|
Horapollo (fifth
c. BC)
We know of Horapollo through Suda, who mentions him in
ω 159 (Ὡραπόλλων)
as the leader of one of the last pagan schools of Menouthis,
near Alexandria, during the reign of Emperor Zeno (474-491),
from where he was forced to flee when he became involved in a
revolt against the Christians. His school was shut down, his
temple of Isis and Osiris destroyed, and he, after being
subjected to torture, finally converted to Christianity.
Nevertheless, in the same entry, Suda alludes to another
Horapollo – probably the former’s uncle – a grammarian from
Phanebytis during the reign of Theodosius II (408-450) who
taught in Alexandria and Constantinople. Beginning in the
sixteenth
century, the Hieroglyphica were usually attributed to
him. There were other spurious traditions that ascribed the work
to a king of Egypt, Horus, son of Osiris, or even to the god
Horus himself, as can be read on the cover of the translation of
the manuscript by Nostradamus (Rollet’s ed., 1968): "Horapollo,
Son of Osiris, King of Egypt".
Other fragments from Suda help us to
reconstruct Horapollo’s intellectual world: select philosophical
circles, of an élite educational background, who carefully
gathered together the last traces of the Egyptian past, and
admired the relics of ancient cults, reinterpreting that legacy
in the light of contemporary Neoplatonism. Prior to Horapollo,
Egyptian culture, as well as knowledge about the hieroglyphics,
had been propagated in Greek by Manetho, Bolus of Mende, Apion
and Cæremon. All of their works, which have only survived in
fragmentary form, were written in the same style as the
Hieroglyphica by Horapollo, the only complete ancient
treatise on Egyptian hieroglyphics.
The Hieroglyphica
The two books of the Hieroglyphica contain in total 189
interpretations of hieroglyphs: Book I describes 70, and Book II
119. In the Renaissance they were generally considered to be
authentic Egyptian characters, and although this authenticity
was seriously placed in doubt during the eighteenth and
nineteenth
centuries, modern-day Egyptology recognizes that Book I in its
entirety and approximately one third of Book II are based on
real signs from hieroglyphic writing. Nevertheless, their
interpretation does not follow their functional meaning in the
Egyptian system of writing, but rather a presumably loftier
moral, theological or natural decoding of reality, in exactly
the same way that the Physiologus was interpreted at around the
same time. This genre of the symbolic rereading of the
hieroglyphs – "enigmatic hieroglyphs" as Rigoni and Zanco (1996)
call them – was very popular in the late Hellenistic
period. It should not surprise us, then, that so many
Renaissance Humanists – for whom this was all quite familiar
through Lucan, Apuleius, Plutarch, Clement of Alexandria and,
especially, Ennead V by Plotinus – should see in the
Hieroglyphica a genuine connection with the highest sphere of
wisdom.
The part of the Hieroglyphica that does not deal with
hieroglyphics – chaps. 31-117 of Book II – may well have served
to encourage even more this type of reading, by including animal
allegorization derived principally from Aristotle, Aelian, Pliny
and Artemidorus. These renovated symbols were added to the
original material by the Greek translator, who, in the
introduction to Book II, affirms explicitly that they are
«interpretations of signs gathered from diverse sources».
The manuscript of the Hieroglyphica made its way to
Florence, from the island of Andros, in the hand of Cristoforo
Buondelmonti in 1422 (today housed in the Biblioteca
Laurenziana, Plut.69,27). In spite of its being confined
originally to a tight circle of Florentine Humanists in the
fifteenth
century, its content would become enormously popular at the end
of the century, with the dissemination of the new sensibility
represented by Francesco Colonna’s Hypnerotomachia Poliphilii
(written around 1467 and published in Venice by Aldo Manuzio, in
1499). The editio princeps, in Greek, of the
Hieroglyphica, was published by Manuzio in 1505 and enjoyed
more than 30 editions and translations during the sixteenth
century, not including all the adaptations.
