MERULA, Giorgio.

In librum de homine Martii Galeotti opus…

      Venice, Johannes de Colonia & Johannes Manthen c.1474 FIRST EDITION. 4to. 80 unnumbered ll. [b2-b10, c10, d-g8, h10, i6, l2-l8, m6]. Roman letter, some Greek. 29 lines per page, guide letters, spaces blank, lacking the two blanks. One leaf (l8) not printed, text supplied in contemp. ms., medical marginalia in the same hand throughout. Marginal soiling to first leaf, two small marginal wormholes to first four gatherings, a little foxing to some leaves. A very good, clean, wide-margined copy on thick paper in C17th mottled sheep, spine gilt in compartments. Illegible ownership inscription in lower blank portion of first leaf dated 1644, another, contemporary, at end of first part. A very attractive copy of the first edition of Merula's (c.1430-1494) elaborate philological attack on Galeotus' medical and astrological treatise, Liber de homine, published in Bologna in 1471. The present work is divided into four sections. In the first, Merula takes short statements or extracts from Galeotus, and interweaves them with his own, lengthy, commentary (he takes pains to cite and correct Galeotus' work in meticulous detail). Galeotus' work is first concerned with medicine, so Merula's criticisms - which frequently refer to Classical sources including Pliny, Demosthenes and Aristotle - discuss medical conditions and treatment, among them nasal polyps, stomach-ache, haemorrhoids (which Merula attributes to a surfeit of black choler in the veins around the groin), and glaucoma, when the eyes appear "lividi et plumbei coloris." Merula states that Galeotus describes the condition inaccurately and confuses it with hypochyma, citing authorities to support his claims; the work is arranged systematically (discussions of other eye diseases follow). Merula takes issue with Galeotus' reading of the Classical medical authorities, criticizing his understanding of the texts, rather than his medical knowledge as such. Merula also elaborately criticises Galeotus' astrological views, which make up the second subject matter of his work, especially his rather naïve infatuation with judicial astrology which Merula clearly does not share.The remaining three sections, addressed to some of the great nobleman-scholars of the day, contain some excellent examples of the Classical scholarship for which Merula was renowned:(1) An interpretation of Sappho, written to Patricius Marcus Antonius Maurocenus (Morosini), a member of the noble Venetian family which supplied many Doges and Cardinals, perhaps to be identified with the Antonio Morosini who was author of the great historical manuscript the Morosini Codex (c.1430), held in the Austrian Nationalbibliothek.(2) A discussion of Pliny the Younger, addressed to Antonius Chronicus (Antonio Vinciguerra Cronico), a little-known scholar, praised by the cabbalist Giovanni Pico della Mirandola in his Orations as a man of immense learning.(3) Nominally a commentary on Vergil, but more a gazetteer of places in the ancient world, such as Athens, Cythera and Sidon, their contemporary equivalents and the derivations of their names, as well as ancient cultures, including the Spanish, Saxons and Amazons. This is addressed to Prince Ludovicus Gonzaga, a name held by several members of the family of the Dukes of Mantua, but given the date, most probably Ludovicus III (1414-1478). Merula taught Classics for forty years in Milan and Venice, and was "un des restaurateurs des bonnes études" (NBG). He published commentaries on Cicero, Pliny, Virgil, Ovid and Juvenal, editiones principes of Plautus and the Scriptores rei rusticae, and corresponded with many of his leading contemporaries, not always on cordial terms. "Sa vanité, qui était encore plus grande que son savoir", led him into conflicts such as the present one. Galeotus (tutor to King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary and professor at Bologna) was so angry with Merula that he published a response to the present work, Refutatio obiectorum in librum de homine a Giorgio Merula, in 1476, a "bitter invective against Merula" (BMC).Johannes de Colonia and Johannes Manthen worked together from 1474 until 1480, in a reconstruction of Colonia's earlier partnership with Vindelinus de Spira. This is one of their earliest productions, and remains an elegant example of early Venetian typography. BMC V, 230; GW M22925; Goff M-0504 (6 copies only); Hain 11097; Klebs 678.1; Thorndike IV, 399; Brunet II, 1453; not in Osler or HoH.