The early modern transmission of the ancient Greek romances: a bibliographic survey. (2024)

Link/Page Citation

This contribution offers a new, critical bibliography of the earlymodern translations and editions of the five extant Greek romances. (1)The early modern era was a crucial period for their afterlife: it wasthe age of print, enabling their wider dissemination across Europe, andthe large number of prints of the Greek romances in the classicallanguages or vernacular echoed and contributed to their popularity asmodels for imitations and adaptations. So far, there have not been manyattempts to create a bibliography of these works, and the existing onesare only partial. In some cases, they are mentioned in more generalbibliographies of translations of classical texts. (2) When morespecific, the bibliographies usually only concern one romance. (3) Twoscholars attempted to compose a bibliography for several Greeknovelists: Gesner (1970:145-162) and Plazenet (1997:685-702) provide along list for Heliodorus, Achilles Tatius, and Longus, in France andBritain during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. (4) Thesebibliographies have, however, their limitations as reference tools forthe early modern epoch.

Plazenet, according to her subject, focuses only on the sixteenthand seventeenth centuries. Gesner starts earlier, from the beginning ofprint, but also ends earlier, in 1642. Furthermore, a lot of her entriesare dubious, and her bibliography neglects the Polish and Hungariantranslations. Indeed, these have often gone unnoticed, or are onlymentioned with incomplete information, as in the case of Oeftering(1901:51). Gesner is not the only scholar whose bibliography is faultyor incomplete: those by Oeftering, MacQueen, and Colonna contain manygaps, and often seem to copy the mistakes of others. Finally, a reasonwhy it is really necessary to undertake a new bibliographic survey, isthat the surveys are old and not up to date. In recent decades, newdiscoveries have provided new information about the transmission. Sometranslations have been newly discovered, such as the fact that Cozad(2013) argues against the common assumption that Longus was not known inSpain until the late Spanish translation by D. Juan Valera in 1880,because she notices that some lines of the romance had already beenfreely translated/adapted by Damasio de Frias y Balboa in 1568. Othershave been cast into doubt. For example, there may have been a reprint ofManzini's Italian translation of Longus in Bologna in 1647, butFerrini rightly says: "molto dubbia la reale esistenza di questaed. segnalata da molti autori che dichiarano di non averla vista"(Ferrini 1991:95). Furthermore, some attributions have been correctedsince earlier bibliographies. Les devis amoureux, for example, a Frenchtranslation of Achilles Tatius, was often attributed to Claude Collet inolder bibliographies. (5) According to the Bibliotheque Nationale deFrance, Nakatani (2005:9-10), and Pettegree (2007:4), however, Philibertde Vienne is its true author.

My bibliography differs from earlier bibliographies because itintends to be broader, more critical, and up to date. First of all, itis based on new findings. It is the first systematic attempt to compilea specific bibliography of the Greek romances twenty-one years afterPlazenet. Secondly, it is broader, because I do not limit myself to onlyone Greek romance but to the extant, so-called "Big Five", andI have included their translations in all the European languages inwhich they became available in early modern history. Thirdly, it alsoincludes translations which were completed but not published. For thosereasons, my bibliography contains new entries not included in existingbibliographies, such as the unpublished Hungarian translation ofHeliodorus by Mihaly Czobor. Fourthly, it covers the entire early modernera (unlike Plazenet, Gesner, and Letoublon (2015:75-77)). Although theeighteenth century was relatively neglected by scholarship concerningthe ancient romances, it was an important era: in this century, theGreek romances served their last days as popular models for adaptations,(6) as gradually the so-called "rise of the novel" and thegrowing negative attitude towards "romances" pushed themaside. Furthermore, as is well known, Xenophon and Chariton wererediscovered in this century after a long period of silence. In short,the eighteenth century was a turning point in the afterlife of the Greekromances, as attitudes towards them shifted from their early modernpopularity and enormous influence to a new, modern approach. Therefore,my survey covers the period from their re-emergence in the fifteenthcentury to the eighteenth century. Finally, I correct the existing listswith findings from my own investigations into catalogues, consultationsof digital copies, and secondary literature.

By way of explanation, on the following pages I will provideinformation about some bibliographic particularities necessary for acorrect understanding of my survey, as well as a justification ofchoices I made about alleged editions, translations that deal freelywith the original texts, and editions and translations that do notcontain the complete romance. I will also discuss the history of theirtransmission (rediscovery, changing interests, tendencies...), theirgeographical dissemination across Europe, the popularity of some ofthose in print and as models for other versions, and combinations withother texts. (7)

To have been or not to have been? Alleged editions

For some of the prints mentioned in earlier bibliographies, thereexists uncertainty as to whether they actually ever existed.Gambara's Expositi, a Latin translation of Longus, is such anexample. Vieillefond (1987:lxiii) mentions an alleged edition in Baselin 1555, MacQueen (1990:264) and Gesner (1970:161) refer to one in Romein 1569 titled Expositorum ex Longo libri iv heroico carmine, andseveral scholars such as Asor Rosa (1999:53) (8) and Ferrini (1991:89)mention a Plantine edition printed in Antwerp in 1569. Hofmann, whoconducted a thorough investigation into catalogues and libraries, didnot find these alleged editions, and refers to them as "phantomeditions that haunt the bibliographies where generations of scholarshave copied these wrong entries from each other, and should be removedfor good from the bibliographies of Longus." (Hofmann, 2011:110). Iagree with Hofmann and consider the 1574 Naples edition as the truefirst print of Gambara's translation, the existence of which can beverified thanks to a digitalised copy. For reasons of completeness andcorrectness, I distinguish between the indubitable and dubious(re)prints by displaying the latter--with a reference to secondaryliterature claiming their existence--separately a line below the(re)prints whose existence is certain.

Regarding some translations, we do not know if they ever existed atall. For example, all bibliographies of Longus that include Germantranslations contain a reference to David Wolstand (often as"Anonymous"), but I found no evidence of any existing work bythis author. Already in 1785, the German journal Fur aeltere Litteraturund neuere Lecture expresses doubt about its existence: "Ob siewirklich erschienen, weiss ich nicht; denn der damalige Messkatalogus,hat so wie der iezige, ofters Bucher angekundigt, oder als fertigeangezeigt, die niemalen das Licht erblikt haben." (s.n. 1785:31).(9) Maybe those dubious translations are simply lost, but we cannot besure. For completeness, I include them in the survey, but unlike otherbibliographies, I distinguish them from the other lemmata by placingthem between two daggers ([dagger]...[dagger]) to indicate theiruncertain status.

In the twilight zone between translation and adaptation

The definition of the term "translation" is vague and canbe interpreted in various ways, according to individual preferences ofscholars and translators. Some of my entries are considered astranslations by some, and as paraphrases or even adaptations by others,because they are not word by word translations. Thus, Oeftering(1901:51) argues that the Dutch translation of Heliodorus by Gentil isactually a retelling of the story. And the Spanish version of AchillesTatius by Diego Agreda y Vargas is, in Nakatani's opinion(2005:18), a free adaptation. As I intend to give a broad survey, I takethe meaning of "translation" not too strictly, and I also takeinto account more creative interpretations of that concept and the moreoriginal variations by which the Greek romances so often reached theaudience. (10) Furthermore, I also include translations that dotranslate word by word but not in a very strict sense, such astranslations in which some passages are translated word by word andothers are summarised or adapted, and other translations in which anextra twist has been added, like inserting episodes of their owninvention, rearranging the story, as in the case of Malnoury'sFrench Heliodorus, (11) or putting the translated sentences into verse.Indeed, a recurring tendency is not only to translate the words intoanother language, but also to convert prose into poetry. Czobor andGyongyosi both provide a translation of Heliodorus into Hungarianverses. (12) Similarly, William Lisle converts the Aethiopica intoEnglish metres, and Bossi the first five books into Italian "ottavorima". Also Longus has been converted into verse: Gambara versifiesthe sentences in Latin dactylic hexameters, a choice of metre whichsituates the romance in the epic tradition. For this transposition of aprose work into poetry, MacQueen (1990:264) prefers to call it aparaphrase, and Reeve (2008:289) even refers to a free adaptation. Also,the French translation of Longus by Pierre Marcassus is commonlyconsidered a paraphrase. Longus, in particular, seems to have attractedpeculiar treatments like this. (13)

Incompleteness: excerpts, lacunae, omissions

Not all items in my list contain the entire romance, as issometimes indicated by their titles ("fragmentum", "liberprimus", etc.). In some cases, translators/editors consciouslyselect just part of the story to translate. The Italian humanist AngeloPoliziano is the first person in the early modern era to quote a passagefrom Xenophon's Ephesian Tale. When he discusses the temple inEphese in chapter 51 of his Miscellanea Centuria Prima, he translatesthe scene depicting the procession to the temple of Artemis (1.2.2-5)into Latin. (14) Heliodorus, for his part, gets several versions of thefirst book (Renatus Guillonius, Wechel, Abraham Fraunce, Lancelot deCarle (15)). This says something about the importance of the first book:as Sandy (1979) explains, the abrupt opening in medias res promptsreaders to try, like the brigands, to make sense of the strange, bloodyscene of the opening sequence, and as the riddle of the identity of theprotagonists gradually unravels, the first book establishes itself as anadmirable piece of literary cunning, considered a model for imitationand emulation.