The Hieroglyphica offered a treasure trove of new
allegories that the humanists utilized either directly in their
works – such as the famous Ehrenpforte, by Albrecht Dürer
– or, more commonly, by consulting the very complete and
systematic compilation undertaken by Giovanni Pierio Valeriano,
also entitled Hieroglyphica (editio princeps 1556). But
the major relevance of Horapollo’s book consisted mainly of
inaugurating a new and widely disseminated model of symbolic
communication. Beginning with the previously cited Ennead
V.8 of Plotinus, along with the commentaries of Ficino,
hieroglyphic representation was understood as an immediate,
total and almost divine form of knowledge, as opposed to the
mediated, incomplete and temporal form appropriate to discursive
language. These ideas inspired not only Ficino or Giordano
Bruno, but also Erasmus, Athanasius Kircher and even Leibniz. On
the other hand, this work intiated the mode of "writing with
mute signs" (Alciato) – as expressed in the preface of so many
emblem books – thus contributing decisively to the evolution
and popularity of the emblematic genre. In fact, as Mario Praz
has pointed out, in this period emblems were normally seen as
the modern equivalents of sacred Egyptian signs.
|
| |
Hieroglyphic 1.6 in several editions:
Paris: Kerver 1543
(first French translation, and first illustrated edition)
Quant ilz vouloient denoter dieu ou hauteur, ou depression &
bassesse, ou excellence, ou sang, ou victoire, ou Mars & venus. Ilz
paignoient vng aigle, signifiant Dieu pource que cest vng oyseau qui
fort multiplie & vit longuement aussi il semble y auoir quelque
effigie & similitude du soleil pource que seul entre tous les autres
oyseaulx laigle tient les yeulx fermes & ouuer contre les rais du
soleil & a ceste cause les medecins aux remedes des yeulx vsent de
lherbe de laigle quilz appellent hieracea. Aucunesfoys ilz
paignoient le soleil en forme dun aigle comme celluy par que nous
voyons elle denote haulteur pour ce que quant elle veult monter en
hault elle ne prent point son chemin de coste & a trauers comme les
aultres mais volle droict contremont. Bassesse pource quelle font &
descend de mesmes tout droict sans tournoyer comme font tous aultres
oyseaulx. Excellence pource que en beaulte & noblesse elle excede
tous les aultres. Sang pour ce quelle ne boit iamais eau mais sang.
Victoire pource quelle vainct & surmonte tous oyseaulx & que se
trouuant au combat si elle se sent & trouue foible elle se renuerse
& mect les piedz contremont & deuers le ciel & se deffend de son
ennemy lequel voyant quil ne peult faire le semblable se donne a
fouyr.
Bologna: Filippo Fasianino 1517
(second Latin translation)
DEum immortalem Aegyptii significare uolentes, altitudinem,
humilitatem, excellentiam, sanguinem, uictoriam, Martem, et Venerem,
Accipitrem notant, ac deum quidem primo eam ob causam significant:
Quoniam animal id plurimae foecunditatis est diuque uiuit. Ad haec
utique quia praeter omnia uolatilia solis Idolon ac simulacrum
Accipiter esse credatur, eo quod solis radios acutissimo obtutu
recte intuetur, Quamobrem medici quidem periti ad oculorum medelam
Hieracia ab accipitris nomine herba denominata, utuntur, Inde solem
quoque ceu dominum humani aspectus in accipitris formam nonnunquam
pingunt. Altitudinem uero, quoniam caetera animalia cum in altum
uolant oblique semper feruntur, quia recte uolare nequeunt, Solus
uero Accipiter recto uolatu altiora petit. Humilitatem autem, quia
reliqua animalia non recte uolantia secundum demissionem uadunt: sed
oblique descendunt. Accipiter uero per rectitudinem certam ad
humillima quaeque descendendo uertitur. Excellentiam, quoniam supra
omne auitium genus: Accipiter longe excellere uidetur. Sanguinem,
quandoquidem animal istud aquam in potum nusquam sumere sed
sanguinem duntaxat bibere solitum memorant. Victoriam, Quia genus
omne auium solus accipiter uincere creditur. Cum enim a robustiori
ac fortiori quapiam aue sese premi ac superari senserit, illico in
aere ita se supinum facit, ut ungues suos ad superiores partes
reuoluat, Pennas uero ad posteriora corporis deorsum, assidue
pugnando perstringat, hinc fit ut cum reliqua uolatilia ei in pugna
opposita idem facere et paria esse nequeant, uicta relinquantur
atque inferiora sint. Isque ipse accipiter ad uictoriam omnino
perueniat.
