Chapter Twelve
Henri Estienne’s Concepts of History and Poetry

Goda Thangada

The prolific Genevan editor and printer Henri II Estienne (1531–98, known in Latinized form as Henricus Stephanus) produced a lavish anthology of Greek poetry in 1566.[1] The volume included not only the complete Iliad and Odyssey, but ancient supplements to Homer and the following seemingly motley assortment of partner poets: the archaic hexameter poet Hesiod; the archaic elegists Theognis and Solon; the didactic poet Aratus; the Hellenistic poets Callimachus, Theocritus, and Bion; the work attributed to the mythical poets Orpheus and Musaeus; and others. In the title of this edition, Estienne designates all these poets as working in the genre of the heroici carminis, or epic poetry, a genre for which he does not proceed to set parameters in his preface. [2] My aim is to account for Estienne’s decision to situate Homer in this vast constellation of poets as well as his strategy for amending the Greek text. I argue that Estienne’s approach toward the textual criticism of poetry is informed by his approach to reading history. Estienne recognized a kinship between the methods of history and poetry that the ancients had rejected.[3] In the Poetics, Aristotle claims that history is inferior to poetry because “poetry states more universal things whereas history states particular things” and that history recounts what has passed while poetry gestures towards the probable.[4] I begin with a discussion of Estienne’s Traité preparatif à lApologie pour Hérodote, also published in 1566. In this work, Estienne exhibits an interest in the reconstruction of cultural systems rather than in event history and skepticism about the possibility of historical certainty. I will then compare Estienne’s orientation to reading and writing history with statements in the preface to his anthology and in his annotations to the text of the Iliad.

How to Read History

To defend Herodotus against his ancient and modern detractors, Estienne issued in 1566 both a French preface to his edition of Herodotus (known as the Traité preparatif à lApologie pour Hérodote) and a Latin treatise, Apologia pro Herodoto.[5] It is the French treatise that interests me for its programmatic statements on the relationship between antiquity and modernity. Herodotus had been subject to criticism well before the Renaissance. It is to him that Thucydides implicitly responded by crafting a new historical methodology rooted in firsthand observation. In the French Apologie, Estienne diagnoses the modern stance on Herodotus as the consequence of erroneously judging his reports according to modern norms and reasoning: Herodotus seemed to lack verisimilitude “pour estre hors coustume ou vsage, ou pour estre contraire à nostre ratiocination, c’est à dire, à nostre discours fondé sur telles ou telles raisons.”[6] Estienne’s strategy for the defense is to draw parallels between the world of Herodotus and his own so as to render aspects of modernity as unfamiliar and absurd as the events and descriptions in the ancient text. As Boudou describes, “Les histoires étranges doivent aider le lecteur à se débarrasser de préjugés et d’habitudes mentales afin d’opérer un renversement de perspective. Au moment où l’élargissement de l’univers contribue à doter de réalité l’extraordinaire lointain, la redécouverte de l’histoire antique a révélé aussi des faits que seul l’éloignement temporel faisait apparaître comme étranges.”[7] Estienne’s advocacy of cultural relativity in the reading of history followed from his status as a Protestant refugee in Geneva. Though born in Paris, the adolescent Estienne migrated to Calvinist Geneva with his father in the wake of the Reformation. Caught between his French cultural heritage and Protestant religion, Estienne did not pit dogma against dogma but instead embraced caution and flexibility in the formation of judgments.

A relationship between Estienne’s views on historical judgment and his work on languages has already been posited by Boudou. She adduces as evidence Estienne’s Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, for which he drew from the corpus of Greek texts he had himself edited. In this project Boudou remarks that Estienne attempted to “combiner la démarche pratique et le raisonnement logique.”[8] Estienne assembled his examples both through collation and by deducing novel formulae from the patterns he observed. Furthermore, Boudou observes that Estienne was interested in language as a point of access to an entire culture. Regarding his treatise Projet de précellence du langage François, she comments, “Il se livre à l’examen systématique et comparatif des expressions et des proverbes, il étudie leur évolution dans le temps et il déchiffre les informations que la langue fournit sur l’historie des mœurs.”[9] In the final part of the paper, I will attempt to discern these strands—the combination of empirical and logical methodology as well as the attention to the relationship of culture to language—in Estienne’s textual critical approach on the basis of the vision of history espoused in the Apologie.