In other cases, the fragmentary state can be explained by the factthat the edition/translation is based on an incomplete manuscript orother editions with lacunae. The editorial history of AchillesTatius' Leucippe and cl*tophon provides an interesting example.Annibale della Croce, also known as Cruceius, provides the first Latintranslation in 1544, and indicates the condition of the text by usingthe word "fragmentum" in his title: it is based on anincomplete manuscript which only contains the last four books, theSinaiticus gr. 1197. (16) The Italian translation by Dolce and theFrench one by Philibert de Vienne are also based on this incompleteLatin version. Ten years later, Achilles Tatius receives his first fullLatin translation. Philip Archinto informs della Croce that a fullmanuscript of Achilles Tatius exists in Rome--perhaps, as Nakatani(2005:11) suggests, the Vaticanus Graecus 114. Della Croce adds to hisearlier translation the first four books and some corrections to thelast four. (17) Meanwhile, another Italian, Francisco Coccio, hadtranslated the entire text, this time in the Italian vernacular, andwith acknowledgement to Achilles Tatius, from another completemanuscript in Venice which Nakatani (2005:11) identifies as theMarcianus Graecus 409. Half a century later, in 1601, the editioprinceps of Achilles Tatius is published, but the Greek text is notcomplete. Juda and Nikolaus Bonnenvict (alias Bonnvitius) finish theedition started by Commelinus. The text runs from 1,1,1 to 8,16,3, thenthere is a lacuna, and then the text picks up again from 8,17,4. (18)For a complete edition without lacuna, Achilles Tatius has to wait until1640, when Claude de Saumaise, also known as Salmasius, produces a newbilingual edition, founded on a comparison of different manuscripts.(19)

Longus, for his part, does not get a single complete version of hisromance until the nineteenth century. All early modern translations andeditions of Longus contain a gap from 1,13,2 to 1,17,4, from the scenewhere Daphnis takes a bath and thereby incites Chloe's love andsexuality to the passage where she gives him her first kiss. Indeed, acomplete version of the story does not appear until the modern era, whenin 1810 Paul-Louis Courier collates the manuscript of the FlorentinusLaurentianus Conv. Soppr. 627, which contains the missing part.Different solutions are invented for this lacuna. Amyot signals thelacuna in book I and leaves it open, so that the text actually makes astrange transition from the moment Daphnis enters the cave to washhimself, to his reaction to Chloe's kiss, but Annibal Caro fillsthe gap with his own fantasy. (20) The incompleteness of the romance issometimes overlooked. For example, Doody (1996:46) claims that in JohnCleland's p*rnographic novel Fanny Hill (1748), the erotic scene ofa bathing youth triggering the sexual awakening of the young virginHarriet recalls Daphnis' bathing scene inciting Chloe's sexualdesire and love in Longus' romance. But since this passage is partof the lacuna, it raises the question of whether and, if so, how Clelandcould have known about it.

Sometimes the editors and translators intentionally wipe out evenmore parts in the target text, because the editors and translators havea problem either with the style or the content, especially concerningAchilles Tatius and Longus. As is well known, they are often censuredfor moral or stylistic reasons. The scene in Longus, where Lycaenionsexually initiates Daphnis, is a case in point. Most translatorssuppress it, except for Caro (21) and James Craggs. (22) Beta (2015:145)remarks that Coccio, Ravaud, and many other translators of AchillesTatius' romance, even up to the twentieth century, leaveMenelaus's apology for the kissing between men untranslated becauseof the hom*osexuality, but Belleforest and, according to Jouanno(2015:170), Baudouin, are exceptions. Furthermore, when Longus'simplicity is increasingly appreciated during the eighteenth century,the digressive nature and rhetorical abundance of Leucippe and cl*tophonare considered too superfluous, and to be avoided. According to Jouanno(2015:172), d'Egly, for example, rids the romance of digressions,lamentations and ekphraseis for that reason. I include, of course, allversions read by the early modern audience--whether selective,accidentally fragmentary, purposely mutilated and censured, altered, orcomplete--in the bibliography, which, as the example of Cleland shows,the user should keep in mind.

The history of the transmission

So far, I have provided an explanation of my survey, butinteresting information about the transmission can also be derived fromthe bibliography itself. Clear tendencies can be identified in thetransmission of the romances. (23) Its history has already been outlinedextensively in academic study on the Renaissance and Baroque eras: there-emergence of the Greek romances in early modern Europe starts withhumanists consulting the manuscripts in the fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies, and with the publication by Bavarian humanist VinzenzHeidecker of Heliodorus in 1534 in Basel, under his pseudonym VincentObsopoeus, the first print of a Greek romance. The celebrated Frenchtranslation of Heliodorus by Jacques Amyot, published anonymously in1547 in Paris, turns the wheel of fortune for the Greek romances: itsgreat success gives rise to the popularity of the Greek romances,Heliodorus in particular, during the sixteenth and early seventeenthcenturies, as shown by both the number of editions/translations and thenumber of adaptations. In the second half of the seventeenth century,the number of new editions and translations diminishes significantly, aswell as the number of reprints of earlier ones. Only four new editionsand translations appear, limited ge ographically to England and theNetherlands: Van Nispen translates Achilles Tatius into Dutch in 1652,Longus receives an English translation by Thornley in 1657 and abilingual edition by Petrus Moll in the Dutch city Franeker in 1660, andHeliodorus is newly translated into English in 1686, the first fivebooks by an anonymous "person of quality" and the last one byNahum Tate. (24) If the alleged anonymous German translation of AchillesTatius ever really existed, Germany could be added to the map. Thisdownfall in their transmission raises the question of why they seeminglylost their attraction, if the Greek romances thereby also lost theirinfluence as models for imitation and emulation, and why those countriescontinued printing them.

