intellectual traditions. Probably the humanistreader expected that certain Latin texts would be printed without changes inthe specific layout and typography. Indeed, European printers tended tofollow a strategy of material uniformity when printing Latin texts witha complex typography such as the Politica, in contrast to changes by printersand editors introduced in new editions of vernacular works, such as IlCortegiano.

The intricate layout of the Politica was designed by Lipsius himself, incollaboration with Raphelengius. It demanded an orchestrated editorialwork that involved the author, who lived next to Raphelengius when his textwas being printed, as well as the compositors and correctors at the printingoffice, and perhaps the scribe, who might have prepared the printer’s copy.The editio princeps included, highlighted in the verso of the title page,a warning to the typographer who would consider undertaking the work ofprinting the Politica (f ig. 3), probably revealing Lipsius’s concern incontrolling future typographic decisions: ‘‘Printer, whoever you are, I askyou not to reprint this work without consulting me or without havingobtained my orders to do so. I have maintained small distinctions in this

13A technical factor could have favored the reproduction of the same layout: when

reprinting a text, the tendency was to copy the layout of an available previous edition.




work, in the Punctuation, the Spaces between items, in the Notes and in thedistinctions of Words, which are not easy for you to reproduce, but whichcannot be neglected or upset without damage to the work.’’14

While fairly uncommon, the interventions of early modern authors inthe layout of their printed works were not unknown. Several conspicuousinstances of authors intervening in the typographical design of their bookshave been extensively studied.15 John Dee traveled across Europe in search ofa quality printer for his Monas Hieroglyphica, which was printed, with theauthor’s notable typographical intervention, by Willem Silvius (Antwerp,1564). Dee’s preliminaries include a letter in which he indicates to theprinter in terms not unlike Lipsius’s years later, to ‘‘follow my ownexactitudes everywhere (as far as is possible), in Diversity of types, in

14Lipsius, 2004, 225; ibid., 224: ‘‘Typographe, qvisqvis es, rogamvs. Ne absque nostroarbitrio aut iussu haec recudas. Minuta quaedam hic seruauimus, in Punctis, Interuallis,

Notulis, Verborum discriminibus, haud facile per te seruanda: sed quae neglegitamen autinuerti sine noxa Operis non possunt.’’ Although it is less likely, the printer, not Lipsius,could have added the paragraph. When Politica was published late in 1589, a peculiar

situation regarding the privilege to print Lipsius’s works arose that could have influenced thedecision to include the warning. When a printer died, the printing privileges he owned werecancelled. Plantin, who owned the privilege, died at the same time that his son-in-law

Raphelengius started to print the Politica. De Landtsheer, 2009, identifies a fascinatingchange in the conception of intellectual property after Plantin’s death in Lipsius’s request toown the privilege for printing his works. The Politica was widely printed by various printers,but only Plantin’s editions included the paragraph. The warning is not found in other Latin

editions, such as Frankfurt (Johann Wechel, 1591), Lyon (Hvg. A Porta apud Fratres deGabiano, 1592), Paris (L. Delas, 1594), Verona (Societatis aspirantium cura publica, 1601),or London (George Bishop for J. Wolfe, 1590). However, the edition printed by G. Blaeu in

Amsterdam (1632) includes twice a note to the reader concerning the typography — acrossfrom the title page, printed with smaller typeface, and printed again with a variant on theverso of the title page: ‘‘LECTOR / Minuta quaedam hic seruauimus, in Punctes, Intervallis,

Natulis, Verborum discrimini- / bus, quae Lipsius seruanda voliut,’’ which becomes‘‘monuit.’’

15Among others, Oronce Fine controlled every detail of the printing process of his

mathematical and alchemy books. Janssen, 23, reflects on the authors’ intervention in thetypographic design of their works, and studies the case of John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica,emphasizing aspects, such as the design of the frontispiece, in which Dee intervened. Ibid.,24–26, presents a bibliography of authors in the sixteenth century who contributed to the

typographic design of their works; see also, Brun for Fine; McKenzie, 2002, for Congreve;Garza Merino, 2004, for the Spanish mathematician Perez de Moya. Distrustful of thequality of Castilian printers, the historian Esteban de Garibay (1533–1600) travelled to

Antwerp to print with Plantin his immense manuscript of one of the first general histories ofSpain, the Compendio historial in forty books (1571); see Vosters; Moll. Also, Ben Jonson’sintervention in the printing of his works has been extensively studied: see, for example,

Loewenstein, 2002a.




punctuation, in lines, in diagrams, in tables, in numbers and in othermatters.’’16

But what are those distinctions in the punctuation, the spaces, the notes,and the distinctions of words to which Lipsius refers, those things that arenot easy for the typographer to reproduce, but that cannot be disregarded

FIGURE 3. Politicorum libri sex, front page, verso. Moretus, Antwerp, 1599. SalaCervantes, R-38059, Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid.

16Janssen, 25: ‘‘Ut ubique accuratam mean, in Literarum Varietate, Punctis, Lineis,

Diagrammatibus, Schematibus, Numeris, aliisque, Imiteris, (quantum possis) Diligentiam.’’




‘‘without damage to the work’’? Lipsius’s preliminary remarks, ‘‘Therationale and form of this work’’ and ‘‘Some admonitions, or warnings,’’explain at length the reason for writing a ‘‘POLITICS’’ (printed in capitalletters), as well as his choice of the cento genre and the significance of theexpressive material presentation of his work.17 The author linked thefunctionality of the layout to how he expected his book to be read.

Lipsius’s prologue ‘‘About the reason and the form of our work’’dramatically urges the reader to pause before beginning his task at what hecalls the ‘‘entrance’’ of the book, creating a sense of enclosure in enteringthe Politica, of crossing its threshold and anticipating the illusion ofwandering within the text.18 There, between a nuanced and ambivalentpraise of the ‘‘sharp, fiery as it is subtle’’ genius of Machiavelli, Lipsiuscomments on his rationale for writing: ‘‘to equip those who rule forgoverning.’’19

Suggesting ways of approaching his book with greater profit, Lipsiusreiterates advice given to Roman gladiators, and exhorts to read it more thanonce. His exhortation stresses the difficulties and obscurities inherent in thework, which demands a coordinated effort of body and mind. At the sametime, Lipsius emphasizes the pedagogical usefulness of his cento, providedthat it is read with the appropriate technique and discipline detailed in‘‘Some Admonitions, or Warning.’’ This second preface comments on thelayout’s logic and the conditions for the possibility of a correct understandingof the work. It is printed as a numbered list that offers recommendations foradvantageously navigating the Politica.

Lipsius insists on the expressive dimension of his carefully designedtypographic language. He observes that readers can apprehend the orderingprinciple that develops and conceptualizes the Politica’s arguments if theyexplicitly pay attention to the precise distribution of visual emphasis onthe page: paragraphs and indentations, printed marginalia and chapterheadings, the contrast of letter types, and punctuation marks (f ig. 4).Spacious blanks structure the fragmented components of the work on thepage. Each sententia is displayed in a clearly separate paragraph. Indentationsare visible when the maxims are verses. Greek fragments, mainly of poetry,are quoted in the original language, which adds a humanistic distinctionto the layout’s aesthetic of juxtaposition. The humanist urges readers to‘‘carefully observe the distinctions between my words, and those of others

17Lipsius, 2004, 230–31: ‘‘De consilio et forma nostri operis,’’ ‘‘MONITA quaedam,sive CAUTIONES.’’

18Ibid., 230: ‘‘paullum in vestibulo hoc siste.’’19Ibid.: ‘‘acre, subtile, igneum.’’




(we have distinguished them by the type of font)’’;20 italics and roman typemark, respectively, the sententiae and Lipsius’s words. These, in turn, aredemarcated by two typographic forms of inscription: while the connectingwords are displayed in roman type, definitions, the rhetorical divisio of theargument, and key words — all in Lipsius’s own words, and more abundantin the second part of the Politica — are printed in small capital letters. Theuppercase letter grants an epigraphic quality to the passages, and graphicallyshowcases the category’s significance: these are central passages that defineand organize the concepts that articulate Lipsius’s arguments. The contrastbetween roman, italics lowercase, and small capital types; the distributionof the blanks and white spaces; the countless paragraphs; the ampleindentations; and even the hyphen that precedes a fragmented verse’’ alldelimit, identify, and give visibility to each segment. At the same time, thelayout inscribes the fragments within the crafted setting elaborated byLipsius’s structuring emphases and visual distinctions.

FIGURE 4. Politicorum libri sex, pages 204–05. Moretus, Antwerp, 1599. SalaCervantes, R-38059, Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid.

20Ibid., 236: ‘‘Ut discrimina verborum, quae mea, quae aliena sint, (nam litterarumfigura disparavimus) serio observes. Ad fidem cuiusque Sententiae hoc faciet, tum etiam ad

intellectum.’’




The center margin displayed in small roman type refers both author andwork to the auctores quoted.21 The external margin contains information ofanother nature, printed in italics: the loci, or places of argument developed inthe text. As we will see, Lipsius comments on the function of this specificparatext, and instructs the reader on how to employ and read this marginalannotation, which was omitted in many of the translations.

The humanist addressed a tension at the heart of his writing andeditorial composition, that is, between preserving the reliability ( fides) ortextual integrity of each fragment — something that was usual incommonplace books — and transforming it in the process of fitting thesententiae in his discourse. He affirms that ‘‘The rules of my projectcompelled me to give their words as they were; faithfulness forbade meto change or add anything.’’22 But at the same time anticipating criticism ofhis method of segmenting and decontextualizing his quoted material,Lipsius defended his departure from the original meaning — which isa characteristic element of the cento genre — reminding his readers thatsuch changes are ‘‘always allowed and even praised.’’23 Importantly, thetypography was a visual correlate to the maxims’ reliability ( fides) andcomprehensibility (intellectus), be they in prose or verse, in Latin or Greek,by some classical author’s or the humanist’s own words. Indeed, thetypography was instrumental as a finding device, in facilitating theretrieval of the quotations, and in accessing separately each sententia, animportant pedagogical concern of Lipsius when producing the Politica.

The peculiar combination of fragments is conducive to a distinctiverhythm of reading and a singular mode of legibility. It suggests to the readertechniques of decontextualizing, of astute ways of inscribing of the sententiae

21The information is so unspecific (author, work, and book; p.e. Tac. 3 An), that inpractice it is difficult to quickly locate a passage within its original context. The marginal

notes take on more of an authoritative quality than a precise referential function. Accordingto the English translator Jones, the notes facilitate an active and personal reading (pen inhand), ‘‘To the courteous Reader,’’ n.n.: ‘‘if any be pleased to confer, some one sentence of

mine, or more, with the orignall, by the quotation of the authors, the same may be moreeasily found, and he the better satisfied, of my paynes.’’ Saenger, 132, has studied theevolution of the systems of reference in early modern print and observed that at thebeginning of the seventeenth century: ‘‘references to particular pages or folios seem to be

extremely rare on the continent both in private scholarly correspondence and in publishedtexts and their erudite apparatus.’’

