the two oedipuses: sophocles, anguillara, and the renaissance treatment of myth-richard fabrizio

8/9/2019 The Two Oedipuses: Sophocles, Anguillara, and the Renaissance Treatment of Myth-Richard Fabrizio

1/14

The Two Oedipuses: Sophocles,Anguillara, and the Renaissance

Treatment of Myth

Richard Fabrizio

To discuss so minor a writer as Giovanni Andreadell'Anguillara (ca.1517-1571) seems like an exercise in willful obscurantism or personal en-

thusiasm for what is better dead and buried. Of course, it could be claimedwith Ernst Robert Curtius and Aby Warburg that God lurks in detail, thatonly by a minute exploration of even the minor figures of a period can weachieve any synthesis and understanding of literary history. We are all awarefrom experience how often a second or even third rate writer illuminatesmore clearly than a master the mentality of a period. But a more tangiblejustification exists for conjuring up the name of Anguillara from the dustytomes of the past. His Edippo tragedia was both the first performed and first

printed vernacular version of the Oedipus story in the Renaissance. Calledamong the most famous tragedies by one of those eighteenth-century

collectors of details, Crescimbeni (I. iv. 309), the Edippo was printed twice in1565,1 once in Padua and once in Venice. It was also performed twice, firstin Padua in 1556 (Pelaez 77) or 1560 (Lorini 88) on a permanent stagedesigned by Falconetto for the home of Alvise Cornaro (Fiocco 142; Idea219) and, I believe, a second time in Vicenza in 1561 on a temporarywooden stage designed by Palladio for the Olympic Academy. Both produc-tions were done with a splendor and pomp befitting the famous story and

befitting a text that would return the story of Oedipus to the stage aftermore than a thousand year hiatus.While the stage history of the 1585 production of Sophocles' Oedipus or

the inauguration of Palladio's Teatro Olimpico has been told repeatedly,both in its own time (Ingegneri) and after (Gallo, Puppi, Schrade), the taleof Anguillara's play is hardly known. And it probably will never be told,

MLN, 110 (1995): 178-191 ? 1995 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

This content downloaded from 62 .204.192.85 on Thu, 1 Jan 201 5 19:33:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


2/14

MLN

lacking as it does early MS or printed evidence and depending on contra-

dictory reports in those ponderous but charming biographical and biblio-graphical texts of the seventeenth and eighteenth century: Castellini, Te-manza, Mazzuchelli, Tiraboschi, Fontanini, Angiolgabriello, and others.That the Edippo has been confined to the dust bins of literature by an unfortu-nate loss of evidence is ironic, for Anguillara repeatedly complained, oftenwith a broad smile, against his fate. In one poem, he said that while For-tune showed Her smiling face to his patron, he only saw Her behind( culo : Capitolo: Nella Sedia 115). Yet according to our standards, he wasquite fortunate: a poet of many witty poems in the style of Berni; a transla-tor who even recently was called a star (Melczer 246-265); a letterato calledupon by the Olympic Academy to write the preface for the first Italianperformance of the first Italian tragedy, Trissino's Sofonisba Corrigan 199);a writer who served at the court of King Henry II and Catherine de' Medici;and last but not least, an aspiring inventor ( Lettera alla Signoria ).

And yet his reputation has become as small and misshaped as his body; hewas, in fact, a dwarfish hunchback. Though he laughed at his deformity,calling his body a mess of mountains and valleys ( Capitolo al Cardinale diTrento 301-302), he-I think-would have cried at his historical neglect,and especially at the neglect of his Edippo, which as his preface shows, he

hoped would bring fame by association with the noble tragic genre. Notfame, but infamy came to it instead. His Edippo was damned by both con-temporaries and by nineteenth- and twentieth-century critics, and by all forthe same reason: its additions to Sophocles' text. A Latin letter by the priestGirolamo Negri mentions its first performance, complaining that its fourhour production was undecipherable (tota . . . est etrusca; 120). De