MS of Michel Nostradamus (ca. 1543-47), ed.
Pierre Rollet 1968
Que voulaient signifier pour l'aigle
Quant ont vouloit monstrer dieu par puissance,
Dépression, haulteur ou exélence
Sang ou victoyre, l'aigle ont paignoit en rond,
Dieu pour ce que l'aigle est oyseau fécond
De longue vie comme oyseau non pareil
Et simulachre du souverain soleil
Pour ce qu'elle est d'exélente nature
Sur toutz oyseaulx voir le soleil s'asseure,
Ses hieulx intendz aux rayons sus les cieulx
Par quoy les mires aulx modelles des hieulx
Usent d'une herbe de l'aigle qu'ont voit métré,
Voir le soleil comme seigneur et maistre
Et largiteur de la vertu visive
Et prime cause par effect productive
Pour ce que quant hault au ciel vient monter
Pour hault monter ne prend chemin oblique
Mais contremont tout droit son vol aplique.
Venice: Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari 1547
(first Italian translation)
COme uogliono dimostrare Iddio, ouero altezza, o abbassamento, o
eccellenza, o sangue, o uittoria, [4v] dipingono un’Aquila. Iddio
certamente, per esser questo uccello abbondante e di lunga età. Et
ancho perche pare essere un simulacro del Sole, tenendo lei sola fra
tutti gli altri uccelli gli occhi intenti uerso i raggi del Sole. E
di qui uiene, che i Medici in uolere medicare gl’occhi adoprono
un’herba, c’ha preso il nome dall’Aquila. E uolendo alcuna fiata
dipignere il Sole, si come padrone del uedere, dissegnano la forma
dell’Aquila. L’altezza, perche gli altri uolatili, quando uogliono
uolare in alto, si piegano, non potendo uolar diritti: ma la sola
Aquila uola sempre diritta in alto. E similmente significa
abbassamento, percioche medesimamente gli altri uccelli discendono
in la terra torti, e l’Aquila sola discende diritta. Et essendo
l’Aquila da piu de gli altri uccelli, dimostra anchora eccellenza.
Et oltra di questo il sangue, perche come dicono non beue acqua, ma
il sangue. E superando lei gl’altri uccelli, significa per questo
uittoria: perche quando ella combatte con un’altro, s’ella s’accorge
d’esser uinta, si riuolta col corpo in su, & adrizza l’unghie,
hauendo l’ali e il dorso uoltato alla terra: & in questo modo con
gli altri guereggia: tal che non potendo fare’l simile il suo
nimico, si pone uolontieri in fuga.
Basel: Heinrich Petri 1554
(first German translation)
Gott.
EIn anzeigung Gottes für zůschreiben malen sie disen vogel den Adler, darumbenn das der so
fruchtbar vnnd langwürig.
Sonn. DArzů vermeinen sie das der
Adler sey der Sonnen bild vnd warzeichen, dann vor anders gflügels
ahrt, so sieht er gstracks inn die Sonnen ströumen hinein. Deßhalben
die ärzt zů dem weethagen der augen, ein Kraut prauchen (ich liß hie
ein stein, den man ἀετίτην nennet)
derwegen so maalen sie zů zeitenn ein Adler, die Sonne, als ein
herren des gsichts zůbedeüten. Darzů vergleichend sie den Adler der
Sonnen, vmb diser vrsach willen, habendiro auch ine zůgeeignet,
darumben das das weiblin, sich so offt ime das mändlin lockt in der
geyle, das etwo biß in dreissig mal sich begibt, ghorsamet. Also die
Sonn, so sie dreissig tag vmblaufft fült sie den Mon, vnd macht in
scheynbar.
Hochheit. SO sie yemands
hochachtend vnd als ein fürnemen anzeigen wöllen, so maalen sie auch
ein Adler, vmb dessen willen, das das ander gflügel alles, so es
sich in die höhin schwingen will, gleich beseits vnd krumb vmb
vffharen muß, do der Adler schnůr schlechts vber sich steigt.