Estienne’s effacement of a personal agenda can be detected on the title page of his anthology. Though Estienne styles himself on this page as the typographus of the wealthy businessman Ulrich Fugger, he does not designate any dedicatees and neglects to mention Fugger in his preface.[10] Estienne further dissociates the text from the circumstances of its production by failing to mention that the text was printed in Geneva. The title page also bears the printer’s mark of the Estienne family, a man reaching for the higher branches of a tree and the motto, Noli altum sapere. This injunction recalls the saying purportedly affixed at the entrance to Delphi, Gnothi seauton. Both mottos caution the individual against striving to know too much, as certainty eclipses the capacity of any one individual. The stance represented in this printer’s mark, which Estienne inherited from father and grandfather, accords with the skeptic and relativist ideology that emerges in Estienne’s treatises and, I argue, textual criticism.

Such an embrace of human limitations may appear to contradict the optimism of humanism, but in fact it permits the critical attitude characteristic of humanists. The Renaissance art historian Erwin Panofsky describes humanism as twofold in nature: it is the “revival of the classical antithesis between humanitas and barbaritas, or feritas,” as well as “a survival of the medieval antithesis between humanitas and divinitas[11] Humanitas could be cultivated only by means of a glance backward because the study of man is intrinsically the study of the records of man accumulated in history. However, the study of history need not be the study of chronology and genealogy. In the Renaissance, it took the form of a study of a temporally disjunct culture. Panofsky describes a shift in historical perspective in the Renaissance such that classical antiquity becomes a culturally coherent world displaced from the present. Similarly, Arnaldo Momigliano reflects on the difference in methodology between cultural and event history. He defines antiquarianism as the study of culture in opposition to history written in chronological order; antiquarians “showed how to use nonliterary evidence, but they also made people reflect on the difference between collecting facts and interpreting facts.”[12] Though Estienne cannot quite be characterized as an antiquarian, his use of eclectic textual evidence to determine readings and his attempts to juxtapose texts rather than print them in isolation are reminiscent of the collective approach of antiquarians. Moreover, his stake in providing accurate and comprehensive versions of ancient texts is the utility of such resources for the study of culture. For Estienne, the rigorous empirical discipline of philology is thus akin to antiquarian history and serves as a precursor to interpretation.


How to Read Poetry

Estienne’s approach to textual criticism is informed as much by his interpretation of poetry as his interpretation of history. His preface to the anthology reflects the currents of interpretative Homeric criticism in the sixteenth century. Some scholars have observed that Estienne’s remarks may even be paraphrases of Jean Dorat (1508–88), the scholar who was mentor to the Pléiade consortium of poets and poeta regius to King Charles IX.[13] In his unpublished lectures, Dorat adopted an allegorical approach to Homeric criticism reminiscent of Neoplatonists such as Porphyry, whom Estienne included alongside Homer in his anthology.[14] Philip Ford argues that Homeric criticism in sixteenth-century France alternated between two strands. Representative of the first generation was Guillaume Budé who sought moral lessons in Homer.[15] In the middle of the century, Dorat, a teacher of Estienne with close ties to the monarchy, searched instead for metaphysical truths.[16] The selection of authors in Estienne’s anthology reflects the influence of Dorat, who favored the Hellenistic poets Callimachus and Bion, and who placed Homer alongside the divinely inspired mythic poets Orpheus and Musaeus.[17] The authors Ford surveys in detail are for the most part Catholic. In contrast to Ford’s division between ethical and metaphysical Homeric criticism, Marc Bizer structures his overview of Homeric criticism as a division between Catholic and Protestant reading practices. Bizer is particularly interested in the political implications of Homeric criticism. He aligns Budé and Dorat as royalists who were both were “moving beyond philological commentary by using Homer to instruct the king.”[18] He describes a distinctly Protestant strand of Homeric criticism that used the epics to contest the authority of the monarchy or contested the authority of the epics themselves. For instance, Bizer writes that the Protestant Jean de Sponde “tended to focus instead on Agamemnon and Achilles, who represented for him the poles of abusive power and its victims” by “incorporating Protestant theological principles on resistance to an unjust monarch.”[19] Estienne himself refrains from adopting such an overtly polemical stance in his reading of Homer, aiming instead to edit the text in such a way as to transcend Homer’s political utility.