In the eighteenth century, the Greek romances make a spectacularcomeback on the book markets. Although the eighteenth-centurydevelopment of novel writing causes negative attitudes towards olderforms of prose fiction, this does not have a negative impact on theirprinting. In fact, the production is now at its highest, both in thenumber of new items and the number of reprints of older versions. Mostinterestingly, however, are the new interests and tendencies, which makethe eighteenth century a clear turning point in the transmission of theGreek romances. Firstly, Europeans are no longer only interested in thesophistic romances, but also take notice of Xenophon and Chariton.Bernard de Montfaucon rediscovers Xenophon in its only surviving codex,the Florentinus Laurentianus Conv. Soppr. 627. It is first copied andtranslated into Italian by Salvini (1723), before the editio princeps ofCocchi (1726). Chariton is the last Greek novelist to reach early modernreaders. The editio princeps only appears in 1750 by Jacques Philipped'Orville, together with a Latin translation by Reiske. An Englishtranslation in 1764 is remarkable, due to another novelty, which is thatit is translated by two women as an exercise given to them by theirfather. Secondly, Longus' fame increases rapidly and eclipses allother Greek romances, not only in printed form but also in theirafterlife in art and music. Heliodorus is no longer the king of Greeknovel writing: his baroque complexity has to yield for Longus'charming simplicity. It is striking that Daphnis and Chloe getsseventeen new translations and editions, that Caro's Tuscantranslation is finally printed almost 250 years after it was made, andthat Amyot's Amours Pastorales becomes the most reprintedtranslation. A final new trend is the grouping of Greek romances intocollections. (25) From the second half of the eighteenth centuryonwards, it becomes a custom to print them together. Manzini'sItalian Longus is printed together with Salvini's Italian Xenophonin 1792. The German professor Mitscherlich compiles a collection, titledScriptores Erotici Graeci, of editions of the Greek texts together witha Latin translation, with the exception of Chariton. In Paris, there aretwo series that reprint translations of Greek romances together, namelythe Bibliotheque universelle des dames (1785-6) and the Bibliotheque desRomans grecs traduits en francais (1797). In the Bibliothequeuniverselle des romans (Paris, 1775 and 1782), analyses, quotations andsummaries appear of earlier translations into French, by Amyot of Longus(August 1775; reissued 1782, Tome I), by du Perron de Castera ofAchilles Tatius (November 1775; reissued 1782, Tome II), by de Fontenuof Heliodorus (April 1776), and by Jourdan of Xenophon (May 1776). Asimilar treatment (introduction, paraphrase with excerpts) can be foundfor Longus (Vol. I) and Achilles Tatius (vol. II) in the Traduction desmeilleurs romans Grecs, Latins et Gaulois, extraits de la bibliothequeuniverselle des Romans (Paris, 1785).

The geographical dissemination

The first prints are confined to Switzerland, France and Italy. InSwitzerland and Italy, humanists get hold of the manuscripts, and Frenchhellenists quickly take an interest in the romances. In the second halfof the sixteenth century, they spread further to their neighbours inGermany, cross the Channel to Tudor England, and gain ground in Spainand its dominion in what is now Belgium (with prints in Antwerp). In thefirst part of the seventeenth century, they also reach the Netherlandsduring the Golden Age, and eastern Europe. Heliodorus' fame inparticular now reaches as far as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth andHungary: Zacharzewski's Polish translation is published far northin Vilnius, and the Hungarians Gyorgy and Czobor translate him intoLatin and Hungarian, respectively. Achilles Tatius reaches Slovakia,then part of Hungary. The translation by Festus (1620 in the Slovak cityKosice, or Kassa in Hungarian) into Hungarian is actually the firstappearance of the Greek romances on the Hungarian book markets, asGyorgy's and Czobor's Heliodorus do not make it to print. Inthe second part of the seventeenth century, however, France, Italy andSpain seem to have been satisfied with their popularity in the previousdecades, and new items are sourced in the Netherlands and England. Butwhen they are printed again in the eighteenth century, theirdissemination continues to the North, West and East. Heliodorus nowarrives in Copenhagen with the first Danish translation. The Aethiopicawas already known in Hungary (see above), but now two Hungariantranslations are finally published: a verse translation by Gyongyosi isprinted for the first time in the Slovak city Levoca (in Hungarian:Locse) and another one by Dugonics in Bratislava (in Hungarian:Poszony). The one by Gyongyosi is reissued in Hungarian Buda in 1733 and1763. The Kingdom of Hungary, which includes Slovakia, is now a crownland of the Habsburg Monarchy, but in the second part of the century,Greek romances also reach the Habsburg capital in Austria: notHeliodorus, as is usually the case, but a Greek edition of Longus byVendotes, and another one of Xenophon in Greek and Latin by von Locella,according to the new tendencies of the era. (26) In the West, Greekromance expands to Ireland and Scotland: Craggs's translation ofLongus is reissued in Dublin in 1763, under a different title from theEnglish prints, and Nahum Tate's Heliodorus is reprinted in Glasgowin 1753. Another geographical shift in the eighteenth century is that,while France had been the most eager to translate and edit the Greekromances, now the Germans are equally interested in them. Furthermore,while new translations appear in Italy in the second part of theeighteenth century after a century of silence, the first translationsand editions by Italians are actually published outside of Italy:Salvini and Cocchi print Xenophon in the capital of Great Britain whilethey are members of the Italian circle in London, and Boccardi makes anItalian version of Xenophon in Cologne in 1730.

A reason why it is interesting to map this dissemination is becausea work's first appearance in a country in print often puts itsafterlife in the literature and art of that region in motion. It is wellknown that the successful transmission of the sophistic romances intoFrance, Great Britain and Spain in the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies triggered their function as models for French heroic romances,English Elizabethan romances, and Spanish novelas bizantinas for prosefiction, respectively, as well as for the stage. (27) Few studies,however, have been undertaken to examine whether their transmission hadany impact in the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and the rest of EasternEurope, or whether there are regional differences in the treatment ofthe texts by the translators or imitators. Of course, there does notalways exist a causal relationship between the appearance of the textsand their afterlife in art and literature within the same region: theAethiopica was already known in Denmark with the paintings of Gerrit vanHonthorst for the Danish crown prince Christian in 1635, (28) a centurybefore the text was printed in Copenhagen.

Popularity in print and as source texts

The number of reprints tells us something about popularity. In thesixteenth century, Amyot, Warschewiczki, Underdowne, Zschorn, and dellaCroce are frequently reissued. In the seventeenth century, Ghini, deMena, and Coccio also receive several reprints, as do, in the eighteenthcentury, Schmidius and de Mena (of Heliodorus), Saumaise (of AchillesTatius), and the--by then old--version by Amyot of Longus, with the newone by James Craggs being popular too. Some are frequently reprinted incombination with other translations or editions. This often occurs inthe case of bilingual editions, in which the editor combines the Greektext with a reprint of an older Latin translation, or even the reprintof an old Greek text with one in Latin. Thus, in 1596, HieronymusCommelinus puts the older Latin translation of Warschewiczki next to hisnew Greek edition of Heliodorus. In the next century, Bourdelotius,Pareus and Schmid produce bilingual editions in combination withWarschewiczki, but they provide reproductions, more or less, of theedition by Commelinus, and Schmid takes over the comments ofBourdelotius. (29) Gambara's Latin version of Longus, in turn,accompanies the Greek text in the editiones Commelinianae of thebrothers Bonnvitius (Heidelberg, 1601 and 1611), and in the edition ofBenjamin Gottlieb Boden (Leipzig, 1777). And concerning Achilles Tatius,della Croce's complete Latin version is reprinted next to the Greektext in the editio Commiliniana of 1601 and with the Greek text ofSaumaise in 1640. But in the eighteenth century, even more curiousexamples of combining translations and editions come into existence.Notable is an edition in Luca (1781) of Xenophon of Ephesus: it reprintsthe Greek text next to a Latin translation of Cocchi's edition,alternating with a page with Salvini's Italian translation printednext to the French of Jourdan. The Glasgow edition of Heliodorus in 1753reprints, according to Black (2011:356), the translation by Nahum Tate,except for the last two pages which are taken from the 1717 translation.And Antoine le Camus makes his own anonymous French translation ofLongus and prints it next to the one by Amyot in 1757.

These combinations are the most obvious connections betweeneditions and translations which can be seen in my bibliography, but thesurvey also allows us to see another possible type of connection:dependency. The chronology permits us to see which translations precededothers, and might have functioned as source texts. Indeed, sometimeseven the title betrays the sources from which they derive theirtranslation: both William Burton and Francois de Belleforest copy thespelling "Achilles Statius" from their example, dellaCroce's complete Latin version, which, as Nakatani (2005:11-12)suggests, the Italian had taken over from the Suda. (30) The success ofsome editions in reprints echoes their popularity as models for othertranslations. To give some examples, Amyot's Heliodorus is thefoundation for the anonymous Spanish 1554 translation, and his Longusfor the English paraphrase by Angell Daye. Della Croce's incompleteversion of Achilles Tatius was the basis for the Italian translation byLudovico Dolce and the French one by Philibert de Vienne, while theFrench version of Ravaud was the source for the anonymous German one in1631, and the Italian one by Coccio for the Spanish one by Agreda yVargas. Zschorn's German translation of Heliodorus is an importantsource for Eastern European translations. Instead of using the Latin ofhis countryman Warschewiczki, Andrzej Zacharzewski derives his Polishtranslation from Zschorn, and Zschorn's German is also the sourcefor the Hungarian translation by Mihaly Czobor. (31)Warschewiczki's function as model can be derived in some casesbecause he frequently errs and, as a result, the translators using theLatin by Warschewiczki as source text make the same mistakes. In thatrespect, the English translation by Underdowne and the German one byZschorn are quite faulty. (32) A translation can also be based onseveral source texts. Thus, according to their preface, the Englishtranslators of Chariton based their work on the Italian of Giacomelli,Reiske's Latin, and occasionally on the original Greek text. We canalso observe the opposite phenomenon, where apparently the existence ofother translations was not known about. Thus, the title of a Latintranslation of Heliodorus by the Hungarian Gyorgy, "Nunc Primum InLatinam Linguam Conversi", is remarkable, because it claims to bethe first Latin translation, as if suggesting the translator did notknow of Warschewiczki's first Latin translation, nor ofCrusius' recent version.