22Lipsius, 2004, 234: ‘‘ponere illa talia, lex mei operis iussit.’’23Ibid., 236–37: ‘‘Nonne enim Centonem quendam concinno (tale omnino nostrum

opus) in quo liberi semper et laudati a sententia isti flexus?’’ (‘‘Am I not weaving a Cento (forthat is what this work is), in which these departures from the original meaning are always

allowed and even praised?’’)




in modern stances, and of re-elaborating and putting to work the wealth ofclassical historical-political wisdom.24 Supposedly, it opens the text tohermeneutic possibilities, and to the creation of new meanings shaped bypressing contemporary issues. Indeed, Lipsius conceived the Politica asa compendium of readymade textual tools through which one could workout and apply reasoning to ‘‘individual things,’’ a variety of currentquestions.25 In this sense, the Politica aims at training its readers inreformulating the words of the classics, relating them to contemporarysocial and political situations: according to Lipsius, ‘‘the mind, which hasonce firmly absorbed those principles, shall easily apply them to otherthings, and shall not need an adviser for every individual decision.’’26 Thusthe maxims, or commonplaces, should be identifiable, easily retrievable, andexcerptable.27 Through a perceptive appropriation, the reader could thusinvent and articulate arguments dealing with his or her own personalinterests, sharpen rhetorical persuasiveness, and embellish pointed discourse.The elaborate visual arrangement on the page was configured by Lipsius’sinterest in training the reader to apply to a variety of circumstances theauthor’s techniques of excerpting the classics, in order to open a debate onmoral issues related to monarchical power.28 Intended for an inventive,active reading, the textual pieces are visually framed in a geometricalarchitecture that allows suggestive explorations, not only of the sententiaeand concepts, but also of Lipsius’s idiosyncratic method of articulatingthem.

24Moss, 1998, 430, 432, has argued that the Politica ‘‘appears to be an attempt to

perform fragmentation, to explicate division, and at the same time to write fragmentationand division into a nexus which its readers would immediately recognize as that whichstructured their universe of thought and culture’’; the work exposed to ‘‘his reader a stratum

of reading and writing habits which they all knew about and which underlay all their surfacedifferences.’’

25Lipsius, 2004, 234: ‘‘facile ad alia trasferet.’’26Ibid., 234–35: ‘‘Sic animus, qui semel principia ista firmiter hauserit, facile ad alia

transferet, nec monitorem in singulis requiret.’’ The Politica keeps the political debatestrikingly abstract. At no time does the work make reference to concrete historical contexts,nor does it provide exemplifications. Waszink, 1999, contextualizes the Politica within the

revolts of the Netherlands and religious wars in France.27Moss, 1998, 423, defines the commonplace book as an ‘‘instrument for redistributing

text so as to ensure maximal retrievability and optimum application.’’28Studying how Lipsius used illustrations in his antiquarian works, Papy has

emphasized Lipsius’s main intent to highlight the lessons that antiquity carried forcontemporary political debates. See also Morford for Lipsius’s perception of the relevance

of Roman history, and specifically Tacitus, to contemporary life.




3. P A R A T E X T U A L R E F A S H I O N I N G : V E R N A C U L A R

T R A N S L A T I O N S O F T H E PO L I T I C A

Lipsius had stated that only the expert Latinist would understand thenuances of the Politica, its profound meaning and originality, indirectlypointing to the problematic changes in the nature of his work that vernaculartranslations would imply. He had a point. Inescapably, the translatedPolitica drifted away from humanist cultural patterns into a more disparateand pragmatic vernacular readership. Geoffrey Baldwin has stressed thesignificance, in studying the circulation and translation of political ideas inthe early modern period, of a growing ‘‘importance of the idea of nation andpatria: national traditions were becoming more important in politicalculture.’’29 Indeed, the translators of the Politica were not targeting anabstract European audience across a transnational, common humanist culture,but a readership diverse in size, interests, and nature, and divergent in itsreading practices and intellectual concerns, located within distinct politicaland confessional boundaries.30 The vernacular reworkings were probablysymptomatic of a disruption in the ‘‘commonality of expectations’’ that inpart characterized humanist readership, of a fragmentation of a Europeanhumanist community into national cultures.31 The urgency to produce twosuccessive French (Calvinist) translations and four Italian versions revealmore than Lipsius’s European prestige, and the Politica’s commercialsuccess. It also points to a need to reshape for specific political milieux

29Baldwin, 103, 115–16, briefly examines translations of the Politica in his study of theimpact of the early modern European culture of translation on political theory.

30There are two French translations with numerous reeditions: Charles Le Ber, sieur deMalassis, La Rochelle, 1590, chez Marin Villepoux; Tours, 1594, chez Claude Monstroeiland Jean Richer (from this second edition onward the translation was printed without the

translator’s name); Paris, 1595, by the same printer; and David Le Clerc, 1609. The secondFrench translation is by the Protestant Simon Goulart, Lyon, 1594; Geneva, 1613; Cologne,1682. Lagree has reedited book 4 of Le Ber’s translation. The Politica was translated four

times into Italian: Antonio Numai, printed by Guglielmo Faciotto for Giouanni Martinelli,Rome, 1604; Hercole Cati, expanded with historical examples and commentaries at the endof each chapter, printed by Angelo Righettin, Venice, 1618; Sisto Pietralata, printed byDragonelli, Rome, 1677. Alessandro Tassoni carried out one of the first Italian translations.

Finished around 1599, it remained in manuscript until 1990: see Fournel for the Italiantranslations. Luis Marinho de Azevedo translated book 5 into Portuguese, with ‘‘modernexamples,’’ Domingo Lopes Rosa, Lisbon, 1644. In 1594 Marten Everart translated the

Politica into Dutch. It was translated into Polish in 1595, and into Hungarian in 1641.31Moss, 1998, 421. Ibid., 430, has suggested that the technique of the commonplace

book, in its ‘‘inherent capacity to balance unity and multiplicity,’’ served as a central mental

and cultural tool for the humanist to deal with dissent.




a text perceived as malleable and open to diverse appropriations, even elusivein its overpowering fragmentation.32

A group of vernacular editions replaced, or simply suppressed — as withCati’s Italian and Le Ber’s French translations — Lipsius’s explanatoryreflections on the typography and the implicit protocols of reading inscribedin the layout. However, some of the translators, such as the SpanishMendoza and the English William Jones, felt compelled to engage indialogue with Lipsius’s deleted explanations and caveats regarding thelayout. In this case, they authored new preliminary texts explaining therationale for their own typographic decisions. Without doubt, in theirmanuscript, from the moment they began their task, the translators weresignificantly involved in the visual design of their texts, devising alternativesolutions for the typographic devices in the Latin edition that they deemedeither appropriate to modify or necessary to eliminate. For this reason, theSpanish printer’s copy is particularly valuable for understanding Mendoza’stypographic approaches and subsequent decisions at the printer’s office.

The text’s material refashioning offers insights into the ways in whichthe translated work was expected to circulate and to be read by variouscommunities of non-Latin readers. Vernacular accommodations were groundedin commercial strategies, printing habits, and economic constraints, inaddition to aesthetic preferences, cultural factors, intellectual traditions,and social and political considerations. The textual genre of the Politicacomplicated the translators’ task in that they also had to translate itsmaterial language. The cento was an unusual genre to convey political ideasfor non-humanist readers. In addition, the Politica was an unconventional,hybrid cento, in which the compiler-author was explicitly involved inshaping the readers’ engagement with the text. Vernacular translations optedfor a more conversant, appropriate genre to reflect on the Christian reasonof state. Significantly, the hesitant interest in centos and commonplacemanuals as efficient textual genres for debating and legitimizing ideas onstatecraft mirrored changes in early modern perceptions of authorship. Newtextual genres, like the essay, that drew from the techniques of the centosand the commonplace book, tended to privilege the overt omnipresence of

32The Politica produced vernacular commentaries and additions, like in Cati’s Italian orMarinho’s Portuguese versions, which reflected on specific political and military contexts.The abstract context of the Politica, with no explicit references to contemporary events,

was likely a factor propitiating these vernacular commentaries. Moreover, Lipsius’s laterpublication of Monita et exempla (1595) — a collection of examples extracted from varioussources illustrating general propositions (monita are propositions derived from the headings in

the Politica) — might have provided a model for some vernacular commentators.




the authorial voice. The Politica’s translations enhanced the author’sidiosyncratic voice, making it more obviously accountable for the opinionspresented, and paid less attention to the ingenious method of crafting thearguments inscribed in the typographic design of the Politica itself.

The structure of the Politica presented palpable textual challenges totranslators that were also manifest in the organized display of the text onthe Latin page. Such challenges included the precise balance between theextravagant fragmentation and variety of the textual pieces, and the thematiccohesiveness of the humanist’s discourse; between the reliability of thesententiae, quoted in its original language, and their versatility as part ofa modern discourse; the decalage, or slippage of original meaning, of thefragmented verses and that of the laconic sententiae spelled out in the newarrangement; and the link between the multiplicity of voices from numerousauctores and the all-encompassing, graphic coherence of Lipsius’s splendidauthorial presence. Translations, as we will see, emphasized contiguity overfragmentation, individual over collective authorship, and Lipsius’s uniquerole over the presence of a multitude of auctores.

A noticeable change is the markedly compact text of the translations.The vernacular layout reconfigured the visual emphases, those immediatelyvisible traces of Lipsius’s hand in the architecture of his work. The translatorsand their printers attenuated the visibility of the discrete textualcomponents. To different extents they blurred the visual logic of thefragmentation in countless paragraphs, and of the contrasts of the typeface toproduce a more cohesive visual style, maybe a more recognizable readabilityfor the page of a vernacular political text. The layout transformed intoa uniform discourse the coordinated emphases, the hierarchical display ofLipsius’s words, and the demarcation of the maxims, which, as mentioned,were displayed in separate, italicized paragraphs.33 Contiguity wasemphasized over the collection of excerptable segments. Translationsdeconstructed the precise graphic connection between the two structuralcomponents of the Politica: the fragmentation of the commonplace bookand the cohesion provided by Lipsius’s authorial intervention.