Vndertruckung. HIngegen bedeüt der
Adler auch eins vndertruckten jamer, der etwa inn hohem ansehen
gwesen, vnd gar in vnachtung kompt vff ein mal. Dann eben andere
vögel auch, all gmach vnd schlimms, auß den lüfften sich nider
lassen, do der Adler grad vnd schlechts nider scheüßt.
Adel. WO yemands höher dann ander
leüt, vnd fürtrefflicher, wolten sie auch, der Adler zeigte
dasselbige durch eigne ahrt an, wöllicher der edlest vnder allen
voglen gehalten.
Blůtuergiessen. VNd darumben das
der Adler (wie man sagt) allein mit plůt seinen durst löscht, kein
wasser trinckt, haben sie groß plůtvergiessen dardurch bedeüten
wöllen.
Sig. VNd überwindtlich, vnd gleich
den ander vögeln allen, ist diser Adler überlegen, derhalben sie den
sig durch dessen bild, für schreiben wolten. Ob aber ein anderer
vogel ihm obläge, so legt er sich an rucken, whört sich mit den
klauwen also liglingen, als dann mag ihm der feynd nimmer zů, würdt
von dem erlegten gleich veriagt vnd überwunden.
Caussin,
Electorum symbolorum et parabolarum historicarum syntagmata, ex
Horo, Clemente, Epiphanio & aliis cum Notis & Observationibus, Paris
1618
|
6. Quid accipitrem pingentes, innuant.
Deum quum volunt significare, aut
sublimitatem, aut humilitatem, aut praestantiam, aut sanguinem,
aut victoriam, accipitrem pingunt. Deum quidem tum quod
foecundum sit ac diuturnae vitae hoc animal, tum etiam quòd
Solis praeter caeteras volucres simulacrum esse videatur, vtpote
peculiari quadam atque occulta naturae vi, defixis in eius
radios oculis intuens. Atque hinc est, quod medici ad sananda
oculorum vitia, hieraceo herba vtuntur. Inde etiam fit, vt solem
interdum, tanquam visus autorem ac dominum, accipitris forma
pingant. Sublimitatem vero, quia cum caetera quidem animantia,
quoties in sublime tolli volunt, oblique ferantur, nec recta
sursum euehi possint, solus accipiter recta in altum volat.
Humilitatem porro seu delectionem, quod eadem ratione caeterae
animantes non perpendiculi modo, sed velut ex transuerso &
flexuose deorsum ferantur, solus accipiter directo ad inferiora
viam carpat. Praestantiam, quod caeteris auibus praestare
videatur. Sanguinem, quia animal hoc aiunt non aquam, sed
sanguinem bibere. Victoriam demum, quod caeteras volucres
vincere videatur. Quum enim robustioris animantis potentia se
videt opprimi, tum sese in aëre ita resupinans, vt vngues quidem
sursum, pennas vero ac posteriores partes deorsum versas habeat,
quum idem auis quae cum eo congreditur efficere nequeat, ita
facile eam in fugam vertit, ac sibi victoriam parat. |
Τί δηλοῦσιν ἱέρακα γράφοντες.