Combinations with other stories

As mentioned under the history of their transmission, in theeighteenth century it becomes customary to print the Greek romancestogether. Though the brothers Bonnvitius were the first to publishAchilles Tatius together with Longus and Parthenius in 1601, theircollection was an exception at that time. It was, however, already muchmore commonplace by then to print the Greek romances alongside otherromances. These could be romances in a very general sense, as in acollection of love stories, including chivalric romances. Thus, in 1587Zschorn's Aethiopica Historia is reissued as part of the Buch derLiebe by Sigmund Feyerband, together with medieval romances likeTristrant and Magelone. Or the volumes concern more specificcombinations with other romances. The anonymous German translator ofAchilles Tatius in 1631, for example, makes Leucippe and cl*tophon thefourth part of the Theatri Amoris, a collection of German translationsof French adaptations of Greek romance. (33) The eighteenth-centurycollections of the Greek romances were not restricted to just thoseromances, and were often printed alongside other romances written in ortranslated into French, such as French chivalric or heroic romances,fairy tales, the Latin romances, and also some of the Byzantineromances. The latter does not surprise: as Nakatani (2005:18) states,throughout the entire early modern era, the Greek romances are oftencombined with other (ancient and modern) stories sharing a similar lovetheme (e.g. Parthenius's Erotica Pathemata is included in theeditio princeps of Achilles Tatius), as well as with the Byzantineromances, because the Greek and Byzantine love stories are considered asone genre. The Dutch translation of Achilles Tatius by Van Nispen in1652, for example, is printed together with Eusthatius's Ismene andIsminias and Musaeus's Hero and Leander. And, in 1782, an anonymousFrench Xenophon is connected to Eusthatius' Byzantine romance.

The combination with other stories in compilations tells us moreabout associations made between Greek romances and other texts, as wellas about publishers' views on the romance. For example, the Englishtranslation of Heliodorus of 1717, in which the translator calls theAethiopica the "Mother Romance of the World", is reprinted asthe first book, a prominent place, in the Winter-evenings Entertainment,a collection of the best books ever written. This is a sign of theongoing appreciation of Heliodorus, who is still considered theprogenitor of novel writing. This aspect of the transmission is,however, relatively unexplored as yet. As Sandy (2008:307) remarks,Sanford's publication of his English Heliodorus together withPlutarchus was probably inspired by Amyot's famous trans lations ofboth authors, but why did he also include the sayings of thephilosophers? Why did Fraunce put the first book of the Aethiopicatogether with excerpts of pastoral love stories into hexameters?

To conclude, my expansion in time (up to 1799) and location(including Scandinavia, Ireland, and Eastern Europe) potentially opensthe door to new insights. I have provided an overview of broad, changingtendencies throughout the early modern era, marking the late seventeenthcentury as a temporary breaking point and the eighteenth century as aperiod of transition, because of several shifts that occur during thattime. My bibliography makes it possible to filter the literature'sgeographical dispersion across Europe over a wider area than wasavailable before now, allowing a more complete picture of theirdistribution, as well as of their interconnections. Furthermore, Ipointed out some peculiar (tendencies in) combinations among the lemmatathemselves, as well as in combination with other stories, and I alsodisputed older findings by questioning alleged (re)prints. As I havesuggested, the bibliography also allows us to identify opportunities fornew research: to discover connections between the appearance of theGreek romances in print and the possible impact on the literature andart of the country where they are printed, to discover the dependency ofone translation/edition on another, or to pay more attention to theassociations made between stories.

Bibliographic survey of the Greek romances in the early modern era

I have ordered the editions and translations by Greek novelist (inorder of rediscovery), and then, for each author, I list works in theclassical languages (Greek, Latin, or both), followed by vernaculartranslations grouped alphabetically by language, and within eachlanguage, the works are listed chronologically. The information consistsof the name of the editor and/or translator, title, place, year.Reprints are mentioned underneath the first publication, with additionalinformation where the title or spelling changes, or when it is revisedor reprinted in a larger compilation. Underneath the indubitablereprints, I put references to reprints in secondary literature which Iconsider as dubious because they cannot be found, in order to separatethe uncertain from the certain reprints.

To show the source or the status of my data, I use the followingsymbols. An asterisk (*) designates that I have seen evidence of awork's existence with my own eyes, either a picture of the frontpage or a digitalised copy. Apart from editions available on GoogleBooks, the catalogues (BSB, Gallica, USTC, ONB, Hungaricana) alsosometimes provide digitalised copies. The Ilmenauer Discovery Toolcontains microforms. An inverted question mark (?) indicates that I wasunable to find the item myself, but that item was consulted by anotherscholar. In that case, it is either mentioned as such in a bibliography(Ferrini 1991 for Longus) or examined and/or quoted in one of thechapters or articles I have read. A lemma put between brackets ([...])signifies that it was produced but not put into print, or only muchlater, as I illustrate with additional information in a footnote. Theothers I found in the catalogues I consulted, to which I refer to in thefootnotes. In addition to the catalogues, Nakatani's bibliography(Nakatani 2005:253-256) also mentions copies in libraries and referencenumbers for Achilles Tatius specifically. When put between two daggers([dagger] ...[dagger]), the existence of the translation is uncertain.

Heliodorus, Aethiopica

BILINGUAL EDITIONS (GREEK AND LATIN)

Andreas Wechel, [phrase omitted]. Heliodori AethiopicarumHistoriarum liber primus, Parijs, 1558 (34).

Hieronymus Commelinus (Ed.) & Stanislas Warschewiczki(transl.), [phrase omitted] Heliodori Aethiopicorum libri X. Collationemss. bibliothecae palatinae et aliorum emendati, & multis in locisaucti, Heidelberg, 1596*.

--Reissued in Lyon: 1611*, 1640*.

--According to Gesner (1970:159) reissued in Oberursel, 1601; Lyon,1601. Joannes Bourdelotius (Ed.) & Stanislas Warschewiczki(transl.), [phrase omitted] Heliodori Aethiopicorum libri X (S.Warschewiczki interprete), Jo. Bourdelotius emendavit, supplevit aclibros decem animadversionum adjecit, Paris, 1619*

Daniel Pareus (Ed.) [= Daniel Wangler], Stanislas Warschewiczki(transl.), [phrase omitted] Heliodori Aethiopicorum libri X. Collationemss. bibliothecae palatinae et aliorum emendati, & multis in locisaucti, atque in capita ordine distincti; cura et labore Danielis Parei,Frankfurt, 1631*.

Joannes Petrus Schmid (Ed.) & Stanislas Warschewiczki(transl.), [phrase omitted] Cum animadversionibus J. Bourdelotii. Advett. Edd. recensuit J. P. Schmidius, Leipzig, 1772*.

Christoph Wilhelm Mitscherlich, [phrase omitted]. HeliodoriAethiopicorum libri decem. In Scriptores Erotici Graeci, Volume 2.Strasbourg: 1793.35

--Reissued in Strasbourg, 1797-8*.

GREEK EDITIONS

Vincent Obsopoeus, [phrase omitted] Heliodorus Emesus Historiaeaethiopicae libri X, numquam antem in lucem editi, Basel, 1534*.