Lipsius’s typographic display favored nonsequential and discontinuousreadings, inviting the reader to wander around the parts separately, rapidly

33Among others, one reason that could explain why the maxims and commonplaces hadless visibility in the Spanish Polıticas is a preference for a different genre of political treatise,

which circulated in vernacular languages during those years; for example, in Botero’s Diez librosde la razon de estado (Madrid, 1593, Luis Sanchez), the sententiae are not demarcated on thepage. In his dedication to Philip II, the Spanish translator affirmed that the work ‘‘does not tire

your Highness with too many examples’’ (‘‘no cansa a su Alteza con demasiados ejemplos’’).




access the separate segments, ponder the sententiae individually, and examinepassages at random. Essentially, the layout constituted a device for efficientlymanaging information. In the contiguous discourse of the vernacular page,its discrete parts are less penetrable to the eye, less susceptible to be read infragments, to be browsed, and excerpted. The layout encourages other readingmodalities, other ways of retrieving and processing knowledge. Notcoincidentally, as the visibility and significance of the clusters of quotedauthors diminished, Lipsius became the emphasized sole author of the work.34

4. B E R N A R D I N O D E M E N D O Z A ’ S L O S S E I S L I B R O S

D E L A S P O L I T I C A S

The astute soldier, temperamental diplomat, and aristocratic man of the pendon Bernardino de Mendoza translated the Politica into Spanish, which hecharacterizes thus: ‘‘Justus Lipsius composed these six books of Polıticas withsentences from various authors, stringing them together with as few words asseemed necessary so that they made only good sense; in this one sees his greatunderstanding and good method in the arrangement of the material.’’35

A member of the Coruna branch of the Mendoza grandees and Knightof the Order of Santiago with the wealthy Encomienda de Alanje, donBernardino’s military and diplomatic activity was intense. A soldier invarious North African campaigns — Oran (1563), Penon de Velez (1564),and the defense of Malta (1565) — he fought in Flanders during the 1560sunder the Duke of Alba, whom Lipsius, inspired by Tacitus’s description,had compared to Tiberius.36 Sent as ambassador to England (1578–84),Mendoza was notorious for his participation in Francis Throckmorton’sconspiracy against Queen Elizabeth, with whom he exchanged well-publicized and fairly heated words.37 After his expulsion from Englandin 1584, he then served as ambassador to France (1584–90), where hevehemently supported the Duke of Guise and the League and continued toconspire against England, being active in the Babington plot. Mendozareturned to Madrid around 1591; in spite of his near blindness — in a letter

34See M. W. Thomas for the concept of authorship in commonplace books; Lafond forthe evolving early modern idea of authorship in centos and commonplace books; Loewenstein,

2002a and 2002b, for the evolution of ‘‘possessive authorship’’ and intellectual property.35Lipsius, 1997, ‘‘Al Lector’’ (Mendoza’s prologue), n.n.: ‘‘Estos seys libros de Politicas

formo Iusto Lipsio de sentencias de varios autores, engarzandolas con tan pocas palabras,

quanto le parecıa que era necesario para que solo hiziessen buen sentido. En que se vee sugrande entendimiento y buen metodo en la disposicion de la materia.’’

36See Momigliano, 206.37See Morel-Fatio, 27–28, 30; Mendoza, 2008, 31.




to Lipsius (22 November 1604), Francisco de Quevedo (1580–1645) refersto the erudite aristocrat as ‘‘blind as Tiresias, blind as Argos’’38 — Mendozaremained active in several minor diplomatic missions entrusted to him byPhilip II. Don Bernardino’s prolific pen kept him busy in his last years: helikely conceived his task of translating the Politica as a continuation of hisdevoted public service to the Spanish crown.39

Mendoza had penned a harangue in French delivered to Henry III in1588 (and printed shortly thereafter in Paris), and a brief ‘‘Account of thedeath of Henry the Third’’ (‘‘Relacion del suceso de la muerte de EnriqueIII’’) that never saw print. He occasionally authored unimpressive verses:a composition in the fashion of the penitential psalms (‘‘Oda en la conversionde un pecador’’); and an ode imitating Horace’s ‘‘O navis referent’’ (1.14),addressed to the royal Secretary Juan de Idiaquez and in which he lamented thedefeat of the Spanish Armada.40 However, Mendoza composed two widely-read works: Comentarios a lo sucedido en la guerra de Flandes de 1567 a 1577(Madrid, Pedro Madrigal, 1592: Commentary on the War in Flanders from 1567to 1577 ), a commentary on war based on his military experience, and Teorica ypractica de la guerra (Madrid, Widow of Pedro Madrigal, for Sebastian Ybanez,bookseller in Calle Mayor, 1595: Theory and Practice of War).41

Mendoza’s distinguished career conferred prestige upon his translationproject. In addition to being a good Latinist — he was educated in Alcala deHenares — he had the practical experience in diplomatic, political, andmilitary matters that Lipsius envisioned for the ideal reader of the Politica.Moreover, the extensive military reform proposed by Lipsius in book 5, andhis emphasis on the role of religious unity for the kingdom, had probably

38Ramırez, # 95; to be published as ILE 17:04.11.22: ‘‘caecus ille Tiresias, Argos illecaecus.’’

39See Bouza, 2010, for a discussion of aristocratic perceptions of translation in early

modern Europe.40See Morel-Fatio, 140–44, for Mendoza’s biography, which includes the ‘‘Relacion’’;

Jensen; Herrera Casado; Cabanas Agrela; Fuente Fernandez for his poetic works; Cortijo’s

and Gomez Moreno’s introductory study in Mendoza, 2008, 24–38. Fernandez deNavarrete has edited part of Mendoza’s correspondence with Philip II (Mendoza, 1842).

41Dedicated to Philip II, the Comentarios was first published in French, translated by thefanatic ligueur and prieur des Celestins, Pierre Crespet, in Paris ‘‘chez Guillaume Chaudiere,

rue S. Iacques, a l’enseigne du temps et de l’homme sauvage.’’ It was reprinted twice inFrench (Paris, Robert Fouet, 1611, 1613) and translated into English (1597). Teorica ypractica had a second Spanish printing by Moretus (1596). It was translated into Italian by

Salustio Grati (Venice, 1616, printed by Gio. Battista Ciotti), and reprinted in 1602 and1616; and into French (1597, 1698), English (1598), and German (1617). There aremodern Spanish editions of both texts: Mendoza, 1998 and 2008. Brown’s doctoral

dissertation is an edition of the English translation of Teorica by Sir Edward Hoby.




caught the eye of Don Bernardino, a committed military strategist and anunrelenting and belligerent supporter of the Catholic cause.

Lipsius’s neo-stoic philosophy and his De Constantia had attracted asignificant group of Spanish followers in prominent humanist and politicalcircles of Madrid and Seville. In the last decade of the sixteenth century —when after publishing the Politica Lipsius returned to Louvain and convertedto Catholicism — the Spanish court became openly amenable to the Flemishhumanist. The conversion led Benito Arias Montano (1527–98), Philip II’schaplain and Lipsius’s close correspondent, to actively support the interests ofthe newly converted polymath.42 In effect, in seeking a sinecure from PhilipII, Lipsius intensified his relations with Madrid, courting both the king andPrince Philip, to whom he dedicated his De militia romana in 1595, the sameyear that Mendoza dedicated to the royal heir his Teorica y practica de laguerra.43 Finally in 1596, with the decisive support from Garcıa de Figueroa,the king’s gentleman of the bedchamber, Lipsius was appointed to thehonorary position of royal historiographer.44

When Don Bernardino, who never corresponded with Lipsius, wasworking on his translation, there was in the Spanish court a politicallyprominent audience interested in the Christian reason of state. Lipsius hada circle of readers among Philip II’s close advisers both in Spain and the LowCountries, which Mendoza probably had in mind when translating thePolitica, as he was close to Arias Montano and had links with the Plantinpress.45 Garcıa de Loaysa, principal adviser on ecclesiastical matters and theyoung Philip’s powerful tutor, was deeply interested in Lipsius’s works.Loaysa had promoted the publication of the Jesuit Juan de Mariana’shistorical works and especially De rege et regis institutione (Toledo, 1599: Onthe King and the Royal Institution), a treatise for the education of the royalheir. Other influential councilors to the king — the members of the royalcommittee Junta Grande, Cristobal de Moura, Juan de Idiaquez and theCount of Chinchon — were interested in an idea of statecraft centered onthe Christian reason of state, in which piety, temperance, and prudence

42See Corbett, 140–44; Ramırez, 1–26; #s 4, 7, 11, 12, 57, 64; Anton Martınez for anoverview of Lipsius’s reception in Spain; Lopez Poza for the influence of the Politica in theSpanish diplomat Diego Saavedra Fajardo’s Idea de un prıncipe politico cristiano representadaen cien empresas; and Schwartz’s seminal article on Lipsius’s influences on Quevedo’sneo-stoicism and conception of satire.

43Ramırez, #s 22–23.44Ibid., #s 34–35, 53, 57; Kagan, 126–27.45Arias Montano acted in several occasions as intermediary between Mendoza and

Plantin; Davila Perez, 2002, 1:195, #75 06 04; 1:215, # 75 08 13; 2:505, # 85 03 28; 2006,

4. I thank Jeanine De Landtsheer for bringing this article to my attention.




blended with the specific needs of the monarch.46 This political interestfavored the Spanish publication of political treatises as part of Prince Philip’seducation, such as Botero’s Ragion di Stato (Turin, 1589), translated ‘‘byorder of his Majesty’’ by the royal chronicler Antonio de Herrera (Los diezlibros de la razon de estado, Madrid, Luis Sanchez, 1593: The Ten Books ofReason of State);47 and Jean Bodin’s Les Six Livres de la Republique (Paris,1576: The Six Books of the Republic), translated by the treasurer of Philip II’syoungest daughter, the Infanta Catalina Micaela, Duchess of Savoy.48

Mendoza started to work on Polıticas around 1597, after his twoinfluential texts, the Comentarios and Teorica, were published in Madrid.Completed by 1599, the translation was legally approved by the Council ofCastile on November 20 of that same year. Each folio of the printer’s copywas signed by the escribano de camara Gallo de Andrada, following usualprocedures for controlling the printing of an approved text. Once approvedby the censor and signed by the escribano, the text was licensed for printing inthe Kingdom of Castile (21 December 1599). For unknown reasons, thetranslation was not printed until five years later. Probably, Polıticas begancirculating in manuscript sometime toward the end of 1599.49

46Ramırez, #s 25, 48; ILE 5:95.07.21. Feros, 21–23, explores differing perspectives in the court

and royal councils on statecraft, mainly regarding the contractual view of government and politicalneo-stoicism. The former underlines the duties, rather than the power, of the king, while the latteremphasizes the preservation of the political order and the reason of state: see also Kagan, 126–27.

47The Spanish translation was the first of the Ragion di Stato, published in Italian the

same year as the Politica. Los diez libros was widely read in Spain; it was reprinted by JaimeCendrat in Barcelona (1599), and in Burgos by Sebastian de Canas for Pedro de Ossete andAntonio Cuello, booksellers in Valladolid: see Gil Pujol. Significantly, Botero dedicated to

the Count of Chinchon the Aggiunte, a collection of historical narratives exemplifyingpolitical propositions appended to the Ragion di Stato. Los diez libros was later expurgated bythe Spanish Inquisition: see Aviles Fernandez.

48Los seis libros de la republica traducidos de la lengua francesa y enmendadoscatholicamente por Gaspar de Anastro Isunza (Heirs of Bevilaqua, Turin, 1590).

49On 14 November 1604, in an effort to have the text printed by Moretus, Petrus Pantinus

sent from Brussels a manuscript of Polıticas to Lipsius: Davila Perez, 2006, 4, quoting DeLandtsheer. Not aware that Polıticas was already printed in Madrid — the tasa, dated 23 October1604, indicates that the book started to circulate a few days after — Lipsius announced in 1605in a letter to Quevedo his intention of having Polıticas printed if ‘‘Edere est animus sit typographi

nostri non detrectant’’: Ramırez, # 97. Lipsius was responding to Quevedo, who on 22November 1604 informed him of Mendoza’s death. Quevedo resided in Valladolid at the timeand apparently was not aware that Polıticas was already printed. Lipsius did not mention that he

received a second manuscript of Polıticas — as Davila Perez, 2006, has suggested — sent byQuevedo; Ramırez, # 95. Finally on 15 May 1605, from Salamanca Lorenzo Ramırez de Pradosent Lipsius a printed copy of Polıticas : see Solıs de los Santos. No manuscript of the Spanish

Polıticas has been found in Lipsius’s personal library: Davila Perez, 2006, 5.