Whilst articulating an allegorical reading of Homer, Estienne is no less attentive to the aesthetic matter that constitutes poetry. Estienne begins his preface with a personal account of the pleasures afforded him by Greek poetry from his youth. He employs as a metaphor the episode in the Odyssey in which Odysseus ties himself to a ship’s mast so that he can hear the songs of the Sirens without falling prey to their seduction. He writes, “A quo tempore tam altas in animo meo radices studium poesews egit, ut illa non secus ac Sirenum cantibus delinitus & antea videri potuerim, & nunc quoque fortasse videri possim.”[20] Bizer indicates that Dorat considered the Sirens an allegory of knowledge while Budé considered them emblematic of pleasures.[21] Estienne argues that it is the aesthetic qualities of poetry that render its content morally and intellectually useful. Nevertheless, the qualities of poetry can be translated into other media. Estienne proceeds with a disquisition on the relationship of music and painting to poetry. He writes, “Multi profecto extant versus, quos qui legit, is iucundissimam musicae harmonium audit, is pulcherrimam picturam intuetur.”[22] He characterizes music and painting as complementary but subordinate to poetry. Of painting, he writes: “Sed & ipsa . . . artificia, suaque adeo archetypa excellentissimos pictores ab excellentissimis poetis mutuatos esse constat.”[23] This evokes statements Dorat himself likely had made about the influence of poetry on contemporary arts. Dorat had been guiding music, painting, and the composition of new poetry.[24] Ford suggests that the Galerie d’Ulysse at Fontainebleau was directly influenced by the readings of Dorat.[25] Pfeiffer suggests that Greek poetry could have been set to music only in the circle of Dorat.[26]

Because the content of poetry is inseparable from its form, Estienne considers the study of poetry empirical as well as interpretative. The empirical matter of poetry is not only verbal, but historical and cultural. The universals transmitted through poetry lie underneath a surface of particular cultural references and conventions. Indeed, for Estienne, poetry demands the sort of interpretation that he himself refrains from providing. He adds that such interpretation must be the task of those outside the tradition: “Quidni vero poetarum figmenta bonam in partem interpretemur, quum nulli ex ethnicis scriptoribus aeque pie reuerenterque de suo numine et senserint et loquuti sint, ac praesertim Graeci, et quidem inter eos antiquissimi?”[27] Estienne’s own interest is in the concrete conditions and matter of the text rather than its hidden or extending meanings. Crucially, for Estienne, poetry serves as a vehicle of not only meaning and affect, but information. Despite the necessity of interpretation to discover the truth embedded within poetry, Estienne does not disregard the variety of styles and content in the poetry of different civilizations. He remarks that the early function of poetry was to provide a cross-temporal medium of recording information in civilizations lacking widespread literacy: “barbarae etiam gentes, litterarum plane rudes, multarum historiarum memoriam in patroparadotois quibusdam cantilenis per annos multos conseruasse comperiantur.”[28] Estienne is no less interested in the collection of facts than in their synthesis into meaning.