Nores, in his 1588 Poetica, called these added episodes that ran so counterto Aristotle's prescriptions little less than vicious. Later critics were no lesskind, castigating Anguillara on the same basis: those dreaded episodes(D' Ovidio 277; Pelaez 79; Bosisio 83-84; Symonds II 244). But these addi-tions are at the heart of Anguillara's vision. While all translation involves adegree of exegesis, particularly in the Renaissance (Norton 179), Anguil-lara literally recreated the figure of Oedipus. His Edippo is close to thosetypes of imitations recognized by modern criticism, imitations that have a

dialectical relation to their subtexts (Greene 39-40), works that retain theterms of their sources but mean them in another sense (Bloom 14). Butthe Edippo is really unique in what it attempts. Other Renaissance writersdid one of two things: they translated Sophocles' text and left it as is;2 or theymimicked its structures, as defined by Aristotle, in newly conceived plots and

characters. No one else in the period completely redefined Oedipus.Both Anguillara and his contemporaries start from the same point: the

riddles embedded in Sophocles' text. Not what is understood there butwhat is incomprehensible forms the basis of the Renaissance Oedipus.While his contemporaries shun the textual riddles, Anguillara faces themhead on. He accepts Sophocles' plot and modifies Oedipus' behavior. Into

179



3/14

RICHARD FABRIZIO

his second and third acts, Anguillara confines the whole of Sophocles' plot,

interjecting into it new allusions that redefine its characters. In the rest ofthe text, Anguillara does the opposite: he expands the plot by inventingnew material and by drawing bits and pieces from Euripides, Seneca, andStatius, and then interjects back into it material from Sophocles. At thesame time, Anguillara maintains a link with the Middle Ages and the medi-eval Oedipus romans: their concern for pathos in particular. No wondercritics were dumbfounded and distraught. Nevertheless there is a sense tothe whole, a reason for using such a variety of sources and motifs. An-guillara tried to solve a problem, a problem that he and his contemporariesnoticed in Sophocles' Oedipus and its Aristotelian interpretation: Oedipusdid not act consistently. Anguillara's object is to bring consistency to Edip-po's life, to reconcile what I call the paradox of the two Oedipuses. With analmost Freudian fervor, Anguillara transforms his Edippo into a study ofdesire within the family, geometrically plotting its course from compassionand love to rivalry and incest. So what follows is not the story of the resus-citation of a dead body as much as an attempt to expose how a Renaissancewriter understood or misunderstood the classic mind. And this story is verymuch the story of the two Oedipuses.

Oedipus is famous for his intelligence. To Sophocles (8) and Euripides

(1506), he is glorious and wise for his ability to decipher a riddle. But inSophocles' Oedipus, Oedipus is also obtuse. He is unable to put togetherelementary facts of his past with his present-facts of time, of place, ofnumber, and of geneology. Every student has been perplexed and stimu-lated by this paradox, the paradox of the two Oedipuses. Elaborate theorieshave been devised to explain away the paradox of the two Oedipuses. Inone theory Oedipus may be in fact neither parricide nor incestuous (Good-hardt; Ahl); he is guilty rather of misreading his past, his parentage, ofblindly behaving as if the oracle must be his fate (Ahl). In another theory,Oedipus has always been sure of his past, of his patricide and incest; whenthe plague comes, he engages in a performance of ignorance in order toallow his people to ritually expiate themselves in the unravelling of his guilt(Vellacott). And of course, the most famous theory of our time, Freud's,explains away the paradox of the two Oedipuses by a dichotomy of themind, a division between unconscious desire and conscious action, betweensuppression and anxiety. In each of these theories, the Oedipuses are rec-onciled, denying either that Oedipus commits a crime or accepting thecrime and explaining it away. Whichever theory we accept, we realize thatSophocles' language is rich in paradox.

Against a backdrop of Aristotelian theory, Renaissance writers and criticsalso struggled to repair the split in the two Oedipuses. Some recognizedthat Aristotle's theory of character transformation rationalized the dichot-omy, the theory of peripeteia-a reversal of fortune that forces one to facethe past-and the theory of anagnorisis-a recognition of the meaning ofone's past in terms of the present. Aristotle's rationalization provided little

180



4/14

M L N

practical help. Oedipus' past was filled with so many inconsistencies that

writers avoided the text and instead used its motifs. For example, in thetragedy Alidoro (1568) a baby is cast out of its royal home because of a direoracle; later he returns and unknowingly commits incest with his sister(Neri 173-174). Gabriele Bombace, who probably wrote this tragedy, ex-plains its creative methodology in his description of the play's first perfor-mance. He pinpoints the connections between Sophocles' text and Aris-totle's theory: There are no lack of literati who, comparing diligently theanagnorisis and peripeteia of Oedipus with that of Alidoro, dare for severalreasons to affirm that this is better than that: and among other reasonsbecause it is beyond belief that Oedipus . . . with so many signs of corre-spondence between place and time . . . had never thought that he was themurderer of Laius, the which error was sustained and defended by Aristotlethe best he could as something outside the scenic action of the play itself. Itis nevertheless very important and very far from the verisimilitude found inAlidoro Tragedia II 1004). There are three key elements here: 1) the refer-ence to the passage in Aristotle that concerns a play's inner action and priorevents (Poetics. XV. 1454b. 10d); 2) the intimation that Aristotle's theory oftragedy rationalizes the inconsistencies in Oedipus; and 3) the appeal toverisimilitude-fidelity to real life-as the standard that constitutes ratio-