Contrary to what was habitual for this genre of work, Polıticas includedonly one aprobacion, by the Cistercian monk Rafael Sarmiento. In an effortto avoid possible objections, Sarmiento’s surprisingly brief aprobacionspecified that Mendoza translated ‘‘from the newly printed editioncensured in Rome.’’50 In 1596, Moretus had printed the expurgatedversion of the Politica, in which Lipsius followed the majority ofrecommendations made by Roman censors.51 As Sarmiento asserted,Mendoza worked with the expurgated Politica, although it is likely that hehad previously read an unexpurgated edition, printed before 1596.52

The circumstances in 1599 under which the Spanish translation of sucha controversial work was approved are revealing. Apparently the censorSarmiento was a trusted friend of Mendoza. Two years before Sarmientowrote his aprobacion, the nobleman had named him executor of his will.Sarmiento lived next to Mendoza in the Cistercian monastery of Santa Anain Madrid.53 The convent had recently been founded in 1596 under thepatronage of Archduke Albert of Austria (1559–1621), who from 1598 was

50Lipsius, 1997 (Aprobacion by fray Rafael Sarmiento): ‘‘La impresion nueua censurada

en Roma.’’51Lipsius, 2004, 165–98, 219, presents an exhaustive history of the Latin text in the first

decades and a stemma editionum that covers up to 1604. In the revised second edition of the

Politica (Antwerp, Johannes Moretus, 1596), Lipsius added a dedicatory letter to JohannesSaracenus (Sarazin), and a more extensive version of Notae. Both texts were included in thePolitica’s editions from 1596 onward.

52Davila Perez, 2006, 6–9, argues that Mendoza used the 1599 Politica’s version,

although the evidence is not always convincing. In the postmortem inventory of Mendoza’slibrary made by the bookseller Miguel de Bugıa, the Politica is listed among his French books:see Lasperas, 34, # 84. It could be one of the Latin editions that were printed in France (Paris,

Lyon), or one of two French translations. According to the modern editors of Polıticas,Mendoza translated the work with the aid of the Calvinist Le Ber’s translation. The editors donot explain the precise basis of this affirmation: they repeat a reference found in Van der

Haeghen, and reformulated in Morel-Fatio and Quevedo, 1175, 2, XLI. Although it is possiblethat Mendoza could have relied on Le Ber’s translation, Van der Haeghen presented as thebasis for his affirmation that, as le Ber had done in his version, Mendoza translated the Latin

and Greek verses into prose. Since this was common practice among vernacular translators ofthe Politica, it does not allow deduction of a too-specific relationship between Mendoza’s andLe Ber’s texts. More work remains to be done on this issue.

53Having a great devotion to Saint Bruno, Don Bernardino lived on Convalescientes

Street, next to Santa Ana. He later bequeathed the house to the monks, who had allowed himto open a door and windows connecting to the monastery, an arrangement almost similar tothe one of Philip II in El Escorial, who could see the main altar from his bed. Sarmiento

himself, likely a good Latinist, might have been a close collaborator in the scribal tasks forMendoza: in 1604 the monk published Promptvarium Conceptvvm ad formandas Concionestotius, anni, tam de tempore, quan de sanctis, & integrae quadragessimae, ex D. Bernardo(Madrid, Miguel Serrano de Vargas).




the Governor General of the Habsburg Low Countries.54 It is likely thatSarmiento read the translation before his friend Mendoza presented it to theCouncil of Castile. Given his connections, Mendoza could have managedfor someone close to him, as Sarmiento was, to be in charge of approvinghis translation with a somewhat less-rigorous aprobacion — a practicedenounced by some but not entirely infrequent for authors, booksellers,or printers with powerful connections — and felt afterwards a need to revisehis previously authorized text. Indeed, the manuscript shows that the wholefourth chapter of book 1 was crossed out after being approved, and each pagesigned by the escribano. The text finally printed was a modified translation ofthe chapter, written in a different hand and without any physical trace ofhaving been approved by the censor and signed by the escribano.55 Perhapsanticipating problems with the Spanish Inquisition, especially concerning thecontroversial chapter 4, Mendoza perceived an urgency to change certainpassages of his already-approved translation. After all, since the mid-sixteenthcentury, the Spanish Inquisition (more scrupulous about certain issues than theCouncil) frequently examined, censored, and expurgated texts once they hadbeen printed. Indeed, Polıticas was included in the Spanish Indexes of 1612and 1614 (Sandoval), of 1632 (Zapata), and of 1640 and 1667 (Sotomayor).

As we have mentioned, the Spanish translation was not printed until fiveyears after the Council of Castile approved the text and licensed its printing.In addition to problems with the Roman expurgation of the Politica, thereare numerous other probable causes for the delay, one being that donBernardino was unable or unwilling to print it at his own expense, and didnot find a bookseller willing to finance the project. Perhaps the declininghealth of the elderly aristocrat, who was close to death and practically blind,influenced the final stage of the typographic project of Polıticas, which didnot progress with the diligence that Mendoza had shown in better times.Moreover, crucial changes had occurred at court after Philip II’s death in1598. Interest in the printing of Polıticas could have waned.

In 1601 the court moved to Valladolid, but Mendoza remained inMadrid, far from the influential new courtiers and from the old readingcircles interested in the Politica. The new regime brought considerable

54See Martınez Millan and W. Thomas for Archduke Albert’s relationship with PhilipII’s court.

55The expurgations are a matter of importance, but are not treated in detail here. Davila

Perez, 2006, 15–24, examines Polıticas’ passages censored in Spanish Indexes; see also TruyolSerra. Davila Perez, 2006, 19, implies that it was Sarmiento who crossed out chapter 4 from themanuscript. A friend of Mendoza, as mentioned Sarmiento probably read the translation before

being appointed as aprobador of the Polıtica. The issue is complex and deserves a careful analysis.




polemical changes in foreign policy. With their penchant for signing truces(with England in 1604, with the Low Countries in 1609), the royal favorite theDuke of Lerma (1553–1625) and Philip III — who seems to have ignoredLipsius’s tributes — demonstrated a changed attitude toward Spain’s costlywars.56 They could have not favored with the same enthusiasm the printing ofPolıticas. In fact, the decision not to dedicate Polıticas to the monarch — as donBernardino had done in his previous two works — was a political one, and senta message to his aristocratic readers. It is puzzling that Mendoza does not mentionthe young monarch in Polıticas, or dedicate the work to any influential courtier,a probable sign of disenchantment. He contented himself with dedicating histranslation to a vague ‘‘Spanish nobility who does not understand Latin,’’ perhapsan echo of ‘‘A la noblesse catholique de France,’’ Crespet’s dedication of hisFrench translation of Mendoza’s Comentarios, as Morel-Fatio has suggested.57

A relevant event in 1603, the year before Polıticas was printed, might haveinfluenced the Spanish printing project: in his Bibliotheca selecta, the Jesuit AntonioPossevino (1533–1611) recommended the reading of the Politica.58 We suspect,however, that the vicissitudes of the Latin Politica with the Roman Inquisitioncould have also commanded a prudent delay on don Bernardino’s part, despitethe translation’s approval. As we have mentioned, it is possible that the translatormay have envisaged some expurgatory troubles with Spanish inquisitors.

Finally financed by the book merchant Esteban Bogia, the translation wasprinted in quarto, smaller and more affordable than the lavish large quarto ofRaphelengius’s and Moretus’s editions. The Spanish printing was of goodquality, as was typical with the Imprenta Real. However, two strikingmisprints at the beginning of the book (not included in the list of errata)and other errors show that the proofs were not meticulously corrected. In fact,Mendoza had died only weeks before his translation had gone into print.59

56Feros, 48–63; see also Williams for Lerma.57Lipsius, 1997 (heading of Mendoza’s dedicatory text): ‘‘A la nobleza espanola que no

entiende la lengua latina.’’58Possevino, 1:78, 2:122. See Oestrich, 99–100, 104; Fournel, 481; Balsamo for

Possevino’s activity as censor.59Printing likely began sometime in September, after the death of Mendoza on 3 August. This

supports the corrections not having been excessively rigorous. The proofreader failed to catch the

misprint ‘‘monorquia’’ printed with a large typeface, in the first verse of the second commendatorysonnet. Also, the first page of text reads ‘‘La primera por voto y parecer de muchos, pero la otra porel premio,’’ a misprint for ‘‘La primera por voto y parecer de muchos, pero la otra por el mıo,’’ fol. 1.

The passage was translated correctly. The manuscript shows that the mistake was an error of thetypesetter and not the copyist. Despite the misprint’s making the passage unintelligible, the moderneditors of Polıticas (Lipsius, 1997) did not correct the error. Somewhat puzzled, they added the

passage in Latin at the bottom of the page (9).




5. T H E PR I N T E R ’ S C O P Y : P O L I T I C A S I N P R I N T

The extant printer’s copy used by Juan Flamenco makes it possible toobserve the varying levels of intervention in the mise en page, and the ways inwhich the layout of the Latin page was refashioned (f ig. 5). It shows the

FIGURE 5. Los seis libros de las Polıticas, printer’s copy, f. 4. Archivo HistoricoNacional, Inquisicion 4513, exp. 2, Ministerio de Cultura, Spain.




extent of Mendoza’s contribution, the translator’s typographic preferencesand editorial dilemmas, as interpreted by his scribe, in view of Lipsius’sprotocols of reading and the operative guiding devices, and which decisionswere finally made in the Spanish printing office itself.

In its present state the manuscript does not include any preliminarytexts, which are the last texts generally to be printed. It lacks a title page, thetwo commendatory sonnets (by Cristobal de Mesa and Juan BautistaGentil),60 Mendoza’s prologues (‘‘To the Spanish nobility that does notunderstand Latin’’ and ‘‘To the Reader’’), and Lipsius’s dedication to‘‘EMPEROR, KINGS, PRINCES.’’61 As was usual, the printer’s copy wascompleted by a professional scribe.62 Not so usual was the excellent qualityof the manuscript, which was not fully representative of what, in that period,was the fair copy placed in the printer’s hands. Occasionally the handwritingbecomes calligraphic. The manuscript presents a clearly legible text, wideand regular interlinear, and balanced blank spaces with ample margins.Following the expression va desahogado (‘‘presented with plenty of room’’) ofthe compositor Vıctor Alonso de Paredes (ca. 1616–after 1680), the text isdisplayed in a spacious manner. Without doubt, this was the way Mendozahad arranged it. Another notable feature of the printer’s copy is its regularityin displaying the text, as Moxon describes the good quality of a manuscript,‘‘Compositers call’d Good Copy, Light, Easie Work.’’63 This was crucialfor the ‘‘casting off,’’ a calculation of how much printed text fit on each

60Gentil was a trusted friend of Mendoza, who named him executor in his second will(1601). The Spanish translation of the De Constantia was published under the name of Juan

Bautista de Mesa (Seville, 1616). The royal chronicler and bibliographer Tomas Tamayo deVargas (ca. 1589–ca. 1641) claimed that the translation was stolen from him and publishedunder a different name (‘‘con nombre ajeno,’’ 570) by Fray Hernando de Lujan. The Spanish

bibliographer Nicolas Antonio (1617–84) considered Tamayo de Vargas to be the realtranslator of the De Constantia.

