Art historians have long debated whether or not dissatisfied architect Antonio Averlino made the trip from Italy to Constantinople in 1465: one of the key pieces of evidence supporting the notion is the letter of recommendation written in Greek by Averlino’s old friend Filelfo (the humanist writer and Hellenophile) and addressed to George Amirutzes (Mehmed II’s personal tutor).
This is one of those things that is often referred to fleetingly (such as in my book “The Curse of the Voynich”), but rarely substantively: so I wondered if I could track it down. Handily, Valentina Vulpi’s dissertation had a mini-bibliography for it in footnote 148 on p.47, which directs you to:
- Finoli & Grassi’s (1972) Italian translation of the libro architettonico, p.XXXIX (in the introduction)
- Emil Louis Jean Legrand’s (1892) “Cent-dix lettres grecques de Francois Filelfe“, p.120
- Lavino Agostinelli’s (1899) “Lettere volgarizzate dal greco“, p.86.
Handily, it turns out that Legrand’s book is accessible through Gallica, and here’s a link to the page where the letter transcription begins. The French translation (which you only need a GCSE in Franglais to read) of the Greek goes:-
“Le porteur de la présente lettre, Antoine Averulino, est un homme de bien en même temps qu’un de mes meilleurs amis. C’est pourquoi, en vertu de vieux proverbe, je te le recommande comme étant mon ami, devant être le tien, se trouver ainsi l’ami commun de deux personnes intimeme liées l’une à l’autre. Averulino connaît à merveille une foule d’excellentes choses et est un architecte de très grand talent. Il se rend à Constantinople dans l’unique intention de voir le pays. Tu me feras un sensible plaisir, si tu daignes l’accuellir avec amabilité et lui témoigner toute l’affection que tu as pour moi-même. Porte-toi bien.”
i.e. “He [Averlino] is going to Constantinople with the sole intention of seeing the country” (rather than working as an architect there). However, the last direct record we have of Averlino is from 16th August 1465:
Coram prefatis dominis stipulantibus nomine hospitalis . . . Magister Antonius Florentinus Inzignerius et architector h[ospitalis] novi et magni, cum salario mensuali florinorum XX vigore litterarum ducalium et conventionis per eum habente cum d[ictis] deputatis prout contra in libro conclusionum, liberali annuo et illari vultu manifesta dixit, quod ipso habente solutionem eius quod habere debet ab hospitale ab hodie retro quod eius intentio est, et ita deliberat a modo in antea, quidquid non petere nec habere a dicto hospitale omnis predicti sui salarij, vigore dictarum litterarum et conventionis nec alio jure et predicta atenta inhobilitate [!] hospitalis. Et quod se in futurum fabricari continget in hospitali, quod amore benevolo visitarit laboreria, et nichil pro mercede petet, nisi prout fuerit dispositione dominorum tunc deputatorum.”
Filelfo knew Averlino from at least 1447, when he wrote another letter of recommendation from Milan, this time to Antonio Trebano and dated 26th February 1447: this is discussed in Lazzaroni & Muñoz’s (1908) monograph on Filarete p.110-111, and transcribed in note 26 of Oettingen’s (1888) “Über das leben und die werke des Antonio Averlino: genannt Filarete“, which is available online here. Just to save you the trouble of clicking, Oettingen’s transcription (p.55 of the original, or p.70 of the PDF) reads:-
Francisci Philelfi Epistolarum familiarium libri XXXVII etc., Venetiis 1502, Liber Quintus, fol. 39 v:
Franciscus philelfus. Antonio trebano. sal. – Antonius florentinus, fictor et excussor egregius, aeque tempestate nostra atque praxitelen apud priscos memorant copanve aut phidian aliquem, et te diligit plurimum et mihi est carissimus. Itaque a me petiit, ut te in familiaritatem benevolentiamque acciperem, quippe qui mei studiosissimus sis. Cupere enim se non secus suos amicos omnes fieri meos atque ipse est. Quare ut et homini amicissimo et humanitatis officio satisfacerem, iccirco hasce litteras ad te dedi, ut tibi perpetuo testes essent singularis dilectionis erga te meae. Vale – Ex Mediolano . IIII . Kal . Mart . MCCCC XLVII.”
Fascinatingly, Francesco Filelfo also wrote a later letter to the Sforza ambassador Nicodemo Tranchedini in Florence (on 1st Feb 1466), asking him to pass on a letter to their mutual friend “Antonio architecto“: this is Riccardiana di Firenze MS 834, and is discussed by Maria Beltramini in a 1996 article (which I unfortunately haven’t seen). From this, it seems reasonable to infer not only that Filelfo did indeed expect Averlino to be back from the East within a few months, but also that Averlino had told his old friend he would be returning directly to Florence.
However, there the archival trail goes cold: we don’t have any record of a response from Tranchedini back to Filelfo, though it is entirely possible that such exists – Tranchedini certainly streamed a good volume of enciphered messages back to Francesco Sforza during his many years in Florence, and I don’t know to what extent the remains of these in the Milanese archives have been mined for information.