nality.Anguillara is unique in his use of the plot of Sophocles' Oedipus o solve

what such writers saw as the irrationalities of the text. Most eliminated theplot of Oedipus and either imitated its handling of peripeteia and anag-norisis or competed with its horror by exploiting the shock of incest. Gua-rini's II Pastor Fido (1590) imitates not the life of Oedipus but the wayOedipus came to recognize the meaning of his acts through reversals offortune. Guarini so complicates and multiplies the reversals in plot thatthey outdo those in Oedipus. Each new twist foils the characters; they areblind to its meaning. But all finally becomes clear, for the world is rationalonce the secret design of Fate is revealed (Perella 257-259). Although con-centrating on these reversals, Guarini retains certain elements of the plot ofOedipus: a child lost to its true parents, a dark fate for the state, an oraclethat predicts a cure. Tasso's Torrismondo 1573) also manipulates and re-news the story of Oedipus (Neri 147), while forsaking its plot. It retains adire prediction, a child purposely separated from its parents, and incest.But here too the episodes are constructed so as to complicate the plot andthus rival the way its classical source, Oedipus, used peripeteia and anag-norisis. And again the hero, perfectly rational, is victimized by the irra-

tionality of the daily world in which he lives (Dainard 45).Rather than its complex structure, most Renaissance writers tried to imi-

tate Oedipus'horror. Dramatists noticed that Aristotle modeled his cathartictheory on Oedipus; herefore, they began to locate the catharsis of pity andfear in the attraction and repulsion for incest. Cesare della Porta, in hisDelpha (1586), says that his subject is so terrible that it will overwhelm

181



5/14


6/14

MLN

cle, he refuses to return to Corinth because he is sure of his parentage, sure

that he can control his future, sure that he will subvert the prophecy that hewill kill his father and marry his mother.The way Anguillara repairs what he must have thought as the illogic of

Sophocles' text is apparent in the handling of Edippo's knowledge of hispast as a prelude to his investigation of Laio's death. In spite of all his yearsin Thebes, Sophocles' Oedipus is strangely ignorant of the facts of Laius'death until he begins his relentless inquiry. Edippo knows everything; hetalked many times about it. He knows when and how Laio was killed. Onlyone detail he does not know: where the murder took place, a detail that wemay forgive anyone for overlooking. But at the end of every correction anew error pops up. Knowing the facts, why had Edippo never done any-thing? Every age seems to negotiate a path between tolerable and intoler-able irrationalities.

Anguillara, like commentators today (Goodhardt; Ahl), noticed that thecase Oedipus builds against himself is not reasonably strong. Therefore,Anguillara piles up so many clues to prove that Edippo killed Laio that alldoubt vanishes. Not only are all the numbers correct: time, place, andwitnesses, but new details are added. Edippo accepts that he has killed Laioonly because the Theban shepherd, Forbante, proves he is a reliable witness

by even more physical evidence, a distinctive wound on his head and dis-tinctive words at the scene of the killing that Edippo recognizes. But it is afinal clue that confirms his belief: at the time of the killing, Laio wore a redcloak all adorned in gold and embroidery (un manto rosso/Tutto guar-nito d'oro, e di ricami; Act III, Sc. 2, 29 verso-30 recto). Discovery (anag-norisis) is a matter of purely physical evidence. Guilt is detached from apersonal judgment of responsibility. Investigatory objectivity and exposi-tory balance are deemed the essence of rationality.