61It is likely that some of the preliminary paratexts comprised the first three folios of the

manuscript, which currently begins in folio 4. Perceived as an integral part of the Politica, themajority of translations included Lipsius’s dedication, keeping the emphatic use of capitalletters at the beginning and end in the editio princeps.

62For the extant corpus of Spanish printer’s copies, see Andres Escapa, 1999; Andres

Escapa and Delgado Pascual, 2000; Garza Merino, 2000, 2004, and 2006; Rico. In order toease the work of his compositors, Plantin usually had one of his scribes make a fair copy ofthe manuscripts he was charged with printing, and some of those fair copies have survived;

see Voet, 1966 and 1985. The historian Garibay explained that he decided to have hisholograph manuscript of Compendio copied in Flemish handwriting because of the difficultyfor Plantin’s printing office to read the Spanish hand.

63Moxon, 203.




page, in order to set the nonsequential pages that made up the forme ofa sheet.64

The textual quality of the copy is noteworthy, something remarkablewhen considered against Mendoza’s blindness. The work of the scribe wasnot limited to ensuring the graphic clarity, the regularity of the handwriting,or drawing an elegant calligraphic stroke. The manuscript contains infrequentcopy errors, only a few strikeouts, hardly any abbreviations, and almost nomistakes. The spelling and punctuation are consistent throughout the wholetext. The minor changes introduced — some touch-ups such as deleting,adding, or changing the place of a word — improved the text stylistically.Everything became quite visible and legible for the printer.

The unusually high quality of the manuscript makes it likely that itrepresents Mendoza’s typographic design. I would argue that in spite of hisblindness, or precisely because of it, Don Bernardino was extraordinarilyattentive, not only to the textual quality of his translation — expecting a textfree of copy errors — but also to the typographic design of the Politica, thelayout of the Latin page, and its graphic arrangement in the manuscript.Mendoza himself probably became involved in devising an efficient visuallanguage for the Spanish text, and in supervising the printer’s copy, makingcorrections via dictation to an amanuensis.65 In fact, the meticulous visualpresentation of the manuscript highlights Mendoza’s peculiar circumstanceas an author nearly blind and forced to rely solely on scribes. The exceptionalquality of the printer’s copy likely signifies Mendoza’s awareness of thescribe’s crucial role in materially producing his translation, of his need forhigh quality and reliable scribes who could produce correct texts and legiblemanuscripts. Moreover, Mendoza’s prologue to the printed translationoffers a rationale for the typographic adjustments of his work. His remarksallow us to reasonably infer that the amanuensis who copied the textfollowed a precise visual disposition chosen by Mendoza.

64See Rico’s fundamental article on the stages in the process of transforming a

manuscript into printed book, which expands Gonzalez de Amezua’s seminal study onthe topic. Chartier, 2000; Moll; Reyes Gomez; Bouza, 1998 and 2004; and Lucıa Megıas,have studied several aspects of printing in early modern Spain; see also Petrucci, 1999a;McKenzie, 1999; and for frontispieces in Lipsius’s works, see De Landtsheer, 2008. For

Renaissance Spanish typographic patterns, see Torne, 2001 and 2006; Peraita, 2008.65Mendoza’s method of translating must have relied on somebody reading the Latin text

aloud and Mendoza dictating his translation to an amanuensis. Stylistic corrections are mostly in

the copyist’s hand, although the manuscript shows at least a second hand. Concerning the blindaristocrat’s use of high-quality amanuenses, it would be interesting to elucidate the role of his criadoJuan Beltran de Aguirre, who seemingly read and copied many of Mendoza’s documents: see Perez

Pastor, 2:60–65. For the social aspects of intellectual work in early modern Europe, see Blair.




Mendoza’s translation refashioned diverse textual aspects of the Politica.In most of the cases he followed the standard approach of translators ofhumanist texts. Polıticas thus paraphrased some passages: 2.2, ‘‘principatus’’(296) as ‘‘Principado, o Monarquia’’ (22); 1.2, ‘‘in Sensum ac Cultum’’(262) as ‘‘en el sentimiento y culto, o reverencia’’(2); 4.7, ‘‘Miles in forum,miles in curiam’’ (414) as ‘‘soldados en las plazas y calles, soldados enpalacio’’ (91); 1.4, ‘‘fatum’’ (270) as ‘‘divina providencia’’ (7).66 Otherconcepts are accommodated to the Christian reader’s sensibility: Deos andIoue are rendered as ‘‘Dios.’’67 Occasionally Mendoza altered the dramatictone that Lipsius uses to address the monarch, his commanding voice, andunmediated enunciation of guidance in the text. Lipsius’s pervasive use ofthe second person, as if he were speaking to the prince, gives vibrancy to hiselocution. In the Latin text, several devices of oral communication, such asrhetorical questions and pointed exclamations, produce an impression ofconspicuous proximity between the author and his intended royal listener-reader. As it was not uncommon when translating humanist texts, and inways not dissimilar to Jones’s translation of Sixe Bookes of Politickes or civildoctrine (printed by Richard Field for William Ponsonby, London, 1594),don Bernardino preferred a more mediated mode of communicating with theimplied royal interlocutor, and occasionally restructured the sharpness ofLipsius’s advisory elocution.68 Consequently, Polıticas addresses the king, whoin the mind of the early modern Spanish readers embodied a more specificmonarch than the vague address ‘‘EMPEROR, KINGS, PRINCIPES’’ of theLatin Politica, in a restrained, highly decorous fashion.69

66Lipsius, 2004, 708 (book 6, chapter 7): ‘‘Ita res tuas augebis, ita famam’’; Lipsius,1997, 262: ‘‘y d’esta manera los negocios iran de bien en mejor, assi se aumentara la fama’’;Davila Perez, 2006, 15, comments on some of the adjusted concepts. It is also symptomatic

that Mendoza changed Polıtica to the plural Polıticas in each of the six books of the work.67The English translator William Jones explained, ‘‘To courteous Reader,’’ n.n.: ‘‘I haue

especially in the whole worke auoyded the pluralities of Gods (which all Christians detests)

and the Author could not but mention, his sentences being taken altogether from prophanewriters.’’ Writing under Elizabeth I, Jones rewrote the passages where Lipsius debatedwhether men are more suitable than women to serve as monarch (3:3).

68See for instance Lipsius, 2004, 1:6, 2:15. Mendoza omitted most of the question

marks, especially in the headings, something usual in other vernacular translations, such asJones, 1:8: ‘‘Quid gignat Prudentiam? Usum esse, et Memoriam. Quid ea utraque?’’; ‘‘De laPrudencia, que es engendrada del uso, y de la memoria. Y qual sea cada vna dellas’’; ‘‘That

use and memorie engender Prudence. Their definitions.’’69Lipsius’s strategies of directly addressing the prince shaped probably Quevedo’s

idiosyncratic form of orally advising the young Philip IV in Polıtica de Dios, Gobierno deCristo: see Peraita, 2001.




In ‘‘Some Admonitions’’ Lipsius explains his method of punctuation,which provides a distinct cadence to the text and infuses the sentences whichwhat he calls ‘‘breath.’’ The humanist draws attention to the pivotal role of‘‘partitions,’’ as they link the juxtaposed segments into all-encompassingsentences and reshape the prosodic pace of the disparate components. Thehumanist advises, ‘‘That you, even much more carefully, observe thepartitions within the text: that is, the commas, semicolons, full stops, orcolons placed at the end of every clause. Because in accordance with these,you must finish the entire sentence or suspend it; you will see that we havecarefully subdivided the entire exposition in this way, by its parts andperiods. And the end of a sentence does not always coincide with the end ofa period: but often it continues and is connected to the next item.’’70 Theperiod does not always finish a sentence, but leaves the clause suspended,open, unfinished. The punctuation could thus dislocate the unity ofmeaning of the sententiae within the sentence, establishing a peculiar rhythmof reading. The reading pace needs to be adjusted, and the pause postponed.The sentences are thus strung together by a sort of counterpoint, a syncopationand offbeat cadence that articulate a new intelligibility of the text.

The Spanish printer’s copy paid extraordinary attention to punctuation,which usually fell within the trade of compositors. Following Lipsius’ssteps, and similar to the English translator’s involvement in this aspect of themise en texte, don Bernardino was concerned with accommodating Latinpunctuation to Spanish prosody. The Imprenta Real made surprisingly fewchanges to the manuscript’s original punctuation, since printers, notauthors, generally were in charge of the punctuation.71 Also, following

70Lipsius, 2004, 236–27: ‘‘Ut distinctiones multo magis: id est, in fine cuiusque clausulaecola posita, semicola, puncta, aut bipuncta. Nam pro his, sententia tibi tota terminanda estscilicet, aut sustentanda: videbisque universam orationem per membra sua et periodos curiose

a nobis sic discretam. Nec enim finis semper sententiae in fine clausulae: sed pendet ea saepe achaeret.’’ Graphic marks for quoting did not exist in antiquity. Punctuation served as technique todemarcate quotations: see Andrieu. Jones too explained that he adjusted Lipsius’s punctuation.

He remarked that in the Latin edition the end of a sentence does not always coincide with theend of a clause, whose meaning sometimes extends and connects with the sentence that follows.He opted thus to place the period where the meaning contained by the clause concluded; ‘‘Tothe courteous Reader,’’ n.n.: ‘‘Another thing (I feare) will be objected against me, that I haue not

rightly pointed my distinctions. Whereunto I answer, that if you looke into the Author, you shallfind his meaning, and my distinctions to agree. For albeit he hath set a periodes (.) in the end ofmany sentences, yet doth not the full sence end there, but still hang, and continue, as Lipsiushimself confesseth in these words. . . . I haue followed these usual points: (,): (.).’’