Θεὸν βοθλόμενοι σημῆναι, ἢ ὕψος, ἢ ταπείνωσιν, ἢ ὑπεροχήν, ἢ
νίκην, ἱέρακα ζωγραφοῦσι. θεὸν μέν, διὰ τὸ πολύγονον εἶναι τὸ
ζῶον καὶ πολυχρόνιον ἔτι γε μήν, ἐπεὶ καὶ δοκεῖ εἴδωλον ἡλίου
ὑπάρχειν παρὰ πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ πρὸς τὰς αὐτοῦ ἀκτῖνας ὀξυωποῦν,
ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ ἰατροὶ πρὸς ἴασιν ὀφθαλμῶν τ
ἱερακίᾳ βοτάνῃ χρῶνται. ὅθεν καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ὡς κύριον ὄντα
ὁράσεως, ἔσθ’ ὅτε ἱερακόμορφον ζωγραφοῦσιν. Ὕψος δέ, ἐπεὶ τὰ μὲν
ἕτερα ζῶα εἰς ὕψος πέτεσθαι προαιρούμενα, πλαγίως φέρεται,
ἀδθνατοῦντα κατ’ εὐθὺ χωρεῖν. μόνος δὲ ἱέραξ εἰς ὕψος κατ’ εὐθὺ
πέτεται. Ταπείνωσιν δὲ, ἐπεὶ τὰ ἕτερα ζῶα οὐ κατὰ κάθετον χωρεῖ
πρὸς τοῦτο, πλαγίως δὲ καταφέρεται. ἱέραξ δὲ κατ’ ευθὺ ἐπὶ τὸ
ταπεινὸν τρέπεται. Ὑπεροχὴν δέ, ἐπειδὴ δοκεῖ πάντων τῶν πετεινῶν
διαφέρειν. Αἷμα δέ, ἐπειδή φασι τοῦτο τὸ ζῶον ὕδωρ μὴ πίνειν
ἀλλ’ αἷμα. Νίκην δέ, ἐπειδὴ δοκεῖ τοῦτο τὸ ζῶον, πᾶν νικᾶν
πετεινόν. ἐπειδὰν γὰρ ὑπὸ ἰσχυροτέρου ζώου καταδυναστεύηται, τὸ
τηνικαῦτα ἑαυτὸν ὑπτιάσας ἐν τῷ
ἀέρι, ὡς τοὺς μὲν ὄνυχας αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ
ἄνω ἐσχηματίσθαι, τὰ δὲ πτερὰ καὶ τὰ ὀπίσθια εἰς τὰ κάτω τὴν
μάχην ποιεῖται. οὕτω γὰρ τὸ ἀντιμαχόμενον αὐτῷ
ζῶον, τὸ αὐτὸ ποιῆσαι ἀδθνατοῦν, εἰς ἧτταν ἔρχεται. |
|
De Accipitris cultu & Symbolis
apud Aegyptios, dico in obseruationibus. | | | |
| |
Editorial history of the Hieroglyphica
• Venice: Aldus Manutius 1505:
editio princeps in Greek, in a volume that also contains Aesop’s
Fabellae and other minor works, based on the fifteenth-century Venetian MS "Marciano greco 391."
• Augsburg 1515:
first Latin translation, by Bernardino Trebazio, dedicated to Konrad
Peutinger. This translation – as we read in the preface – is quite
liberal; it omits without commentary all corrupt textual passages or
those with a dubious meaning. Nevertheless, it was very popular, as
attested by its many reprints: Basel 1518, Paris 1530, Basel 1534,
Venice 1538, Lyon 1542, Lyon 1626 (as an appendix to Valeriano's Hieroglyphica).
• Bologna: Hieronymus Platonides 1517:
second Latin translation, by Filippo Fasanini. It was probably based
on a Greek MS rather than on the edition of Aldus; but this work did
not enjoy the same popularity as that of Trebazio.
• Unfinished Latin translation in MS. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek:
begun by Willibald Pirckheimer in 1512
at the request of Emperor Maximilian I. It contains 67 hieroglyphics
from Book I, and the first one from Book II. Published by Giehlow in
1915.
• Paris: Pierre Vidoue 1521:
edited by Jean Angeli; the Greek is based on Aldus, and the Latin on
Trebazio.
• Paris: Jacques Kerver 1543:
first French translation, by an anonymous translator, illustrated
with 197 engravings generally attributed to Jean Cousin. The
Appendix contains ten "additional hieroglyphics," including 1.66,
2.1 and 2.5 from the edition by Aldus, as well as some others taken
primarily from the Hypnerotomachia Poliphilii.
• Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari 1547:
the only Italian translation, by Pietro Vasolli da Fivizzano,
dedicated to Giovanni Battista Terzago. The translation followed
Trebazio’s Latin, with many omissions (of the 119 chapters of Book
II, it includes only 81); in spite of this, it was a very popular
edition.
• MS of a French translation by Michel Nostradamus,
made up of epigrams written between 1543
and 1547. Edited by Rollet, 1968.