Irrational unbalance is an expository technique in Sophocles. While themurder investigation is in the foreground, incest floats in the background.As the one investigation turns into the other, many details of the first areleft unanswered and of the second unasked. In Anguillara, the murder andthe incest run along parallel but separate tracts. First, he establishes ahistory of familial love and simultaneously a mechanism to prevent its erup-tion into its opposite-incest and rivalry. Next he arranges a curse on incestto preface the curse on regicide. To introduce the incest, he carefully buildsa family structure marked by compassion and love. Edippo flees Corinthwhen he is close to twenty. This allows Anguillara to stress Edippo's lovingrelationship to his supposed parents as well as the age difference between

him and his wife, who is sixty when the play begins. Edippo has been lovedby his Corinthian parents, has had a full childhood, has felt safe and soundin Corinth. As he has been loved, Edippo loves his own children, who whenthe play opens are old enough to rule and to marry, old enough to have ahistory of his guiding and protecting them. Anguillara was surely influ-enced in the matter of age by Euripides' Phoenissae and Statius' Thebaid and

183



7/14

RICHARD FABRIZIO

the medieval Oedipus romans. Sophocles hardly mentions age at all. When

Oedipus talks about parents and family, he speaks about them in terms ofunfulfilled desire. The sweetest (hediston) sight of all must be to see thefaces (ommata) of one's parents (999), he conjectures.

Surely one of the episodes De Nores found superfluous is what may becalled the contracts scene (Act I, Sc. 2): a scene that demonstrates Edip-po's deep love for his children and his apprehension of the danger offamilial love. Assuming that he controls two kingdoms, one that he willinherit (Corinth) and one that he has conquered (Thebes), Edippo drawsup an elaborate contract in which one city is given to Polinice and the otherto Eteocle. He then assures the future of his daughters, contracting each toa noble marriage. To a great extent any rivalry or jealousy within the familyis prevented by these contracts before it begins. But is the attempt to blockout such future conflicts a mark of their strength? Incest and civic rebellion,Edippo tells his children, are tied together, a connection found in everywork on Oedipus from Statius' Thebaid to Lydgate's Siege of Thebes, romSilvestrius (76) to the works of the Medieval mythographers (Anderson121-125). And thus, within this civic context, Edippo issues his first curse:

May God send his anger and vengeance / Against anyone who with hisown flesh / Tries to vent his lasciviousness; / Let him live in misery, a

beggar. / Deprived of light, and suffer / Every anguish, either in prison orin exile (Act I, Sc. 2, 7 recto). Incest becomes a part of the foreground ofAnguillara's play; it is tied not only to the prediction given to Laio andEdippo but paralleled to the later oracle about the cause of the plague (ActII, Sc. 3).

Thus Anguillara's Edippo issues a double curse, one against incest thatbalances the one against the murderer. Sophocles' curse is directed onlyagainst the murderer. Nor is incest, apparently, introduced as the cause ofthe plague in Sophocles, while in Anguillara the cause is linked both tomurder and to incest. Nowhere is Sophocles' use of misdirection that leadsto misinterpretation better seen than in the wording of the oracle about theplague's cause. To understand the Apollonian oracle in Sophocles, one isforced to devise a theory to put its clues together. Indeed, it is not very clearwhich words belong to the god and which to Creon (Bollack II. 59; Ahl 59).In a rather off-hand manner, Creon says:

I'd like to say what I heard from the god.Phoibos, the king, clearly (emphanos) commands usTo drive out (elaunein) the miasma nourishing the

land,And not to nourish the incurable.

(95-98)

Does the word clearly (emphanos) refer to the manner of the command orto its content? Does it mean that Apollo commands openly or unam-biguously (Kamerbeek 48)? The cause of the plague is not named. What or

184



8/14

M L N

who should be driven out is not named. Are the words that follow Apollo's

or Creon's interpretation of them?Driving out the man (andrelatountas), or

for blood spilled paying back with spilled blood,For it is blood that has turned the city into a wintry

place.

(100-101)

The words driving out the man (andrelatountas) are syntactically con-nected to Phoibos' commands in Creon's earlier report of the oracle (Kam-erbeek 48). But are they logically connected? Creon's driving out the manis an exact parallel to Apollo's words driving out . .. the miasma (elau-nein). Has Creon substituted his word man for the god's word miasma ?Nowhere is the incest explicitly mentioned, for it is unclear whether mia-sma, which is almost always associated with a dead body (Parker 128-132),may ever be connected with incest (Parker 97; Oudemans 48, 50-51, 128).

All this is changed in Anguillara. His oracle is perfectly clear:

These are Apollo's own remarks:An infamous foreigner (peregrino) nhabits Thebes,Who is not a foreigner, in fact he's Theban,But believes he's a foreigner, and all believe the

same of him.He's already killed Laius, King of Thebes,To whom he's closely tied by blood;And he does now, and has done even greater evil.