71The printer added some commas and occasionally adjusted don Bernardino’sexcessively Latinized punctuation. He also suppressed initial capital letters for words like

alma, conciencia, and virtud.




a standard of the profession, the printer normalized the spelling (to whichthe printer’s copy had nevertheless paid meticulous attention).72

On another material level, the printer’s copy modified severaltypographic devices. The layout of the manuscript was guided by thefunctionality of Lipsius’s expressive typography. However, for certainreasons, it differs in various ways from the Latin page that Don Bernardinohad before him when translating. Reframing the tension between thefragmentation and the totality of the work, the Spanish printed page displaysa compressed text, less visually differentiated, and no longer fragmentedaccording to sententiae or hierarchically demarcated by Lipsius’s words. TheSpanish reader does not see the discrete pieces the Latin reader was supposed torecognize and effortlessly excerpt from the Latin page. The eye is not able tograsp the inventive humanist method of integrating the textual pieces. Lipsius’svisual arrangement and his ingenious technique of composition are not readablein the same way on the Spanish page. The dimension of the work as a cento, asa text made up of fragmented texts, of myriad parts, and the display that favoredexcerpting sententiae, disappeared from view in a way not unlike that found inJones’s Politickes.73 But in ways that were not always imaginable when readingthe Latin page, the Spanish layout highlighted the ‘‘weaved tapestry,’’ thesophisticated cohesiveness with which the humanist had blended the exceedingdisparity of the discrete maxims into a unitary, compact text.74

The variety of quotations and orchestrated visibility of classical authorsare transformed into a dense treatise, one with a single master discoursearticulated by a politically astute contemporary author.75 The illusion of an

72For instance auctor and author in the manuscript are consistently spelled autor in the

printed text. Following spelling rules for compositors, the Imprenta Real disregarded thefollowing double letters: -ll- intelligencia / inteligencia; -ff- differencia / diferencia, but printed-ss- as in necessaria / necessaria. V. A. de Paredes, 8v–19v, explained in 1680 the spelling rules

of printers: see Sebastian Mediavilla for seventeenth-century Spanish spelling; Carrera Dıazfor an historical overview of punctuation in the Iberian Peninsula.

73Lipsius, 2004, 232: ‘‘e mille aliquot particulis.’’74I am grateful to Jeanine De Landtsheer for providing insightful comments on her

perceptions of the Spanish translation.75Tamayo de Vargas, 260, stressed the centrality of Lipsius’s authorship, explaining that

Mendoza translated the Politica, ‘‘in a very good manner although he could not translate the

beauty of the author’s style that is so special.’’ A different contemporary opinion expressed byEl Brocense’s son-in-law Baltasar de Cespedes in Discurso de las letras humanas, llamado elhumanista, emphasized the fragmentation of the cento presenting an analogy of sewing

(quoted in Ramırez, 10): ‘‘he gathered with sharpness and judgment numerous loci bydifferent authors, as we see in that admirable work of the Politica, where with a perpetualthread he sewed the different Greek and Latin places, in a way that it seems that the authors

themselves wrote the passages more for Lipsius’s purposes than their own.’’




unmediated, direct contact with the words of the auctores vanishes. Theplurality of voices, collection of authors, and elegance of their sententiae, allcombine into one distinct enunciation: Lipsius’s creative and autonomousauthorship was stressed.

As we have mentioned, the Latin editions printed the quotations initalics, making them noticeable and easy to retrieve. Spacious blanksstructured the paragraphs; indentations delimited the verses. On thecontrary, the vernacular layout lacks division by paragraphs. The singularityof each maxim becomes blurred. The visual arrangement that in the Latinpage differentiated verse quotations disappears; verses are translated into prosethrough paraphrasing, thus erasing a fundamental differentiation between thetextual genres.

Blurring the differences between textual categories, the Imprenta Realprinted the entire Polıticas in roman type: sententiae, definitions, and otherwords by Lipsius (f ig. 6). Instead of stressing the whole maxim to indicatethe sententiae (as italics do), the manuscript marked its beginningand end, inserting respectively a superscript and an asterisk, a devicelater printed by Juan Flamenco. Don Bernardino commented on thistypographic demarcation that, unlike the contrast of roman and italic types,

FIGURE 6. Los seis libros de las Polıticas, pages 238–39. Imprenta Real, Madrid,1604. Sala Cervantes, R-15252, Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid.




does not make the sententiae as immediately perceptible to the eye: ‘‘Themaxims appear with a superscript [letrilla] that corresponds to the sameone that is in the margin with the name of the author who says it, and at theend of the sentence an asterisk, in order to make a distinction betweenthem.’’76

The Spanish scribe used a larger regular hand — instead of small capitalletter as in the Latin page — to indicate Lipsius’s definitions. This scribalstrategy in the printer’s copy displayed the visibility assigned by Lipsiusto those passages, for which he had established a typographic localization(fig. 7). However, the Imprenta Real ignored the manuscript’s demarcationof that category of text, and the graphic contrast of the size of thehand meticulously outlined in the printer’s copy. As I have noted,Juan Flamenco printed the definitions in roman lowercase, withoutany change to the typeface. Nevertheless, the manuscript shows thetranslator’s attention to a typographic indication that differentiatedLipsius’s definitions in the Latin text. The initial intentions to maintainthe visual distinction of such passages and to print the translation so as topreserve the demarcation desired by Lipsius were later rejected in theprinting office.77

The typography of the chapter headings scarcely stands out on theLatin page. The typeface (similar to the one used for the central text) andthe blanks (similar to the space between paragraphs) do not structurea distinct typographic space for the headings. They are displayed withoutemphasis, almost without introducing a distinct unit of text, but simplya new paragraph. The Spanish manuscript, however, gave visibility tothe headings, prominently displayed in italics as inverted triangles. Thegeometric arrangement was decided by Mendoza, who outlines the layoutof his translation in his prologue. Reformulating Lipsius’s instructions,Mendoza emphasizes the function of the headings as indexes that facilitatethe topics’ retrieval, relating it to the way they are visually displayed. The

76Lipsius, 1997, ‘‘Al Lector,’’ n.n.: ‘‘Las sentencias se apuntan con una letrilla quecorresponde al mismo que esta en el margen con el nombre del autor que lo dice, y al fin de la

sentencia una estrella, para que se vea la distincion de ellas.’’77Mendoza indicates in his prologue that, because definitions dealt with doctrinal

issues, their translation required a different type of language: ‘‘The language used to translate

the definitions in the first and other books cannot be as common as in other parts, since thedefinitions present doctrinal issues’’ (ibid., ‘‘Al lector,’’ n.n.: ‘‘en las definiciones que seponen en el primer libro y otros de las cosas como negocio de doctrina, no es posible sea tan

corriente el lenguaje cual de otra materia.’’)




translator placed greater emphasis than Lipsius on the fact that theheadings are a detailed summary of the content of each chapter, anindex inserted in the text itself, which they label. Since for Mendoza,headings duplicate information displayed in the marginal notes, he

FIGURE 7. Los seis libros de las Polıticas, printer’s copy, f. 145. Archivo HistoricoNacional, Inquisicion 4513, exp. 2, Ministerio de Cultura, Spain.




eliminated the marginal notes, claiming that the headings made themredundant: ‘‘Although Lipsius put margins in his book, I decided not totranslate them, since the headings of chapters (specifying clearly what theywere about) achieve the same effect as the said margins. Those marginsmight in part confuse the reader.’’78

In ‘‘Some Admonitions,’’ Lipsius explained how to read the marginalnotes. He linked their function to the headings — as Mendozadid — bringing attention to the functional correlations between marginaliaand heading in the graphic space of the page, while emphasizing at thesame time how the marginal annotations functioned as a finding devicefor locating text and concepts: ‘‘That you always consult the notes whichare at the side of the text. Which you will find build up into an interconnectedwhole, and, to your great profit, always contain a summary of the entirecontent; you will even find that the content is often somewhat moreclosely circumscribed by them and explained. I beg you, study them. Andalso this, that you do not neglect the headings prefixed to the chapters, tothe same end.’’79 According to Moss, the marginal notes ‘‘marshal thequotations into lines of argument.’’ The loci, or places of the argument,she affirms, ‘‘may be emptied of their present occupants, filled with newquotations, and even returned to other purposes’’; the notes providea rhetorical outline in training the reader to elaborate his or her ownarguments.80 She thus argues that the elimination of those ‘‘argument-indicators’’ removed an important pedagogical resource for the reader.She considers the omission characteristic of Catholic cultures; accordingto her, Catholic readers were less skilled in the type of dialectical trainingand reasoning encouraged by commonplace books in Protestanteducation.81

The marginal notes that ‘‘closely circumscribed’’ and better ‘‘explained’’the ‘‘entire content,’’ were not printed in a majority of the vernaculareditions, such as Le Ber’s, Mendoza’s, or Cati’s, although Jones’s Englishand Pietralata’s Italian versions kept the marginalia. Arguing a greater

78Ibid., ‘‘Al Lector,’’ n.n.: ‘‘Aunque Lipsio puso margenes en el libro, no pareciotraducirlas, pues por la suma de capıtulos (diciendo con tanta distincion lo que trata en ellos)se viene a conseguir el mismo efecto de lo que apuntan las margenes, que en parte causaran

confusion al lector.’’79Lipsius, 2004, 236–37: ‘‘Ut Notulas ubique adeas, quae ad oram. Quas necti inter se

reperies; et, magno tuo commodo, semper in iis Breviculum materiae totius. imo et astringi

saepe ab iis aliquid aut explicari. Quaeso, observa. atque etiam hoc, ut Capitum summaspraefixas non neglegas, eidem huic fini.’’

80Moss, 1998, 425, 428.81Ibid., 433–34, 432.




reading clarity, Mendoza deleted the notes that, as mentioned, Lipsius urgedthe reader to study, since they circumscribed and summarized the content ofeach part of the work. Mendoza’s assertion — that he excluded them toavoid ‘‘confusing the reader’’ — is not unfounded, although there couldhave been a variety of additional reasons for its elimination, among themreading habits, printing conventions, and, perhaps, economic constraints.82

In any case, when he started to work on his translation, aware of therelevance of how the text needed to be displayed in the page, DonBernardino made the correlated typographic decisions to eliminate theprinted margin and highlight the headings.83

The omission of the marginal annotation raises the issue of what kind ofvernacular reader could have been interested in the dialectical purpose oflearning to articulate independent arguments that Moss discerned in thenotes, or even could have been able to perceive it. A variety of elements couldhave affected the perception of the usefulness of the notes. When explainingtheir significance — as mentioned, urging his reader to study the notes —Lipsius did not explicitly emphasize the dialectical training that Mossbelieves a key function of the glosses. For him they were a finding device andparatextual reference to the progression of the arguments. Early moderntranslators of the Politica were preeminent contemporary readers of thework, and did not seem to be interested, or did not recognize with the samediscernment, the dialectical utility of the marginal notes. Mendoza’sexplanation suggests that, whatever the ideological concerns he mighthave as translator of a text devoted to the monarchy’s governingand religious policy, that marginalia was not crucial in training thereader in his own independent thinking. Perhaps the dialectical functionwas lost on Mendoza, as it could have been lost on William Jones, although

82Books with a laborious layout, which were slower to compose in the printer’s office,

seem to have ended up being more expensive. In this way, the first Spanish cento printed inCastile, Juan de Andosilla Larramendi’s Christo nvuestro senor en la cruz, hallado en losversos del Principe de nuestros poetas, Garcilasso de la Vega, sacados de diferentes partes, yvnidos por la ley de centones (Madrid, widow of Luis Sanchez, 1628), cost five maravedıesper sheet. In those years, this was a price slightly more expensive for a quarto volume thanthe usual four maravedıes. Moretus complained of having to pay an extra salary to hiscompositors because of problems caused by numerous addenda in a manuscript: see Davila

Perez, 2002, 565.83Mendoza’s Teorica y practica de la guerra is printed without chapter divisions but with

marginal notes that have a function similar to the chapter headings: see Blair for the function

of marginal notes as finding device.




after some considerations the English translator decided to keep theannotation.84

6. C O N C L U S I O N

Following Lipsius’s remark on the expressive typography as a key componentfor understanding the text, Latin printers across Europe reproduced the layoutof the editio princeps, understood as a crucial expressive form of the book.Vernacular translations accommodated in diverse ways the functionality andsymbolic dimension of Lipsius’s typographic language, the nonverbal resourcesand demarcations that conveyed meaning and that were central elements inPolitica’s interpretative system. The Spanish printer’s copy shows that from thebeginning of his task, and in ways similar to other translators of the Politica,Mendoza’s choices in the logic of visually arranging the text transformed insignificant ways the readability of Lipsius’s work. The uniform and compactlayout of the Spanish page reorganized the fragmented materiality of thesententiae. The modes of emphasis, pointing and distinctions, italics and capitalletters, and the intricate presence of marginal notes and headings, werereconfigured into a less-hierarchical vernacular page. By redesigning the visualtexture of the work, suppressing some typographic features, and rearrangingothers, the translator transformed the textual genre of the cento into a politicaltreatise that favored a different type of reading strategy.