How to Edit Poetry

To summarize, Estienne’s approach to history consists of a tendency to aggregate information so as to apprehend culture as a whole and a willingness to maintain skepticism so as to refrain from prejudice. His approach to poetry entails a commitment to verbal form and cultural significance as well as to its abstract meaning. Estienne deploys the sort of logical operations used for the interpreting the meaning of poetry to determine the probable form of poetry. In this section, I will give three examples in which Estienne’s concepts of history and poetry work in concert in his textual criticism.

The empirical evidence upon which Estienne draws is other manuscripts, editions, commentaries, and translations of Homer as well as the entire corpus of classical literature at his disposal. In the second part of his preface, in which he summarizes his editing process, Estienne performs the convention of pronouncing earlier editions of the texts in the anthology inadequate. Of the numerous printed editions Estienne consulted, he claims “nemo mihi unquam persuadere potuisset.”[29] He then undertook a search for those manuscripts inter minus malas,[30] namely those in Rome and Florence. Alongside these manuscripts, he consulted the commentary of the twelfth century Byzantine bishop Eustathius of Thessalonica. Estienne expresses disbelief that errors defying common sense could have survived generations of textual editing. He applies a vivid metaphor to describe the harm done by careless handlers of the text: “Mendosum certe librum in temerarii et indocti professoris vel interpretis manu, gladio qui sit in manu furentis comparare posse mihi videor.”[31] Some of his most vicious criticism is directed towards the edition of Lorenzo Valla (1407–57). At other points in his career, Estienne attempted to distance humanism from Italian influence.[32] Nevertheless, there are moments at which Estienne sets aside this patriotic orientation and upholds Valla’s translation over others.

Although Estienne sets more store in Eustathius than in other manuscripts, he does not blindly follow him and on occasion diverges from him by incorporating evidence from other parts of Homer or from other editions. Estienne begins his annotations on the text of Homer with a discussion of the clause, αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν/ οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, Διὸς δ᾽ ἐτελείετο βουλή (Iliad 1.4–5). [33] The first issue is the number of lambdas in ἑλώρια. Estienne claims, “Non dubitavi, cum Eustathio, de hac altera scriptura ἑλλώρια vetustissimi & optimi exemplaris autoritate fretus: tamen margini apposui: alteram autem ἑλώρια in textu retinui: quam habent editions Florentina Aldina, Germanica & Gallicae omnes, quae ad manus quidem meas pervenerunt.”[34] Estienne cites instances of the noun ἕλωρ, another term for spoils, elsewhere in Homer to support his inclusion of the reading with a single λ. In the next line, however, Estienne must tackle a variation in grammatical inflection that has implications for the sense of the line. For the accusative plural βουλή, he has the alternate reading of the instrumental dative singular βουλῇ. Estienne attempts to determine whether this noun refers to the fates or to the will of Zeus. He turns to analogous expressions in Latin epic poetry but is unable to discover definitively from these examples the meaning of the term in Homer. Citations of Latin poetry are frequent in Estienne’s annotations; he regards these as part of a cohesive cultural tradition capable of closing gaps in texts separated by centuries. His inclusion of a critical apparatus immediately beside the text of Homer indicates his openness to allowing readers to form their own judgments.

In another instance, Estienne aligns himself with the Latin translation of Valla on the basis of logical reasoning. Idomeneus challenges Deiphobus, “ ἄρα δή τι ἐΐσκομεν ἄξιον εἶναι/ τρεῖς ἑνὸς ἀντὶ πεφάσθαι; ἐπεὶ σύ περ εὔχεαι οὕτω. δαιμόνι᾽ ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐναντίον ἵστασ᾽ ἐμεῖο, ὄφρα ἴδῃ οἷος Ζηνὸς γόνος ἐνθάδ᾽ ἱκάνω” (Iliad 13.446–7).[35] Estienne expounds at length on whether the question is expected to be answered in the affirmative or negative. Here, he upholds the translation of Valla, “Num tibi videtur esse par, tres hostes interemisse: quod ego feci: atque unum, quod tu fecisti, daemonie.”[36] Another translation of this line printed afterwards in Basel reads, “Non videtur aequipollens esse tres pro vno occidisse…” which anticipates an affirmation. Estienne, however, reasons that Idomeneus could not have intended this statement to be affirmed because he immediately negates his assessment of the fairness of the exchange by challenging Deiphobus himself to fight: “Posterior autem plane negat quod affirmandum est, quum dicit, Non videtur aequipollens esse…”[37] The Greek itself does not specify whether the answer is an affirmation or negation.