• Paris: Jacques Kerver 1548:
Greek, with a Latin translation by Jean Mercier. It was reprinted,
with the Latin revised by Mercier, based on a manuscript entrusted
to him by the printer Guillaume Morel, in 1551. It includes the
engravings from the 1543 edition.
• Paris: Jacques Kerver 1553:
Mercier’s 1548 Latin translation, and a French translation, probably
by Jean Martin, the French translator of the Hypnerotomachia
(also published by Kerver, 1546). With engravings from the 1543
edition, and with 7 "additional hieroglyphics" in the appendix.
• Basel: Heinrich Petri 1554:
German translation by the Swiss theologian Johann Herold, with
engravings of a very poor quality.
• Valencia: Antonio Sanahuja 1556:
Greek edition by Juan Lorenzo Palmireno, professor of rhetoric and
humanities at the Universidad de Valencia.
• Paris: Galliot du Pré 1574:
reprint of Kerver’s 1553 version with his engravings, but with Latin
by Trebazio, and with 11 "additional hieroglyphics" in an appendix.
• Augsburg 1595:
Greek edition by David Hoeschel, based on the MS Monacense graec.
419 of Augsburg (only slightly different from that of Aldus); with
Latin translation and observations by Jean Mercier, 1548. This
version served as the basis for the Greek text of all subsequent
editions. Reprinted in Augsburg 1606, Frankfurt 1614 (as an appendix
to Valeriano's Hieroglyphica), Leipzig 1626 (with Latin text only),
Cologne 1631, Frankfurt 1678.
• Rome: Aloisii Zanetti 1597:
a Greek-Latin version by Giulio Franceschini "expurgated" for use in
schools, with 184 engravings of inferior quality. Reprinted in 1599.
• Paris 1618:
Greek and Latin, by the Jesuit Nicolas Caussin, along with his
observations. The same volume contains other works on animal
symbolism. It appeared earlier with the title Electorum
symbolorum et parabolarum historicarum syntagmata, and later
under the title De symbolica Aegyptiorum sapientiae in the
Cologne editions of 1622, 1631, 1654, Paris 1634 and 1647.
• Utrecht: M. L. Charlois 1727:
edited by Cornelius de Pauw, with Greek text by Hoeschel and a Latin
translation based on that of Mercier, 1548; with all observations by
Mercier and Hoeschel, and with selected commentaries by Caussin.
Pauw’s introduction and commentary prove the presence of a vast
non-Egyptian material in the Hieroglyphica.
• Amsterdam-Paris: Musier 1779:
French translation by Martin Requier, who rejects the authorship of
Horapollo and attributes the work to the translator Filipo, dating
it in the fifteenth century.
• Amsterdam: J. Müller 1835:
edited by Konrad Leemans. The Greek text is based on that of
Hoeschel, but it is compared to three manuscripts not utilized. This
is the first attempt to separate systematically the authentic
Egyptian material from the later Hellenistic additions.
• London: W. Pickering 1839:
edited by Alexander Turner Cory, based on Leeman’s edition. It
contains the images from several authentic Egyptian hieroglyphs that
correspond to the textual descriptions. Reprinted in 1840 and 1987.
• Naples 1940:
edited by Francesco Sbordone. Compared
to several new manuscripts, it adopts the most recent criteria of
Egyptologists and demonstrates that even the most fantastic of
Horapollo’s explanations can be traced back to ancient writers.
• Brussels 1943:
French translation, with abundant Egyptological commentary by Badouin Van de Walle
and Joseph Vergote, from the
Chronique d’Egypte, nos. 38-39.
• Nueva York 1950:
English translation and annotation by Franz Boas. Reprinted in 1993,
with an introduction by Anthony Grafton, and the engravings of Albrect
Dürer.
• Madrid: Akal 1991:
Spanish translation by María José García Soler, edited by Jesús María González de Zárate.
Illustrated with the engravings and Greek texts from the 1551
edition. Its extensive commentaries include abundant material on
ancient parallels and Renaissance and Baroque influences.
• Milan: Rizzoli 1996:
edition and Italian translation by
Mario Andrea Rigoni and Elena Zanco. |