So… did Averlino make the trip? The only record we have of him past this date is Vasari’s claim that he had allegedly died in Rome in 1469 (and Vasari has proved notoriously unreliable on matters of specific detail). Still… there aren’t any alternative claims, so it seems likely he did die in Italy. There is some contested evidence that places Averlino briefly in Constantinople around this time, so there has to be a reasonably good chance he did make the two-way trip. Everyone seems to be waiting for some slightly more conclusive evidence to surface… but will that ever happen?
Having said that, there are two Quattrocento diaries from Rome that allegedly mention Averlino (but neither of which I’ve yet seen):
- Iannotii Manetti De vita ac gestis Nicolai quinti summi pontificis, a cura di A. Modigliani, Roma 2005 (Fonti per la Storia dell’Italia Medievale – RIS3, 6) – page 80.
- La mesticanza di Paolo di Lello Petrone, a cura di F. Isoldi, Città di Castello 1910-1912 (RIS2, 24/2), pp. 1-63 – page 59.
Might these hold a clue? Possibly… (but probably not, alas).
I’ll give the Internet a good searchin’ and see if I can dig up either of these.
Here is a ~20 US dollar digital download of Paolo di Lello’s diary. I can’t find a free digital version, and the closest libraries with a copy are in New York, Utah, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The other diary I can only find for prices of 50+ USD, and only for free browsing in American libraries.
Thanks Christopher: according to WorldCat, the Institute of Historical Research and the National Art Library (at the V&A) both have a copy of Paolo di Lello Petrone’s Mesticanza, so I’ll try to engineer an excuse to go up to London have a look at it there. 🙂
Oh, brilliant.
I found a free copy of the diary of Paolo di Lello here: http://um.bookprep.com/read/mdp.39015024043997
It’s not optimal, but you can right-click and save the pages as an image to view them at a more convenient zoom level. I tried to find a reference to Aver(u)lino, but I did not see it on page 59 or around that part of the book.
John: thanks for that, much appreciated! Despite the low resolution, you can still just about make out Antonio Averlino in the 5th footnote on p.59: he’s also listed in the index at the back (on p.108). But, alas, no big surprises to be had there, I believe. 🙁
Filelfo owned a copy of work[s?] by Theophrastus, a fifteenth century ms having been his that is now Urb.gr.108 – according Nigel Wilson who appears to rely on to Calderini, Stud.Ital.Fil. 20 (1912) p.400
Nigel Wilsdon, ‘The manuscripts of Theophrastus’, Scriptorium, Tome 16 n°1, 1962. pp. 96-102.
Nigel adds that Calderini thought Filelfo brought it back from Constantinople in 1427 A. D., but Wilson says the hand looks late and citing C. Stornajolo, on the watermarks’ being unhelpful for dating.
Wilson’s article is available through Persee. The reference to Filelfo is item 44 on page 100.
– There’s something Theophrastan in a fourteenth century miscellany [now in Darmstadt], but probably a rhetorical use of his philosophical or scientific material rather than anything from the Enquiry.
Diane: Francesco Filefo and Filarete were two different people, albeit both people who were in Milan at the same time and knew each other well (Antonio Averlino likely took his ‘Filarete’ name in a kind of friendly homage to Filelfo, while Filelfo wrote a 1465 letter of recommendation for Averlino when he left Milan, etc etc).
Incidentally, much of the Greek-related content and mythology in Averlino’s libro architettonico is thought to have come via Filelfo: for example, I strongly suspect that Averlino’s description of the writing on the “Golden Book” describes Greek tachygraphy, something which I believe was little known in Northern Italy at the time.
Yes, that’s why I added the footnote to this post, and not to one about Averlino.
Can’t say that I’ve seen any reference to the Greek religious narratives in the Voynich manuscript.
Perhaps you’re thinking of a Belgian chap named Koen Gheuens, who has been describing the content of some folios’ imagery by reference to Ovid’s Metamorphoses.
Ovid wasn’t a Greek. He was a Roman and he wrote in Latin.
His Metamorphoses was fairly well known to educated Latins in medieval Europe. Whether the Muslims or Jews knew Ovid’s work, I don’t know.
Have you tested the Voynich text to see if it is in Greek? I must say that my saying that a couple of words could be read that way (e.g. ‘Thebaid’) wasn’t met with hats in the air. 🙂
PS – don’t fall for those Voynich memes, Nick.
Always, always, “what’s the evidence for that idea?” So often, it turns out to be pure bitchin’ imagination.
Diane: apologies, I thought you were following up your comment yesterday on Regiomontanus and Filarete (which had nothing to do with Filelfo), didn’t notice that you’d switched to a different post. 😐
Good luck to Koen Gheuens and his ongoing Ovidity – can’t quite see it myself, but there y’go. And no, the Voynich Manuscript isn’t just wobbly-alphabetted Greek (I studied Greek at school, it has a very solid word construction style which seems to have no structural counterpoint in Voynichese).
Nick,
I think one of the most beautiful passages in the English language is Kitto’s description of the inter-relation of Greek language and Greek lucidity. Just my taste. On a personal note, my elder daughter’s existence is owed, at some distance, to my being loaned a particular text which I needed for study of Homer 🙂