Christian Wechel, [phrase omitted]. Heliodori Historiae aethiopicaeliber primus, numquam antem in lucem editi, Paris, 1551*. (36)

LATIN TRANSLATIONS

Renatus Guillonius [= Rene Guillon], Heliodori AethiopicarumHistoriarum liber primus. Renato Guillonio Vindocinensi interprete,Paris, 1552*.

--Reissued in Paris, 1557 (37).

Stanislaus Warschewiczki, Heliodori Aethiopicae historiae libridecem, nunc primum e Graeco sermone in latinum translati: StanislaoVVarscheuuiczki polono interprete. Adiectum est etiam PhilippiMelanthonis de ipso autore, & hac eiusdem conuersione, iudicium.Item locuples rerum ac uerborum memorabilium index, Basel: 1552*.

--Reissued in Antwerp: 1556*; Oberursel: 1601*; Leyden: 1637*.

--Many scholars mention a print in 1551. Pumprla mentions anedition in Antwerp in 1554 with a question mark as nr. 5704 in Pumprla,V. (1996). Soupis starych tisku ve fondech Statni vedecke knihovny vOlomouci, Volume 5, Part 6. Statni vedecka knihovna.

Martin Crusius, Martini Crusii Aethiopicae Heliodori HistoriaeEpitome. Cum observationibus ejusdem. Omne tulit punctum, qui miscuitutile dulci. Ejusdem de parentibus suis narratio. Cum indice copioso,Frankfurt, 1584*.

[Enyedi Gyorgy, Heliodori Aethiopicae Decem, Nunc Primum In LatinamLinguam Conversi Interprete Georgio Eniedino Transilvano R. S. C.Clarissimo etc. Anno Domini 1592, Hungary, 1592]. (38)

This remained in manuscript form, now located in the KolozsvariUnitarius Kollegium.

Gulielmo Cantero, Heliodorus. Veneri et cupidini humanae vitaeconservatoribus suavissimis, Heliodori episcopi Tricensis Aethiopicaamoris omnis et festivitatis delitiae sacra sunt, Leyden, 1637*.

DANISH TRANSLATIONS

Hans Paus, (39) Charicleae en AEthiopisk Princessis BesynderligeAventures og Haendelser. Skreven forst paa Graesk af Heliodoro Biskopudi Tricca, og nu pa Dansk oversat af Paus. Historie om Theagenes ogChaciclea af Heliodore af Phoenicien, Copenhagen, 1746. --According toOeftering (1901:52), first printed in 1690 in Copenhagen.

DUTCH TRANSLATIONS

Charles Kina, De beschrijvinghe Heliodori vande Moorenlandtschegeschiedenissen: vervaet in thien boecken: Inhoudende de eerbare,cuysche, ende ghetrouwe liefde van Theagenes van Thessalien, endeChariclea van Ethiopien, Amsterdam, 1610*.

* Ibid., De Tien Boecken van Heliodorus. Vervatende de ghetrouwe /langhdurige / cuysche liefde / van Theagenes Ridder van Thessalien, endeChariclea Konigsdochter van Ethiopien. Nu op een nieu met Figurenverciert: Ende uyt het Griecx tot vermaeck ende leeringhe van alleIonghe Minnaers vertaelt, Haarlem, 1634*.

Anonymous, (40) De getrouwe liefde van de kuysche Theagenes en dezuyvere Cariceea. Nu nieuwlijx uyt 'et Griex en Latijn vertaalt,Amsterdam, 1659?.

J. Gentil, De Wonderlyke Liefde gefallen van Theagenes enChariclea. Waarachtige Geschiedenis, in 't Grieksch beschreevendoor Heliodorus en in zuyver Nederduytsch overge-bracht door J. Gentil,'s Gravenhage, 1726*.

--Reissued in Leyden, 1731*.

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

James Sanford, The Amorous and Tragicall Tales of Plutarch.Whereunto is annexed the Hystorie of Cariclea & Theagenes (gatheredfor the most part out of Heliodorus), and the sayings of the GreekePhilosophers, London, 1567*

Thomas Underdowne, An AEthiopian Historie, written in Greeke byHeliodorus, no lesse wittie than pleasaunt. Englished by T. Underdowne,London: 1569?*

--Reissued in London, 1577*, 1587*, 1605*, 1606*

--According to Oeftering (1901:50), who mostly follows Hoffmann(1839), and Gesner (1970: 159) reissued in London, 1627.

Thomas Underdowne, revised and collated by William Barrett,Heliodorus his Aethiopian history: done out of Greeke, and compared withother translations in diuers languages. The arguments and contents ofeuery seuerall booke, are prefixed to the beginning of the same, for thebetter vnderstanding of the storie, London, 1622*.

Abraham Fraunce, The Countesse of Pembrokes Yvychurch. Conteiningthe Affectionate Life and Unfortunate Death of Phillis and Amyntas: thatin a Pastorall [translated from Tasso]; this in a Funerall [translatedfrom T. Watson]: Both in English Hexameters. (The Lamentation ofCorydon, for the Love of Alexis, Verse for Verse Out of Latine [ofVirgil]. The Beginning of Heliodorus His AEthiopical History.), London,1591*.

--According to Oeftering (1901:50) reissued in London, 1592.

William Lisle, The Faire Aethiopian, dedicated to the King andQueene, by their Majesties most humble subject and servant, WilliamLisle, London, 1631*.

* Ibid., The famous historie of Heliodorus. Amplified, augmented,and delivered paraphrastically in verse; by their Majesties most humblesubject and servant, William Lisle. Whereunto is added diverstestimonies of learned men concerning the author. Together with a briefesummary of the whole history. Divided into tenne bookes..., London,1638*.

Anonymous and Nahum Tate, The AEthiopian history of Heliodorus. Inten books. The first five translated by a person of quality, the lastfive by N. Tate, etc., London: 1686*.

* Ibid., The Triumphs of Love and Constancy: a romance. Containingthe Heroick Amours of Theagenes and Chariclea. In ten books, London,1687*.

* Ibid., Aethiopian adventures: or, the history of Theagenes andChariclea. Written originally in Greek, by Heliodorus. In ten books. Thefirst five translated by a person of quality, the last five by N. Tate.To which are prefixed, the testimonies of writers, ... concerning thiswork, Glasgow, 1753*.

C. G. [Charles Gildon], The adventures of Theagenes and Chariclia,a romance. Being the Rise, Progress, Tryals, and happy Success of theHeroic Loves of those Two Illustrious Persons. Wherein the followingHistories are intermix'd. I. The Treacherous Slave; Or, CruelStepMother. II. The Wandering Prelate. III. The Fighting Priest. IV. TheRoyal Adultress. With several other Curious Events. Written originallyin Greek by Heliodorus Bishop of Heliodorus in the Fourth Century ofChristianity; who chose to be depriv'd of his Bishoprick, ratherthan destroy this Book, design'd by Him for the Promotion ofVirtuous Loves. In two volumes, London, 1717*.

--Reissued in London, 1752* in Winter-Evenings entertainment.Consisting of the best novels and histories that have been written inmost languages. Being such as, at the same Time they most agreeablyamuse, enlarge the Ideas of the Mind, set Virtue before the Eyes of theReader in all its Loveliness, and excite an almost irresistibleEmulation of Great and Good Actions.

--The last two pages are reissued in 1753* after the Glasgowedition of Nahum Tate's translation.

Anonymous, The adventures of Theagenes and Chariclea. A romance.Translated from the Greek of Heliodorus, London, 1789*.

FRENCH TRANSLATIONS

[Lancelot de Carle, Le premier livre d'Heliodore del'histoire d'Aethiopie, translate de grec en francois parCarle, manuscript in the royal library of Fontaineblau, between 1534 and1547]. (41)

Jacques Amyot, L'Histoire aethiopique de Heliodorus, contenantdix livres, traitant des loyales et pudiques amours de TheagenesThessalien et de Chariclea Aethiopienne, nouvellement traduite de Grecen Francoys, Paris: 1547*.

--Reissued (42) in Paris: 1549*, 1553*, 1555, 1559*, 1560*, 1570,1585, 1596, 1599, 1609*, 1614, 1616*, 1626; Rouen: 1588*, 1596, 1607,1609*, 1612; Lyon: 1559, 1575, 1579*, 1584*, 1589*.