In the final case I will describe, Estienne has conviction in a reading that diverges from Eustathius, but provides this reading in the margin rather than the main body of the text. When Patroclus is about to enter battler, Zeus is described as the force that impels him: ὅς τε καὶ ἄλκιμον ἄνδρα φοβεῖ καὶ ἀφείλετο νίκην/ ῥηϊδίως, ὅτε δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐποτρύνῃσι μάχεσθαι:/ ὅς οἱ καὶ τότε θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἀνῆκεν (Iliad 16.689–91).[38] Estienne writes that he prefers ἐποτρυνει μαχέσασθαι (the former in the present and the latter in the aorist middle) and ὁτὲ (“sometimes”) over ὅτε (“when”). This allows for the sense, “Sed quis Iovis voluntati &decreto resistat, qui iniecto pavore viro alioqui forti &strenuo, ei victoria propemodum e manibus eripit: contra vero quemcunque vult ad pugnam animat ut hunc videmus ab eo animatum ad eam pugnam fuisse a qua abstinere debuerat.”[39] The reading ὁτὲ introduces a circumstance distinct from the action described in the prior clause, while ὅτε further qualifies that action. The conventional translation, however, uses the reading ὅτε: “Sed semper Iovis validior mens quam hominum, qui fortem virum terret, &abstulit victoria facile, quum tamen ipse iubeat pugnare.”[40] Still, Estienne relegates his reading to the critical apparatus. Additionally, he notes that Eustathius found lines 689 and 690 missing in some manuscripts. Estienne suspects that these lines originated elsewhere in Book 16, but nevertheless includes them here, likely because their sense accords with the surrounding lines.


I have sought to characterize Estienne’s historical and poetic sensibilities and to demonstrate how both manifest in his textual criticism. The merit of this methodology did not go unrecognized. Estienne’s edition was by no means flawless, but it was considered the most carefully done edition of Homer to date and reigned for centuries after as the standard Greek edition.



Keywords: allegory, Aratus, Aristotle, Bion, Marc Bizer Bénédicte Boudou, Gillaume Budé, Callimachus, Catholicism, King Charles IX, Louis Clément, Jean De Sponde, Delphi, Jean Dorat, England, Henri Estienne, Eustathius of Thessalonica, Philip Ford, France, Paris, French, Ulrich Fugger, epic genre, Greek, Herodotus, Hesiod, interpretation, Italian, Florence, Rome, Latin, literacy, metaphor, Arnaldo Momigliano, Musaeus, Orpheus, Erwin Panofsky, annotation, commentary, prefatory material, Rudolph Pfeiffer, philology, Porphyry, Protestant, Basel-Switzerland, Geneva-Switzerland, Theognis, Thucydides, Lorenzo Valla




Aristotle. Poetics. Edited by Stephen Halliwell. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1995.

Atkinson, Geoffrey. “Henri Estienne et Les ideés du XVIII Siècle.” Bibliotheque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 13, no. 3 (1951): 336–41.

Bizer, Marc. Homer and the Politics of Authority in Renaissance France. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Boudou, Bénédicte. Mars et les Muses dans L’Apologie Pour Hérodote d’Henri Estienne. Geneva: Librairie Droz S.A., 2000.

Clément, Louis. Henri Estienne et son oeuvre française. Paris: A. Picard, 1899.