(Act II. Sc. 3, 14 recto)

One person committed the crime; that person is a Theban who thinks he isa stranger; he is a relative of the dead king; he has committed an evengreater evil than regicide: clearly incest.

Incest, incorporated into a family structure filled with love, provokesconstant talk of rivalry and jealousy. Edippo labels his Corinthian father

rival. He did not go back to Corinth because the oracle had alreadypredicted / That I must be ... / ... adulterer and rival to my father

(.. . perch6 gia l'oracol mi predisse, / Ch'io . . . dovea ... / di mio padrefarmi/Adultero, e rival . . . ; Act III, Sc. 4, 35 recto). The accusation ofadultery and rivalry is repeated over and over again in the text (e.g., Act 5,Sc. 2, 58 recto). In fact, all along Giocasta and Edippo have lived aware thattheir relationship is symbolically incestuous. After the discovery that Edippo

has killed Laio, but before the discovery of the incest, Giocasta calls Edipposon. To his question about why she calls him son rather than husband,

Giocasta says: Edippo, because I am much older than you / I may still callyou son (Edippo, per l'eta c'haggio maggiore, / Di voi, posso figliuolchiamarvi anchora; Act III, Sc. 4, 36 recto). Edippo responds: Out of thesame kind of respect I have always / Treated you with the reverence I would

185



9/14

RICHARD FABRIZIO

have for a mother (Per lo stesso rispetto anch'io v'ho sempre / Portato

riverentia come a madre; 36 recto).Creating a close family structure for Edippo forced Anguillara to psycho-logize its internal mechanism. Every family member's action dovetails withan appropriate motivation. And motives conform to rules of verisimilitudeand decorum: fidelity to ordinary reality and popular manners. The blind-ing scene demonstrates this. In Sophocles, blinding is epistemological, tiedto the question of how we know; in Anguillara, it is psychological, tied to thequestion of why we feel.

Anguillara, following Euripides, Seneca, and Statius, times Edippo'sblinding prior to Giocasta's suicide. Sophocles alone orders the blindingafter it, transforming it from an act of simple self-punishment to a stage inthe discovery of truth. Knowing is a function of memory and so is action. Ifour memories are fantasies, how can we act intelligently? There are indeedtwo Oedipuses: the fictitious character created by circumstance and coinci-dence, and the real person created by mis-memory and misunderstand-ing. Oedipus acts foolishly because he thinks he is someone other than whohe is. With eyes dependent on fiction, he failed to recognize a distinctionmost fundamental to self-knowledge: the meaning of his origin. But withouteyes, and with memory re-formed, he sees in a new way. Does he now see the

real Oedipus? His words at the scene of the blinding force us to considerthe question of knowing:

Because they [his eyes] did not see eitherthe things (outh') I suffered or the evilthings (outh') I did, but in darkness theremaining time, seeing the things (ous)that I wished not to see and seeing thethings (ous) I wished to see but did not know.

(1271-1274)

To what does he refer by the paralleled set of four unidentified things ? Dothe first two refer to his past? Do the things he suffered refer to his exposi-tion as a baby and the evil oracle he was given? Do the things he did refer tohis patricide and incest? Does the third thing, the thing he wished not tosee, refer to the future of his incestuous children? And finally does thefourth thing refer to his present, to his desire to have seen and to haveknown as a child his biological parents? Perhaps these things, the parti-cles (outh'. . . outh' ous . . . ous), ought not to be taken as literally as theyare here (Parry 269) or as Bassi does in his edition of the Greek text (129,

note to II. 1271-1273). We are misled by such traps and almost cannotprevent ourselves from falling into them. But to misunderstand is to enterthe world of Oedipus and into the possibility of discovering error andtherefore of realizing truth.

Anguillara avoids the traps. He concentrates on the psychological impactof the blinding, on the shock of learning that his loving Corinthian parents