Consistent with the scope intended by any vernacular translation ofa humanist text, Polıticas opened itself up to a more diverse readership, tonon-humanist readers, to the world of non-Latinist aristocratic Spaniards,pragmatic and sophisticated in their interests and goals. Stressing Lipsius’sauthorship more than the arsenal of sententious material for use, the booktook on a different role and a new usefulness. The connection between

84The English translation printed the marginalia that, as mentioned, the majority ofvernacular editions eliminated. Jones states that he refused to follow recommendations made

to him by ‘‘several people’’ to suppress those marginal notes. Paraphrasing Lipsius, Jonesexplains that the notes give clarity to the work and guide the reader through the developmentof the author’s arguments. Creating expectation in the curious reader, Jones claims that thenotes possess a uniqueness he has not seen in other books. All the notes are interrelated, and

together they construct a parallel discourse. He invites the reader to peruse the notesconsecutively, not as a margin but as a column of text, experiencing the truth of his assertionand the nouveaute of the arrangement in ‘‘To the courteous Reader,’’ n.n. (Lipsius, 1594):

‘‘the said marginal notes, do give great Light to the worke, & serve to explaine many matterstherein: resides they haue this singularities in them (which I haue nor seene in any other) thatthey do entertain one another, as if they were a continued speech: which if you reade them by

themselues, you shall soone finde out.’’




reading, excerpting, and writing that the Latin page conspicuouslydisplayed, also at a typographic level, disappears. The Spanish translationdoes not highlight with the same emphasis the essential link visible on thepage between memory and writing, between reading the classics and weavinga modern text that had allowed Lipsius to display his inventiveness anda rigorous and formidable erudition. The typographically crafted plurality ofvoices and polyphonic authorship of the Politica becomes lost in translation.The less intellectually mediated form of presentation of the Spanish Polıticasplaces more emphasis on Lipsius’s exclusive and prodigious authorship,while at the same time highlighting the humanist’s own position in thedebate on the pressing political issues raised by the Politica.

VI L L A N O V A UN I V E R S I T Y




Bibl iography

Albert and Isabella, 1598 –1621. Ed.Werner Thomas and Luc Duerloo.Leuven, 1998.

Andres Escapa, Pablo. ‘‘Autores en

la oficina del impresor. Tresreimpresiones del Siglo de Oroespanol y un aplazamiento.’’ Boletınde la Real Academia Espanola 79(1999): 249–66.

Andres Escapa, Pablo, and Elena Delgado

Pascual. ‘‘El original de imprenta.’’ InImprenta y crıtica textual (2000),29–64.

Andrieu, Jacques. ‘‘Procedes de citation etde raccord.’’ Revue des Etudes Latines26.2 (1948): 268–93.

Anton Martınez, Beatriz. El Tacistismo en elsiglo XVII en Espana. El proceso dereceptio. Valladolid, 1991.

Aviles Fernandez, Miguel. ‘‘La censura

inquisitorial de Los seis libros de larepublica de Jean Bodin.’’ HispaniaSacra 37 (1985): 655–92.

Baldwin, Geoffrey P. ‘‘The Translation ofPolitical Theory in Early ModernEurope.’’ In Cultural Translationin Early Modern Europe, ed. Peter

Burke and R. Po-Chia Hsia, 101–24.Cambridge, 2007.

Balsamo, Luigi. ‘‘How to Doctor

a Bibliography: Antonio Possevino’sPractice.’’ In Church, Censorship andCulture in Early Modern Italy, ed.

Gigliola Fragnito, 50–79. Cambridge,2001.

Blair, Ann M. Too Much to Know:Managing Scholarly Informationbefore the Modern Age. New Haven,2010.

Bouza, Fernando. ‘‘De polıtica y tipografıa.

En torno a Felipe III y los PaısesBajos.’’ In Imagen y propaganda.Capıtulos de historia cultural delreinado de Felipe II, 153–67. Madrid,1998.

———. ‘‘Natural History of the Written

Text: Authors, Copyists, Printers,Booksellers, and Readers.’’ InCommunication, Knowledge, and Memoryin Early Modern Spain, trans. SoniaLopez and Michael Agnew, 39–56.Philadelphia, 2004.

———. ‘‘Plus auteur que l’auteur: traduire

comme exercise royal et aristocratique.’’In Heterographies. Formes de l’ecrit ausiecle d’or espagnol, pref. Roger Chartier,

trans. Jean-Marie Saint-Lu, 97–122.Madrid, 2010.

Brown, Paul. ‘‘An Edition of Don

Bernardino de Mendoza’s Theoriqueand practice of warre : Sir EdwardHoby’s 1597 Translation.’’ PhD

diss., Arizona State University, 1974.Brun, Robert. Le Livre francais. Paris, 1969.Burke, Peter. The Fortunes of the Courtier.

University Park, 1996.

Cabanas Agrela, Jose Miguel. DonBernardino de Mendoza, un escritor-soldado al servicio de la Monarquıacatolica. Guadalajara, 2001.

Cabrera Nunez de Guzman, Melchor de.Discurso legal, historico y polıtico enprueba del origen, progresos, utilidad,nobleza y excelencias del Arte de laimprenta. 1675. Ed. Amalia SarriaRueda. Madrid, 1993.

Carrera Dıaz, Manuel. ‘‘La punteggiaturanelle lingue iberiche.’’ In Storia dellapunteggiatura in Europa, ed. Bice

Mortara Garavelli, 295–338. Bari,2008.

Chartier, Roger. ‘‘La pluma, el taller y la

voz. Entre crıtica textual e historiacultural.’’ In Imprenta y crıtica textual(2000), 243–57.

———. ‘‘El manuscrito en la epoca delimpreso. Lectura y reflexiones.’’ In Lacultura del libro en la Edad Moderna.Andalucıa y America, ed. M. Pena

Dıaz, P. Ruiz Perez, and Julian




Solana Pujalte, 21–35. Cordoba,

2001.Corbett, Theodore G. ‘‘The Cult of

Lipsius: A Leading Source of EarlyModern Spanish Statecraft.’’ Journalof the History of Ideas 36.1 (1975):139–52.

Darnton, Robert. ‘‘The Mysteries of

Reading.’’ In The Case for Books,149–73. New York, 2009.

Davila Perez, Antonio. Benito Arias Montano.Correspondencia conservada en el MuseoPlantin-Moretus de Amberes. 2 vols.Alcaniz-Madrid, 2002.

———. ‘‘La recepcion espanola de lasPolıticas de Lipsio: la traduccioncastellana de Bernardino de Mendoza(Madrid 1604) y la expurgacion en los

ındices inquisitoriales.’’ In Iam illustravitomnia. Justus Lipsius als lievelingsauteurvan het Plantijnse Huis, ed. J. De

Landtsheer and P. Delsaerdt, 103–26.Antwerp, 2006.

De Landtsheer, Jeanine. ‘‘Les pages de titre

dans l’oeuvre de Juste Lipse.’’ In Lapage de titre a la Renaissance, ed. Jean-Francois Gilmont and AlexandreVanautgaerden, 59–72. Turnhout,

2008.———. ‘‘Le privilege: un droit de l’auteur

ou de l’editeur? A propos de Juste

Lipse et la publication de son oeuvre.’’In L’auteur a la Renaissance. L’altro quee in noi, ed. Rosanna Gorris Camos

and Alexandre Vanautgaerden, 101–21.Turnhout, 2009.

Delgado, Juan. Diccionario de Impresoresespanoles. 2 vols. Madrid, 1996.

Feros, Antonio. Kingship and Favoritism inthe Spain of Philip III, 1598 –1621.Cambridge, 2000.

Fournel, Jean Louis. ‘‘Une receptionambigue: la diffusion de la penseepolitique de Juste Lipse en langue

vulgaire dans l’Italie de la premieremoitie du XVIIe siecle.’’ In Juste Lipse(1547 –1606) en son temps (1996),

479–502.

Garza Merino, Sonia. ‘‘La cuenta del

original.’’ In Imprenta y crıtica textual(2000), 65–95.

———. ‘‘El Tratado de Mathematicas deJuan Perez de Moya en la imprenta.’’

In La memoria de los libros. Estudiossobre la historia del escrito y de la lecturaen Europa y America, ed. Marıa Isabel

de Paiz Hernandez, 1:435–62.Salamanca, 2004.

———. ‘‘El ‘original’ de imprenta. El

diseno del libro impreso antiguo segunel autor.’’ Ecdotica 3 (2006): 153–85.

Gil Pujol, Xavier. ‘‘Las fuerzas del rey: la

generacion que leyo a Botero.’’ In Leforze del principe, ed. Mario Rizzo,Jose Javier Ruiz Ibanez, and GaetanoSabatini, 2:969–1022. Murcia, 2004.

Gonzalez de Amezua, Agustın. Como sehacıa un libro en nuestro siglo de oro.Madrid, 1946.

Goyet, Francis. Le sublime du lieu commun.L’invention rhetorique dans l’Antiquiteet a la Renaissance. Paris, 1996.

Grafton, Anthony. ‘‘Portrait of JustusLipsius.’’ In Bring out your Dead:The Past as Revelation, 228–43.Cambridge, 2002.

Havens, Earle. Commonplace Books: AHistory of Manuscripts and PrintedBooks from Antiquity to the TwentiethCentury. New Haven, 2001.

Herrera Casado, Antonio. ‘‘Bernardino deMendoza.’’ Torre de los Lujanes 13.9

(1989): 30–45.Imprenta y crıtica textual en el siglo de

oro. Ed. Francisco Rico. Valladolid,

2000.Janssen, Frans A. ‘‘Author and Printer in

the History of Typographical Design.’’In Technique and Design in the Historyof Printing, 12–37. Houten, 2004.

Jensen, Lamar. Diplomacy and Dogmatism:Bernardino de Mendoza and the FrenchCatholic League. Cambridge, 1964.

Juste Lipse (1547 –1606) en son temps. Actesdu colloque de Strasbourg, 1994. Ed.