Considine, John. Dictionaries of Early Modern Europe: Lexicography and the Making of Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Estienne, Henri. “Eiusdem H. Stephani annotationes in suam poetarum Graecorum editionem.” In Hoi tes heroikes poiseos proteuontes poietai, & alloi tines, iv–xxvii. Geneva: Excudebat Henricus Stephanus, illustris viri Huldrichi Fuggeri typographus, 1566.

—. “Henrici Stephani in suam poetarum Graecorum editonem praefatio in qua laudes poeticae attingit.” In Hoi tes heroikes poiseos proteuontes poietai, & alloi tines, 3–20. Geneva: Excudebat Henricus Stephanus, illustris viri Huldrichi Fuggeri typographus, 1566.

—. “Tes Homerou Iliados.” In Hoi tes heroikes poiseos proteuontes poietai, & alloi tines, 1–410. Geneva: Excudebat Henricus Stephanus, illustris viri Huldrichi Fuggeri typographus, 1566.

—. “Traité preparatif à l’Apologie pour Hérodote.” In La France des Humanistes: Henri II Estienne, Éditeur et Écrivain, edited by Judit Kecskemeti, Bénédicte Boudou, and Hélène Cazes, 174–95. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003.

Ford, Philip. “Homer in the French Renaissance.” Renaissance Quarterly 59, no. 1 (2006): 1–28.

Momigliano, Arnaldo. “Ancient History and the Antiquarian.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13, no. 3/4 (1950): 285–315.

Panofsky, Erwin. Meaning in the Visual Arts: Papers in and on Art History. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1955.

Pfeiffer, Rudolph. History of Classical Scholarship. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968–76.