--According to Gesner (1970:158) reissued also in Paris, 1575,1583, 1611, 1613; Munich, 1553, 1596, 1613. Oeftering (1901: 47)mentions reprints in Munich, 1549, 1553; Paris, 1575, 1583, 1611.

Claude Collet, L'histoire ethiopique d'Heliodore, parteen dix livres, traitant des loyales et pudiques amours de TheagenesThessalien et Chariclea Ethiopienne nouvellement traduite de grec enfrancais par Claude Colet, Lyon, 1559. (43)

Claude Cartault, Histoire Aethiopicque d'Heliodore traictantdes pudicques Amours de Theagenes Thessalien, et de CharicleaAethiopienne, contenant dix livres. A este nouvellement mise en versfrancois, abregee en six livres, Auxerre, 1612. (44)

Paul Vallet, Les Adventures amoureuses de Theagenes et Cariclee.Sommairement descrite et representee par figures Dedie Au Roy Par PierreVallet son brodeur ordinaire Avec Privilege du Roy, Paris, 1613*.

Jean de Montlyard, Les Amours de Theagene et Chariclee, histoireethiopique d'Heliodore, traduction nouvelle, Paris: 1620 (45).

--Reissued in Paris: 1622, 1623, 1626*, 1633*.

M. Maulnoury de La Bastille, Les Amours de Theagenes et Chariclee,traduction libre faite sur le grec d'Heliodore. Le Triomphe de laRaison, Amsterdam, 1716*.

Louis Francois de Fontenu, Amours de Theagenes et Chariclee,histoire Ethiopique, Amsterdam, 1727*.

--Reissued in Paris: 1727*, 1743*; Geneve: 1782*.

--In Paris, 1785* in the Bibliotheque universelle des Dames.Romans. Tom. 3.

--In Paris, 1796* in the Bibliotheque des romans grecs, traduits enfrancais. Tome IV.

GERMAN TRANSLATIONS

Johannes Zschorn, Aethiopica historia. Ein schone vnnd LieblicheHistori, von einem gro[beta]mutigen Helden aus Griechenland vnd einervberschonen Junckfrawen, eines Konigs dochter der schwartzen Moren (derJungling The agenes vnnd die Junckfraw Chariclia... Aus dem Griechischenins Latin, vnd yetzundt newlich ins Teutsch bracht, gantz kurtzweiligvnd nutzlich zu lesen, Strasbourg: 1559*.

--Reissued (46) in Leipzig, 1597*, s.l. 1630.

--In Frankfurt, 1587? as part of the Buch der Liebe by SigmundFeyerband.

--According to Oeftering (1901:49) reissued in Strasbourg, s.d.,1620; Frankfurt, 1562. According to Gesner (1970:158) also in Nurnberg,s.d.; Frankfurt, 1562, 1581; Bassea, 1580; Strasbourg, 1620.

* Ibid., Heliodori Historia Aethiopica. Ein schone vnnd LieblicheHistori, von einem gro[beta]mutigen Helden aus Griechenland vnd einervberschonen Junckfrawen, eines Konigs dochter der schwartzen Moren (derJungling The agenes vnnd die Junckfraw Chariclia... Aus dem Griechischenins Latin, vnd yetzundt newlich ins Teutsch bracht, gantz kurtzweiligvnd nutzlich zu lesen, Frankfurt: 1580*.

* Ibid., Heliodorus, oder seine sehr schone liebliche nutzlicheHistorie von Theagene und Chariclia, erstlich griechisch beschribennachmahlen in Latin und Franzosisch, und jetzo auff das neuw in TeutscheSpraach mit fleiss ubersetzt, Strasbourg, 1624.

Christian Wilhelm Agricola, Aethiopische Liebes- und HeldenGeschichte aus dem Griechischen... ubersetzet durch M. C. W. A., Jena,1750*.

Johann Nicolaus Meinhard, Theagenes und Chariklea, eineAetheopische Geschichte in zehn Buchern. Aus dem Griechischen desHeliodorus ubersetzt, Leipzig, 1767*.

HUNGARIAN TRANSLATIONS

[Mihaly Czobor (?), Theagenes es Chariclia, between 1600 and 1604].

--This translation was not printed until 1996 in Budapest by PeterKoszeghy.

Istvan Gyongyosi, Uj eletre hozatott Chariclia, Avagy a'Chariclia ritka peldaju, es olvasasra kedvet--ado historiajanak nemellyregi versek rongyabul, es azoknak sok fogyatkozasibul ujjabb, es jobbrendben vetele. A' mellyet a verseket oromest olvaso nemelly jourai kivansagara es kedveert beteges allapottyaban nem kis munkavalvitt vegben Gyongyosi Istvan, Locse, 1700.* (47)

- Reissued in Budan: 1733*, 1763*.

Andras Dugonics, A szerecsenek Ujjabb eletre hozta Dugonics Andraskiraji oktato. Masadik koniv. Afrikai esetek, Pozsony, 1798*. (48)

ITALIAN TRANSLATIONS

Hieronymus Bossi, I primi cinque canti d'Eliodoro in ottavorima, Milan, 1557 (49) Leonardo Ghini, Historia di Heliodoro delle coseethiopiche. Nella quale fra diuersi, compassioneuoli auenimenti di dueamanti, si contengono abbattimenti, discrittioni di paesi, e molte altrecose utili e diletteuoli a leggere. Tradotta dalla lingua greca nellathoscana da messer Leonardo Ghini. Con la tavola di tutte le cosenotabili, Venice: 1556*.

--Ferrini (1991:127) mentions that Le Camus probably made already atranslation in 1754 in Paris.

Anonymous, Les amours de Daphnis et Chloe: Avec figures par uneleve de Picart, Amsterdam: 1749?.

--Reissued in Amsterdam, 1750?; London, 1764*.

Francois-Valentin Mulot, Daphnis et Chloe, in: BibliothequeUniverselle des Dames. Romans. Tome quatrieme, Mithylene: 1783?.

--Reissued in Paris: 1785, (68) 1795?.

Pierre Blanchard, Les amours pastorales de Daphnis et de Chloe.Traduction nouv., par Pierre B***, Paris, 1798?.

Jean Francois Debure de Saint-Fauxbin, Les amours pastorales deDaphnis et de Chloe, Paris: 1787?.

--Ferrini (1991:131) mentions a possible earlier version in Paris,1786.

GERMAN TRANSLATIONS

Friedrich Grillo, Daphnis und Chloe, aus den griechischen desLongus, Berlin, 1765*.

ITALIAN TRANSLATIONS

Giovanni Battista Manzini, Gli amori innocenti di Dafni e dellaCloe. Favola Greca, descritta in Italiano dal commendator D. Gio.Battista Manzini. Al Potentissimo, & Inuitissimo imperadoreFerdinando III, Bologna: 1643*.

--Ferrini (1991:95) doubts the existence of a reprint in Bologna,1647.

Gasparo Gozzi, Gli amori Pastorali di Dafni e Cloe descritti daLongo Graeco ora per la prima volta volgarizzati, Venice, 1766. (69)

--Reissued in Paris, 1781*; Londra, 1786*.

--In Londra, 1792* reissued together with Salvini'stranslation of Xenophon.

--In Venice, 1794* in Opere in versi e in prosa del conte GasparoGozzi Veneziano. Tomo undecimo.

Annibal Caro, Gli amori Pastorali di Dafni e di Cloe di LongoSofista Tradotti dalla lingua Greca nella nostra Toscana dalCommendatore Annibal Caro [1538] (70)

--First printed in Crisopoli, 1786*.

--Reissued in Crisopoli, 1793/1794?; Londra: 1786*, 179471

SPANISH TRANSLATIONS

Damasio de Frias y Balboa, Lidamarte de Armenia, s.l. [Spain]:1568?. (72)

--Reissued in s.1. [Spain], 1590?.

Xenophon of Ephese, Ephesiaca

MULTILINGUAL EDITIONS (GREEK & LATIN)

Antonio Celestino Cocchi, [phrase omitted]. Xenophontis EphesiiEphesiacorum libri V de amoribus Anthiae et Abrocomae. Nunc primumprodeunt e vetusto codice bibliothecae monachorum CassinensiumFlorentiae, cum latina interpretatione Antonii Cocchii Florentini,London, 1726*.