186



10/14

M L N

were not his real parents, on the guilt of discovering that the wife with

whom he lived as if she were a mother and who treated him like a son wasindeed his mother. Finding Giocasta screaming in their bedroom, he says toher: Mother, wife, turn to me / Your eyes, and look at your son andhusband / And you will see what penalty (pena) he has chosen / To punishhimself (punirsi) for his sin (Act IV, Sc. 1, 44 recto). Horror and passiondominate the description of the scene. Oedipus displays bloodied eyes toGiocasta. Timing his blinding before her suicide gives him the opportunityto act as if he were a child asking for approval or at least for acknowledg-ment that what he has done is right. The Edippo who closes the play is thesame Edippo who opened it, except that he is in possession of a few morefacts-however pertinent. His emotional and instinctual ties to Giocasta areas powerful as before he knew the truth. He still loves her. Everything in thescene highlights the deep-rooted ties of love that exist among family mem-bers. Edippo kisses Antigone and bloodies her face. Ismene runs for ban-dages to bind Edippo's bloodied eyes. Blood, tears, and screams replace thecontracts at the beginning of the play that were meant to bring about calmand to achieve peaceful social and familial relationships. Edippo's reason-able concern and love for his children is mirrored in the logic of such legaldevices. But the more Edippo tries to construct a logical world, the more

Anguillara tries to find fitting reasons for action, the more reason fails andthe unruly passions are released. The Edippo reflects the logic of Freud'sversion of the family drama more than anything we find in Sophocles.

What is really a minor play, rather melodramatic and unpoetic, pinpointsa Renaissance tendency: in spite of its reverence for the ancients, the Re-naissance destroyed their myths in trying to understand them.

Pace University, New York

NOTES

1 I believe that the earlier printed editions mentioned in the literature are all inerror: 1556 (Mazzuchelli, Vol. I, Pt. 2, 789-790; Paitoni IV 60; Ginguene; Mutini);1554 (Barberi-Squarotti, who in a letter to me disavows this date); 1560 (Bosisio80).

2 For example, see Alessandro Pazzi de' Medici, Edipo principe, 1526, existing only inMS (Neri 51, note 2, and 189; Inventari IV 225, No. 372; Quadrio IV 103); GuidoGuidi, Oedipus, 1532 (Bolgar 525, listed without date); Bernardo Segni (d. 1559),Edipo principe (Quadrio IV 103), not printed until 1778 (Neri 96, note 1); PietroAngelii Bargeo, Edipo tiranno, printed in 1589 (Quadrio IV 103; Schaaber 481).

WORKS CITED

Ahl, Frederick. Sophocles' Oedipus: Evidence and Self-Conviction. thaca, N.Y.: CornellUP, 1991.

187



11/14

RICHARD FABRIZIO

Anderson, David. Mythography or Historiography? The Interpretation of ThebanMyths in Late Medieval Literature. Florilegium 8 (1986): 113-139.

Anecdota Litteraria Ex MSS Codicibus Eruta . . . Vol. I. Rome: Apud A. Fulgonium,1773-1783. 4 vols.

Angiolgabriello di Santa Maria, Padre. Biblioteca e storia di quegli scrittori cosi della cittdcome del territorio di Vicenza che pervennero in'ad ora a notizia. Vol. 4. Vicenza: C. B.Vendrammi Mosca, 1772-1792. 4 vols.

Anguillara, Giovanni Andrea Dell'. Canzone a Catterina de' Medici, Reina di Fran-cia. Anecdota I 427-439.

Canzone di M. Gio: Andrea Alias Del Gobbo da Sutri. Pelaez 120-124.

Capitolo al Cardinale di Trento. Opere Burlesche 294-303.

Capitolo al Cardinale Farnese. Pelaez 107-110.Capitolo: Nella Sedia Vacante al Papa Futuro. Pelaez 110-117.

Capitolo Delle Mosche. Pelaez 117-119.

Edippo. Tragedia. Padua: Per L. Pasquatto, 1565.

Lettera al Duca Cosimo. Venice. 22 May 1563. With a note by C. Guasti.Giornale Storico degli Archivi Toscani. II (1858): 241-245.

Lettera alla Signoria di Venezia. Received before 18 Sept. 1551. Rossi 435.

Lettera al Francesco Bolognetti. Rome, 22 May 1566. Anecdota I. 407-408.

. Lettera al Francesco Bolognetti. Rome, 22 June 1566. Anecdota I. 427-439.

Lettera al Benedetto Varchi. Lyon, 6June 1560. Pelaez 106.Lettera al Benedetto Varchi. Venice, 13 June 1561. Pelaez 107.

. Prologo alla Sofonisba i Giangiorgio Trissino 1562). Vicenza: G. Burato, 1879.

Sonetto a Carlo IX. Anecdota I. 440.

Sonetto al Cardinale di Trento. Anecdota I. 442.

Sonetto al Medesimo Cardinale di Trento. Anecdota I. 442.

Stanze per lo Natale di Monsignor Lo Duca di Angiov. Delizie delli EruditiBibliofili Italiani. Quarta Pubblicazione. Florence: Giacomo Molini, 1864.