  1. Estienne came from a family of printers that included his grandfather Henri and father Robert. In this paper, I will use “Estienne” to refer to Henri II.
  2. The editio princeps of the Iliad and Odyssey was itself an anthology, albeit one in which all materials directly pertained to Homer.
  3. Boudou discusses the Renaissance stance of the relationship between history and poetry at length. See Bénédicte Boudou, Mars et les Muses dans LApologie Pour Hérodote dHenri Estienne (Geneva: Librairie Droz S.A., 2000), 489–491.
  4. Aristotle, Poetics, ed. Stephen Halliwell, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 1451b.
  5. The Latin Apologia went through twelve editions in the lifetime of Estienne himself. It achieved a new popularity in the first half of the eighteenth century in the context of the critique of French absolutism. See Geoffrey Atkinson, “Henri Estienne et Les ideés du XVIII Siècle,” Bibliotheque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 13, no. 3 (1951): 336–41.
  6. “…for being foreign to custom or habit, or for being contrary to our reasoning, which is to say, to our discourse grounded in such and such reasons.” Henri Estienne,”Traité preparatif à l’Apologie pour Hérodote,” in La France des Humanistes: Henri II Estienne, Éditeur et Écrivain, ed. Judit Kecskemeti, Bénédicte Boudou, and Hélène Cazes (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003), 181.
  7. “Unfamiliar histories should be able to help the reader disengage himself from prejudices and mental habits by an overturning of his perspective. In the same period in which the expansion of the world helped endow reality with extraordinary spatial distance, the rediscovery of ancient history also revealed facts which only temporal distance caused to appear as strange.” Boudou, Mars et les Muses, 506–7.
  8. “…combine a practical approach and logical reasoning.” Ibid., 507.
  9. “He engages in a systematic and comparative examination of expressions and proverbs, he studies their evolution in time and he uncovers the information which languages furnishes about the history of customs.” Ibid., 511.
  10. In contrast, Estienne dedicates his Thesaurus to “the Holy Roman Emperor, the King of France, the Queen of England, the Elector Palatine, the Duke of Saxony, the Margrave of Brandenburg and, for good measure, the nine principal universities in the realms of these potentates.” John Considine, Dictionaries of Early Modern Europe: Lexicography and the Making of Heritage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 84.
  11. Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts: Papers in and on Art History (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1955), 2.
  12. Arnaldo Momigliano, “Ancient History and the Antiquarian,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13, no. 3/4 (1950): 286.
  13. Rudolph Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 106.
  14. Philip Ford, “Homer in the French Renaissance,” Renaissance Quarterly 59, no. 1 (2006): 16.
  15. Ibid., 10.
  16. Dorat spent time in the household of the Estiennes. See Considine, Dictionaries of Early Modern Europe, 57.
  17. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 104.
  18. Marc Bizer, Homer and the Politics of Authority in Renaissance France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 7.
  19. Ibid., 13.
  20. “From that time, the study of poetry drove roots into my soul so deep that I seemed to be captivated by the songs of the Sirens, and now perhaps I seem this way also.” Henri Estienne, “Henrici Stephani in suam poetarum graecorum editonem praefatio in qua laudes poeticae attingit,” in Hoi tes heroikes poiseos proteuontes poietai, & alloi tines (Geneva: Excudebat Henricus Stephanus, illustris viri Huldrichi Fuggeri typographus, 1566), 4.
  21. Bizer, Homer and the Politics of Authority, 60.
  22. “Indeed many verses exist, such that the one who reads them hears the very pleasant harmony of music and looks at a very beautiful painting.” Estienne, “Praefatio,” 7.
  23. “But also, the arts themselves are such that excellent painters borrow models from excellent poets.” Ibid., 9–10.
  24. Dorat had been the mentor of the Pléiade group.
  25. Ford, “Homer in the French Renaissance,” 18.
  26. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 105.
  27. “Why indeed should we not interpret the figures of poets in a good sense, when none of the native writers piously and reverently perceived and spoke about their divinity, which is the case especially with the Greeks, and indeed, with the most ancient among them?” Estienne, “Praefatio,” 16.
  28. “…barbarous people, clearly primitive in letters, are found to have saved the memory of many histories for many years in certain ancestral songs.” Ibid., 15.
  29. “No one ever had been able to persuade me.” Ibid., 18.
  30. “…among the less bad.” Ibid., 18.
  31. “I seem to be able to compare an amended book in the hand of a bold and unlearned scholar or interpreter to a sword which is in the hand of a madman.” Ibid., 20.
  32. For a survey of Estienne's attitudes towards Italians, see Louis Clément, Henri Estienne et son oeuvre française (Paris: A. Picard, 1899), 107–41.
  33. “They made them spoils for the dogs and all the birds, and fulfilled the plan of Zeus.”
  34. “I did not doubt, along with Eustathius, the alternate reading ἑλλώρια, relying on the authority of the oldest and best example: nevertheless I placed it in the margin: I retained the alternative ἑλώρια in the text: which the Florentine, Aldine, and all German and French editions that came to my hands have.” Henri Estienne, “Eiusdem H. Stephani annotationes in suam poetarum Graecorum editionem” In Hoi tes heroikes poiseos proteuontes poietai, & alloi tines (Geneva: Excudebat Henricus Stephanus, illustris viri Huldrichi Fuggeri typographus, 1566), iv.
  35. “Do we deem it worthy to have killed three for one; since you are now boasting in this way. No, but good sir, stand before me yourself so that you know the sort of son of Zeus I am…” Estienne, “Annotationes,” xii.
  36. “Surely it does not seem to you to be fair, to have killed three enemies, which I did: for one, which you did, sir.” Ibid., xii.
  37. “Afterwards he plainly denies what must be affirmed when he says, ‘It does not seem equivalent.’” Ibid., xii.
  38. “Who both scares away masculine strength and easily takes away victory, when he impels someone to fight: and who then takes away the courage in his breast.”
  39. “But Jupiter snatches victory from the hands of the one who resists his will and decree, by injecting fear into some strong and brave man; on the other hand, he incites whomever he wishes to fight so that we see a person can be driven by him to fight, from which he ought to have abstained.” Ibid., xv.  
  40. “But the mind of Jupiter is always stronger than that of men, who frightens a brave man and who removes victory easily when he himself impels him to fight.” Ibid., xvi.