* Ibid., Xenophontis Ephesii Ephesiacorum libri V. de rebus Anthiaeet Abrocomae Interprete Antonio Cocchio Florentino, cumanimadversionibus Frid. Ludov. Abreschii, Gratiani de S. Bavone, etTiberii Hemsterhusii. Curante E.P. qui et suas notas et emendationesadjecit, in usum serenissimi principis, &c.&c, London, 1760?*.

Baron Aloys Emmerich von Locella, Xenophontis Ephesii de Anthia etHabrocome Ephesiacorum libri V. Graece et Latine Recensuit supplevitemendavit Latine vertit adnotationibus aliorum et suis illustravitindicibus instruxit Aloys Emeric. Liber Baro Locella, Vienna, 1796*.

Christoph Wilhelm Mitscherlich, [phrase omitted]. Longi Pastoraliumde Daphnide et Chloe Libri IV Graece et Latine Accedunt XenophontisEphesiacorum de amoribus Anthiae et Abrocomae Libri V Textum recognovit,selectamque lectionis varietatem adiecit Christ. Guil MitscherlichProfessor Gotingensis, in: Scriptores Erotici Graeci, Volumen tertiumLongum et Xenophontem Ephesium continens, Zweibrucken, 1794*.

MULTILINGUAL EDITIONS (LATIN, ITALIAN, FRENCH)

Antonio Celestino Cocchi, Antonio Maria Salvini & Jean BaptisteJourdan, [phrase omitted]. Xenophontis Ephesii Ephesiacorum libri V Deamoribus Anthiae et Abrocomae. Accedit versio latina Antonii Cocchi,italica Antonii Salvini et gallica D. J., Luca, 1781*.

LATIN TRANSLATIONS

Angelo Poliziano, Miscellanea Centuria Prima, Florence, 1489*.

--Reissued (73) in Paris, 1511* and Basel, 1524 as MiscellaneaCenturia una, and Basel, 1522* as Angeli Politiani MiscellaneorumCenturia Una.

--Reissued in Venice, 1502* and 1508? on behalf of Marco AntonioSabellico in In hoc volumine haec continentur... Angeli PolitianiMiscellaneorum Centuria Una.

--Reissued in collections of Poliziano's works: in Venice,1498* and in Florence or Brescia in 1499* in Omnia Opera AngeliPolitiani, et alia qaedam lectu digna, quorum nomina in sequenti indicevidere licet; in Paris, 1512*, 1519* in Omnium Angeli Politiani Operum(quae quidem extare novimus) Tomus Prior; in Lyon, 1536 in AngeliPolitiani Opera. Quorum Primus Hic Tomus Complectitur Epistolarum LibrosXII. Miscellaneorum Centuriam I. Omnia Iam Recens a Mendis Repurgata; inBasel, 1553* in Angeli Politiani Opera, quae quidem extitere hactenus,omnia, longe emendatius quam usquam antehac expressa: quibus accessitHistoria de Conjuratione Pactiana in Familiam Medicam; in Antwerp,1565?, and in Antwerp, 1567? with a slightly different title, firstprinted in Operum tomus primus, Epistolarum lib. XII ac MiscellaneorumCenturiam I complectens, second as Epistolarum libros XII MiscellaneorumCenturia I.

--According to Gesner (1970:162) reissued in Brescia, 1496 insteadof 1499.

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

John Rooke, Xenophon's Ephesian History: Or theLove-adventures of Abrocomas and Anthia. in Five Books. Translated fromthe Greek. by Mr. Rooke, London, 1727*.

FRENCH TRANSLATIONS

Jean Baptiste Jourdan, Les Ephesiaques de Xenophon Ephesien, ou lesAmours d'Anthie et dAbrocomas, traduits en francois, Paris: 1736*.

--Reissued in Paris, 1748* as Amours d'Abrocome et dAnthia,histoire Ephesienne, traduite de Xenophon, par M. J.***.

--In Paris, 1785* in the Bibliotheque Universelle des Dames.[Romans, tom. 3.].

--In Paris, 1797* in the Bibliotheque des Romans Grecs, etc. Tom.7.

Anonymous, Les Amours d'Ismene et d'Ismenias, suivis deceux d'Abrocome & dAnthia, Geneve, 1782*.

GERMAN TRANSLATIONS

Gottfried August Burger, Anthia und Abrokomas. Aus demGriechischen., Leipzig, 1775* Johann Andreas Hauslein, Etwas vonEphesus, oder Geschichte eines iungen Ehepaars, griechisch beschriebenvon Xenophon von Ephesus, ubersetzt durch H***, Ansbach, 1777*.

ITALIAN TRANSLATIONS

Antonio Maria Salvini, Di Senofonte Efesio, degli Amori di Abrocomee d Anthia libri V. Tradotti da A. M Salvini, London: 1723*.

--Reissued (74) in Crisopoli, 1794.

--According to Chardon de la Rochette (1812:70) Salvini's wasnot printed in London but in Florence, while O'Sullivan (2005:xix)suggests that it was printed simultaneously in Florence and London witha slightly different title. See Chardon de la Rochette, S. (1812).Melanges de critique et de philologie, Volume 2. Paris: D'Hautel.Salvini lived for a while in London and the title page mentions Londra.

* Ibid., Di Senofonte Efesio degli Amori di Abrocome e d Anzialibri cinque tradotti dal Greco da Antonmaria Salvini edizione secondaCorretta, ed Accresciuta, Londra [i.e. Florence?], 1757*.

--Reissued in Paris, 1781*; Venice: 1793.

--In Londra, 1792* reissued together with Gozzi's translationof Longus.

Signor Cavagliere Boccardi, Di Senofonte Efesio, degli Amori diAbrocome e d Anthia libri V. Tradotti dal Signor Cavagliere Boccardi ededicati a sua eccellenza il signor Marchese Neri Capponi, Cologne,1730*.

Chariton, Callirhoe

BILINGUAL EDITIONS (GREEK & LATIN)

Jacques Philippe d'Orville (Ed.) & Joannes Jacobus Reiske(transl.), [phrase omitted] H. Jacobus Philippus d'Orvillepublicavit, animadversionesque adjecit. (Joannes Jacobus Reiskiusvertit), Amsterdam, 1750*.

--Reissued in Leipzig, 1783*.

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

Anonymous, The Loves of Chaereas and Callirrhoe. Written originallyin Greek by Chariton of Afrodisios. Now first translated into English,London, 1764*.

FRENCH TRANSLATIONS

Pierre-Henri Larcher, Histoire des amours de Chereas et deCallirrhoe, Traduite du Grec, avec des Remarques, Paris: 1763*.

--In 1786 (75) in the Bibliotheque universelle des dames. Romans.Tom. 6, 7.

--Reissued as Les amours de Chereas et Callirrhoe, Traduites duGrec de Chariton, avec des remarques, par Pierre-Henri Larcher in 1797*in the Bibliotheque des romans grecs, traduits en francais, Tome VIII.

Nicolas Fallet, Les Aventures de Chereas et de Callirrhoe,traduites du grec par M. Fallet, Amsterdam, 1775*.

GERMAN TRANSLATIONS

Anonymous, Charitons Liebesgeschichte des Chareas und derCallirrhoe, Aus dem Griechischen ubersetzt, Leipzig, 1753*.

ITALIAN TRANSLATIONS

Michelangelo Giacomelli, Di Caritone Afrodisieo de' Raccontiamorosi di Cherea e di Callirroe libri otto, tradotti dal Greco, Rome,1752*.

--Reissued in Venice, 1755; (76) s.l., 1756*.

* Ibid., Di Caritone Afrodisieo de' Racconti amorosi di Chereae di Callirroe libri otto, tradotti dal Greco da Monsignor Giacomelli,prelato della corte Romana, Paris, 1781*.