Aristotle. The Poetics. Ed. W. Hamilton Fyfe. Loeb Classical Library. 1927. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard UP, 1982.Barberi-Squarotti, Giorgio. Anguillara. Grande dizionario enciclopedico. 1955 ed.

Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. New York: Oxford UP, 1973.

Bolgar, R. R. The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries. 1954. Cambridge: CambridgeUP, 1977.

Bollack, Jean. L'Oedipe Roi de Sophocle. Vol. 2. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille,1990. 4 vols.

Bosisio, Paolo. II tema di Edipo nella tradizione della tragedia italiana. Edipo inFrancia. Biblioteca dell'Archivum Romanicum, Series 1, Vol. 226: Studi di Let-teratura Francese XV. Florence: Olschki, 1989. 78-122.

Castellini, Silvestro. Storia della cittd di Vicenza . . dall' origine . . . sino all'anno 1630.Venice: F. V. Mosca, 1783-1822. Vol. XVIII. 90-91.

Cinzio, Giambattista Giraldi. II giudizio sopra la tragedia di Canace e Macareo. Speroni95-182.

Corrigan, Beatrice. Two Renaissance Views of Carthage: Trissino's Sofonisba andCastellani's Astrubale. Comparative Drama 5 (1971): 193-206.

188



12/14

M L N

Crescimbeni, Giovanni Mario. Istoria della volgar poesia. Vol. I, Lib. 4. Venice: LorenzoBasegio, 1781.

Dainard, J. A. A Seventeenth-Century French Translation of II Re Torrismondo.Rivista di Studi Italiani III. 1 (June 1985): 44-70.

De Nores, Iason. Poetica. Padua: Paulo Maietto, 1588.

D'Ovidio, Francesco. Saggi critici. Naples: Domenico Morano, 1878.

Euripides. Phoenician Maidens. Ed. Arthur S. Way. Loeb Classical Library. 1912. Lon-don: Heinemann, 1925.

Fiocco, Giuseppe. II Teatro di Alvise Cornaro. Atti del convegno sul tema: II teatroclassico italiano nel '500 (Roma, 9-12 febbraio 1969). Rome: Accademia Nazionaledei Lincei, 1971. 141-146.

Fontanini, Giusto. Bibliotecadell'eloquenza

taliana . .. con le annotazioni delSignorApostolo Zeno. 2 vols. Venice: G. Pasquali, 1753.

Gallo, Alberto. La prima rappresentazione l Teatro Olimpico, con i progetti e le relazioni deicontemporanei. Milan: Edizioni II Polifilo, 1973.

Ginguene, P. L. Anguillara. Biografia universale antica e moderna. 1811. Rev. ed.Venice, 1822: II 411-412.

Goodhardt, Sandor. Leistas Ephaske: Oedipus and Laius' Many Murderers. Diacri-tics. 8.1 (Spring 1978): 55-71.

Greene, T. The Light in Troy: mitation and Discovery n Renaissance Poetry. New Haven:Yale UP, 1982.

Herrick, Marvin T. Italian Tragedy n the Renaissance. Urbana: University of Illinois,1965.

Idea del teatro. Schede iconografiche. II teatro taliano nel rinascimento. Ed. FabrizioCruciani e Daniele Seragnoli. Bologna: II Mulino, 1987. 199-224.

Ingegneri, Angelo. Della poesia rappresentativa e del modo di rappresentare e favolesceniche (1598). Ed. Maria Luisa Doglio. Ferrara: Edizioni Panini, 1989.

Inventari dei manoscritti delle biblioteche d'Italia. Vol. 4. Florence: Olschki, 1890-98 vols. to date.

Kamerbeek, J. C. The Plays of Sophocles: Commentaries. art IV: The Oedipus Tyrannus.Leiden: Brill, 1967.

Lorini, Giulio. Per la biografia di G. A. Dell'Anguillara. Giornale storico della let-teratura taliana. CVI. 316-317 (1935): 81-93.

Lydgate,John. Siege of Thebes. Ed. Axel Erdmann and Eilert Ekwall. 2 vols. 1911-1930.Millwood, New York: Kraus Reprint, 1981.

Mazzuchelli, Conte Gianmaria. Gli scrittori d'Italia, cioe notizie storiche e critiche ntornoalle vite, e agli scritti dei letterati taliani. Vol. I, Pt. 2. Brescia: Giambattista Bossini,1758.