Christian Mouchel. Paris, 1996.




Kagan, Richard. Clio and the Crown: ThePolitics of History in Medieval andEarly Modern Spain. Baltimore, 2009.

Lafond, Jean. ‘‘Le centon et son usage dansla litterature morale et politique.’’

In L’automne de la Renaissance1580 –1630, ed. Jean Lafond andAndre Stegmann, 117–28. Paris,

1981.Lanham, Richard. A Handlist of Rhetorical

Terms. Berkeley, 1991.

Lasperas, Jean-Michel. ‘‘Los librosde Bernardino de Mendoza,(1540[41]–1604).’’ Bulletin Hispanique99.1 (1997): 25–39.

Lipsius, Justus. Sixe Bookes of Politckes orCivil Doctrine. Trans. William Jones.1594. Amsterdam, 1970.

———. Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Ed. JeanineDe Landtsheer. 14 vols. (20 planned).Brussels, 1978–.

———. Politicorum libri. Ed. JacquelineLagree. Trans. Charles Le Ber (book4). Caen, 1994.

———. Los seis libros de las Polıticas. Trans.Bernardino de Mendoza. 1604. Ed.Javier Pena Echevarrıa and ModestoSantos Lopez. Madrid, 1997.

———. Politica. The Six Books of Politics orPolitical Instruction. Ed. and trans. JanWaszink. Assen, 2004.

Loewenstein, Joseph. The Author’s Due:Printing and the Prehistory ofCopyright. Chicago, 2002a.

———.Ben Jonson and Possessive Authorship.Cambridge, 2002b.

Lopez Poza, Sagrario. ‘‘La Polıtica de Lipsio

y las Empresas polıticas de SaavedraFajardo.’’ Res publica 19 (2008):209–34.

Lucıa Megıas, Jose Manuel. ‘‘Escribir,

componer, corregir, reeditar, leer (olas trasformaciones textuales en laimprenta).’’ In Libro y lectura enla Penınsula Iberica y America.Siglo XIII a XVIII, ed. AntonioCastillo Gomez, 209–42. Valladolid,

2003.

Martınez Millan, Jose. ‘‘El archiduque

Alberto en la corte de Felipe II(1570–1580).’’ In Albert and Isabella(1998), 27–37.

McKenzie, Donald F. Bibliography andthe Sociology of Texts. Cambridge,1999.

———. ‘‘Typography and Meaning: The

Case of William Congreve.’’ InMaking Meaning: ‘‘Printers of theMind’’ and Other Essays, ed. Peter D.

McDonald and Michael F. Suarez,S.J., 198–236. Amherst, 2002.

Mendoza, Bernardino de. Correspondencia.

Ed. Martın Fernandez de Navarrete.Madrid, 1842.

———. Teorica y practica de la guerra. Ed.J. Carlos Saavedra and Juan Antonio

Sanchez Belen. Madrid, 1998.———. Comentarios de lo sucedido en las

guerras de los Paıses Bajos. Ed. Antonio

Cortijo and Angel Gomez Moreno.Madrid, 2008.

Moll, Jaime. ‘‘Problemas bibliograficos del

libro del Siglo de Oro.’’ Boletın de laReal Academia de la Espanola 59(1979): 51–107.

Momigliano, Arnaldo. ‘‘The First Political

Commentary on Tacitus.’’ In Essays inAncient and Modern Historiography,205–29. Middleton, 1977.

Morel-Fatio, Alfred. ‘‘Bernardino de Mendoza,sa vie, son oeuvre.’’ Bulletin Hispanique37–38 (1906): 20–70.

Morford, Mark. ‘‘Tacitean Prudentia andthe Doctrines of Justus Lipsius.’’ InTacitus and the Tacitean Tradition,

ed. T. J. Luce and A. J. Woodman,129–51. Princeton, 1993.

Moss, Ann. Printed Commonplace-Booksand the Structuring of RenaissanceThought. Oxford, 1996a.

———. ‘‘Vision fragmentee et unitaire: lesPolitiques et les receils de lieux

communs.’’ In Juste Lipse (1547 –1606)en son temps (1996b), 471–78.

———. ‘‘The Politica of Justus Lipsius

and the Commonplace-Book.’’ Journal




of the History of Ideas 59.3 (1998):

421–36.———. ‘‘Locating Knowledge.’’ In

Cognition and the Book: Typologies ofFormal Organisation of Knowledge inthe Printed Book of the Early ModernPeriod, ed. A. E. Enenkel andWolfgang Neuber, 35–49. Leiden,

2005.Moxon, Joseph. Mechanick Exercises on the

whole Art of Printing. Ed. Herbert

Davis and Harry Carter. London,1958.

Oestrich, Gerhard. Neostoicism and theEarly Modern State. Cambridge, 1982.

Papy, Jan. ‘‘An Antiquarian Scholarbetween Text and Image? JustusLipsius, Humanist Education, and

the Visualization of Ancient Rome.’’Sixteenth Century Journal 35.1(2004): 97–131.

Paredes, Alonso Vıctor de. Institucion yorigen del arte de la imprenta y reglasgenerales para los componedores. Ed.

Jaime Moll. Madrid, 2002.Peraita, Carmen. ‘‘La oreja, lengua, voz, el

grito y las alegorıas del acceso al rey:elocuencia sacra y afectos polıticos en

la Polıtica de Dios de Quevedo.’’ LaPerinola 5 (2001): 185–205.

———. ‘‘Teatro tipografico, libro de los

espacios cortesanos: Teatro de lasgrandezas de la villa de Madrid deGil Gonzalez Davila.’’ In La fracturahistoriografica: Las investigaciones deEdad Media y Renacimiento desde eltercer milenio, ed. Javier San Jose Lera,

705–22. Salamanca, 2008.Perez Pastor, Cristobal. Bibliografıa

madrilena de los siglos XVI y XVII. 3vols. Amsterdam, 1971.

Petrucci, Armando. ‘‘La escritura manuscritay la imprenta: ruptura o continuidad.’’In Alfabetismo, escritura, sociedad, 117–28.

Barcelona, 1999a.———. ‘‘Escrituras como invencion, escritura

como expresion.’’ In Alfabetismo, escritura,sociedad, 171–80. Barcelona, 1999b.

Possevino, Antonio. Bibliotheca selecta quaagitur de ratione studiorum in Historia indisciplinis in salutem omnium procuranda.Rome, 1603.

Quevedo, Francisco de. Obras completas.Ed. Luis Astrana Marın. 2 vols.Madrid, 1932.

Ramırez, Alejandro, ed. Epistolario de JustoLipsio con los espanoles (1577 –1606).Madrid, 1966.

Reyes Gomez, Fermın de los. ‘‘La

estructura formal del libro antiguoespanol.’’ Paratesto 7 (2010): 9–59.

Rico, Francisco. ‘‘Como se hacıa un libro

en el siglo de oro.’’ In El Texto del‘‘Quijote.’’ Preliminares a una ecdoticadel Siglo de Oro, 53–93. Valladolid,2005.

Saenger, Paul. ‘‘Benito Arias Montano andthe Evolving Notion of Locus inSixteenth-Century Printed Books.’’

Word & Image 17.1–2 (2001): 119–

37.Schwartz, Lıa. ‘‘Justo Lipsio en Quevedo:

neoestoicismo, polıtica y satira.’’ InEncuentros en Flandes, ed. WernerThomas and Robert A. Verdonk,227–74. Leuven, 2000.

Sebastian Mediavilla, Fidel. Puntuacion,humanismo e imprenta en el siglo deoro. Vigo, 2007.

Sharpe, Kevin. Reading Revolutions: ThePolitics of Reading in Early ModernEngland. New Haven, 2000.

Solıs de los Santos, Jose. ‘‘Dos cartasdesconocidas de Justo Lipsio.’’Humanistica Lovaniensia 47 (1998):

328–29.Tamayo de Vargas, Tomas. Junta de libros.

Ed. Belen Alvarez Garcıa. Madrid,2007.

Thomas, Max W. ‘‘Reading and Writingthe Renaissance Commonplace Book:A Question of Authorship?’’ In TheConstruction of Authorship: TextualAppropriation in Law and Literature,ed. Martha Woodmansee and Peter

Jaszi, 401–15. Durham, 1994.




Thomas, Werner. ‘‘Andromeda Unbound:

The Reign of Albert and Isabella in theSouthern Netherlands, 1598–1621.’’In Albert and Isabella (1998), 1–14.

Torne, Emilio. ‘‘La mirada del tipografo: el

libro entendido como una maquina delectura.’’ Litterae. Cuadernos sobreCultura Escrita 1 (2001): 147–77.

———. ‘‘Arquitectura tipografica del libroen el Siglo de Oro.’’ In Imprenta,Libros y lectura en la Espana delQuijote, ed. Jose Manuel LucıaMegıas, 243–74. Madrid, 2006.

Truyol Serra, Antonio. ‘‘Nota sobre la

version expurgada de la Polıtica deLipsio.’’ In Estudios de filosof ıa delderecho y ciencia jurıdica en memoriahomenaje al catedratico don Luis Legaz yLacambra (1906 –1980), ed. JoseIturmendi Morales and Jesus LimaTorrado, 2:773–82. Madrid, 1985.

Van der Haeghen, Victor. Bibliographiegenerale des Pays-Bas. Ed. MarieTherese Lenger. 6 vols. Brussels, 1979.

Voet, Leon. The Making of Books in theRenaissance as Told by the Archives ofthe Plantin-Moretus Museum. NewYork, 1966.

———. ‘‘Plantin et ses auteurs. Quelquesconsiderations sur les relations entreimprimeurs et auteurs sur le plan

typographique-litteraire au XVIe siecle.’’

In Trasmissione dei testi a stampa nelperiodo moderno, ed. Giovanni Crapulli,61–76. Roma, 1985.

Vosters, Simon A. ‘‘Cristobal Plantino y laliteratura espanola de la edad de oro.’’

In Simposio Internacional sobreCristobal Plantino, ed. Hans Tropand Pedro Peira, 95–122. Madrid,

1990.Waszink, Jan. ‘‘Instances of Classical Citations

in the Politica of Justus Lipsius: Their

Use and Purpose.’’ HumanisticaLovaniensia 46 (1997a): 240–57.

———.‘‘Inventio in the Politica:

Commonplace-Books and the Shapeof Political Theory.’’ In Lipsius inLeiden: Studies in the Life and Worksof a Great Humanist, ed. K. Enenkel and

C. Heesakkers, 141–62. Voorthuizen,1997b.

———. ‘‘Virtuous deception: The Politicaand the Wars in the Low Countries andFrance, 1559–1589.’’ In Iustus LipsiusEuropeae Lumen et Columen. Proceedingsof the International Colloquium, Leuven,17 –19 September 1997, ed. G.Tournoy, J. De Landtsheer, and J.Papy, 248–67. Leuven, 1999.

Williams, Patrick. The Great Favourite: TheDuke of Lerma and the Court andGovernment of Philip III of Spain,1598 –1621. Manchester, 2006.




Documents

Typographical Translations: Spanish Refashioning of Lipsius'sPoliticorum libri sex