Melczer, William. Towards the Dignification of the Vulgar Tongues: HumanisticTranslations into Italian and Spanish in the Renaissance. Canadian Review ofComparative Literature 8.2 (Spring 1981): 256-271.

Mutini, Claudio. Anguillara. Dizionario biografico degli italiani. Rome: Istituto della

Enciclopedia Italiana, 1961.Negri, Girolamo. Hieronymi Nigri . .. Epistolae et Orationes. Sadoleto 119-121.

Neri, Ferdinando. La tragedia italiana. 1904. Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1971.

Norton, Glyn P. Humanist Foundations of Translation Theory (1400-1450): A Studyin the Dynamics of Word. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature. 8.2 (Spring1981): 173-203.

189



13/14

RICHARD FABRIZIO

Opere burlesche. Vol. 2. In Usecht al Reno (Venice): Jacopo Broedelet, 1771. 3 vols.

Oudemans,Th. C. W. and A. P. M. H. Lardinois.

Tragic Ambiguity: Anthropology,Philosophy and Sophocles' Antigone . Leiden: Brill, 1987.

Paitoni,Jacopomaria. Biblioteca degli autori antichi greci e latini volgarizzati, che abbracciala notizia delle loro edizioni: nella quale si esamina particolarmente quanto ne hannoscritto i celebri Maffei, Fontanini, Zeno, ed Argelati (sic). Venice: S. Occhi, stamp.,1766-1767.

Parker, Robert. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1985.

Parry, Adam, Sophocles, Oedipus Rex, 1271-1274. Classical Quarterly. n.s. 10.2 (Nov.1960): 268-270.

Pelaez, M. La vita e le opere di Giovanni Andrea Dell'Anguillara, II Propugnatore.n.s. 4.1 (1891): 40-124.

Perella, Nicolas. Fate, Blindness and Illusion in the Pastor Fido. Romanic ReviewXLIX (1958): 252-268.

Puppi, Leonello. Gli spettacoli all'Olimpico di Vicenza dal 1585 all'inizio del'600.Studi sul teatro veneto ra rinascimento ed etd barocca. Ed. Maria Teresa Muraro.Florence: Olschki, 1971.

Quadrio, Francesco Saverio. Della storia, e della ragione d'ogni poesia. Vol. III, Libro I.Milan: Francesco Angelli, 1743.

Roaf, Christina. Introduzione. Speroni, Canace. XIII-LXI.

Rossi, Vittorio. Nuovi documenti su Giovanni Andrea Dell'Anguillara. Giornalestorico della letteratura taliana. XVIII. 54 (1981): 435-438.

Sadoleto, Jacopo. Jocobi Sadoleti Epistolarum Appendix, Accedunt Hieronymi Nigri et PauliSadoleti ... Ed. Vincenzo Alessandro Constanzi. Rome: G. Salomonius, 1767.

Schrade, Leo. La representation d'Edippo Tiranno au Teatro Olimpico (Vicence 1585).Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1960.

Seneca. Oedipus. Tragedies. Ed. F.J. Miller. Vol. I. Loeb Classical Library. 1917. Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1960. 2 vols.

Shaaber, M. A. Sixteenth-century mprints n the Libraries of the University of Pennsylvania.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976.

Silvestris, Bernardus. The Cosmographia. Trans. Winthrop Wetherbee. New York: Co-lumbia UP, 1973.

Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Ed. F. Storr. Loeb Classical Library. 1912. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard UP, 1981.

. Edipo Re. OIAIIIOYX. Intro. e Commento di Domenico Bassi. Milan:Signorelli, 1977.

Speroni, Sperone. Canace e scritti n sua difesa, and Giambattista Giraldi Cinzio. Scritticontro a Canace, Giudizio ed Epistola latina. Ed. Christina Roaf. Bologna: Com-missione per i Testi di Lingua, 1982.

Statius. Thebaid. Ed. J. H. Mozley. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. 1928. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard UP, 1961.

Symonds, John Addington. The Renaissance n Italy. 2 vols. New York: Modern Library,1935.

Temanza, Tommaso. Vita di Andrea Palladio Vicentino. Venice: Giambattista Pasquali,1767.

Tiraboschi, Girolamo. Storia della letteratura taliana. Vol. VII. 3. 1772. Florence: Mo-lini, Landi, 1805-1813. 9 vols. in 20.

190



14/14

the two oedipuses: sophocles, anguillara, and the renaissance treatment of myth-richard fabrizio

Documents