Bibliography of consulted online catalogues

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (BSB). Available at:https://www.bsb-muenchen.de/

Biblioteca Nacional de Espana. Available at:http://catalogo.bne.es/uhtbin/webcat

Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. Available at:http://www.bncf.firenze.sbn.it/

Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma. Available at:http://bve.opac.almavivaitalia.it/ricercaBase.php

Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli. Available at:http://polosbn.bnnonline.it/SebinaOpac/.do?sysb=NAPBN

Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana. Available at:https://marciana.venezia.sbn.it/la-biblioteca/cataloghi

Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes. Available at:http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/

Biblioteka Narodowa. Available at: http://bn.org.pl/

Bibliotheque Mazarine. Available at:https://www.bibliotheque-mazarine.fr/fr/

Bibliotheque Municipale de Lyon. Available at:https://catalogue.bm-lyon.fr/

Bibliotheque National de France (BNF). Available at:http://catalogue.bnf.fr/index.do

Catalogue Collectif de France (Ccfr). Available at:http://ccfr.bnf.fr/portailccfr/jsp/public/index.jsp

Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Available at:http://www.dnb.de/DE/Kataloge/kataloge_node.html

Det Kongelige Bibliotek. Available at:http://www.kb.dk/da/index.html

Gallica. Available at:http://gallica.bnf.fr/services/engine/search/advancedSearch/

Hungaricana project (Hungarian Cultural Heritage Portal). Availableat: https://hungaricana.hu/en/

Ilmenauer Discovery Tool. Available at:https://find.bibliothek.tu-ilmenau.de/

Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo Unico delle biblioteche italianee per le informazioni bibliografiche (ICCU). Availabe at:http://www.iccu.sbn.it/opencms/opencms/it/

Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Nationale Bibliotheek van Nederland.Available at: https://www.kb.nl/

Koninklijke Bibliotheek van Belgie. Available at:https://www.kbr.be

Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek (ONB). Available at:https://www.onb.ac.at/

Slovenska Narodna Kniznica. Available at: http://www.snk.sk/en/

The British Library (BL). Available at:http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?vid=BLVU1

Universal Short Title Catalogue (USTC). Available athttp://ustc.ac.uk/index.php

Bibliography of secondary literature

Anonymous (C. d'I***) (1864). Bibliographie des ouvragesrelatifs a l'amour, aux femmes, au marriage... Par M. le C.d'I***. 2 (nd) ed. Paris: Chez Jules Gay.

Barber, G. (1989). Daphnis and Chloe: the markets and metamorphosesof an unknown bestseller.

London: British library.

Berger, G. (1988). Longo volgarizzato: Annibale Caro und CasparoGozzi als Ubersetzer eines problematischen Klassikers. In: H. Hofmann,ed., Groningen colloquia on the novel, vol. I. Groningen: E. Forsten,pp. 141-152.

Beta, S. (2015). Italus Achilles. Les premieres traductions enlangue latine et italienne du roman d'Achille Tatius publiees enItalie avant l'editio princeps du texte grec. In: B. Pouderon, ed.,Les romans grecs et latins et leurs reecritures modernes: etudes sur lareception de l'ancien roman du Moyen Age a la fin du XIXe siecle.Actes du colloque de Tours octobre 2013. Paris: Beauchesne Editions, pp.139-150.

Bianchi, N. (2011). Romanzi greci ritrovati: tradizione eriscoperta dalla tarda antichita al Cinquecento. Bari: Stilo.

Black, S. (2011). Reading mistakes in Heliodorus.Eighteenth-Century Fiction, 52(3-4), pp. 343-360.

Calvet-Sebasti, M.-A. (2015). La traduction francaise des romansgrecs. In: C.B. Pouderon and B. Pouderon, eds., La reception del'ancien roman de la fin du Moyen Age au debut de l'epoqueclassique. Actes du colloque de Tours, 20-22 octobre 2011. Lyon: Maisonde l'Orient et de la Mediterranee Jean Pouilloux, pp. 47-60.

Classe, O. (Ed.) (2000). Encyclopedia of Literary Translation intoEnglish. London, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

Clo, M. (2015). Amyot, Traducteur de Daphnis et Chloe. In: C.B.Pouderon and B. Pouderon, eds., La reception de l'ancien roman dela fin du Moyen Age au debut de l'epoque classique. Actes ducolloque de Tours, 20-22 octobre 2011. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient etde la Mediterranee Jean Pouilloux, pp. 87-98.

Colonna, A. (2015). Le etiopiche di Eliodoro. Torino: UTET.

Cozad, M. (2013). Textual Translation/Textual Transformation of aGreek Pastoral Romance: The First Appearance of Longus's"Daphnis and Chloe" in Golden-Age Spain. International Journalof the Classical Tradition, 20(4), pp. 127-135.

de Armas Wilson, D. (2014). Allegories of Love: Cervantes's"Persiles and Sigismunda". 2nd ed. New Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Degen, J.F. (1798). Literatur der deutschen Uebersetzungen derGriechen. Altenburg: Richter-schen Buchhandlung.

Doody, M. A. (1996). The true story of the novel. New Brunswick(N.J.): Rutgers University Press.

Ferrini, M.F. (1991). Bibliografia di Longo: Dafni e Cloe: edizionie traduzioni. Macerata: Universita degli studi di Macerata.

France, P., and Haynes, K. (2006). The Oxford history of literarytranslation in English. 4: 1790-1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gesner, C. (1970). Shakespeare and the Greek Romance: a Study ofOrigins. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Gillespie, S., and Hopkins, D. (2005). The Oxford history ofliterary translation in English. 3: 1660-1790. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Gual, C.G. (2011). The Ancient Novel and the Spanish Novel of theGolden Age. In: M. Futre Pinheiro and S. Harrison, eds., Fictionaltraces: receptions of the ancient novel. Eelde: Barkhuis, pp. 183-202.

Hofmann, H. (2011). The Expositi of Lorenzo Gambara di Brescia: asixteenth-century adaptation in Latin hexameters of Longus'sDaphnis and Chloe. In: M. Futre Pinheiro and S. Harrison, eds.,Fictional traces: receptions of the ancient novel. Eelde: Barkhuis, pp.107-126.

Hoffmann, S.F.W. (1839). Bibliographisches Lexicon der gesammtenLiteratur der Griechen. Leipzig: A. F. Bohme.

Jankovics, J. (2005). Czobor Mihaly es Gyongyosi IstvanCharicliaja. [online] Kalligram. Available at:http://www.kalligramoz.eu/Kalligram/Archivum/2005/XIV.-evf.-2005.-november-december/ELEINK/Czobor-Mihaly-es-Gyoengyoesi-Istvan-Charicliaja[Accessed 10 April 2018]

Kiss, F.G. (2017). Classical reception in Hungary: an Introduction.In: Zara Martirosova Torlone, Dana LaCourse Munteanu, Dorota Dutsch,eds., A Handbook to Classical Reception in Eastern and Central Europe.Chichester: John Willey & Sons, pp. 225-232.

Krzyzanowski, J. (1984). Literatura polska: przewodnikencyklopedyczny, Volume 2. Warschau: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Krzyzanowski, J. (2012). Etiopiki, Historie etiopiskie. [online]Eduteka. Available at:http://www.eduteka.pl/doc/etiopiki-historie-etiopskie [Accessed 14February 2018].

Letoublon, F. (2015). Jacques Amyot, inventeur du roman grec. In:C.B. Pouderon and B. Pouderon, eds., La reception de l'ancien romande la fin du Moyen Age au debut de l'epoque classique. Actes ducolloque de Tours, 20-22 octobre 2011. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient etde la Mediterranee Jean Pouilloux, pp. 61-86.

MacQueen, B.D. (1990). Myth, Rhetoric, and Fiction: a reading ofLongus's Daphnis and Chloe. Lincoln, London: University of NebraskaPress.

Mockel, S. (2007). Zwischen Muster und Anverwandlung. Ubersetzungendes antiken Liebesromans in der Fruhen Neuzeit. In: H. Bohme, C. Rapp,and W. Rosler, eds., Ubersetzung und Transformation. Berlin, New York:De Gruyter, pp. 137-155.

Nakatani, S. (2005). Achilles Tatius and beyond: studies in theHistory of Reception of Leucippe and cl*tophon in Modem Europe. PhDdiss. Swansea. Swansea University, UK.

Oeftering, M. (1901). Heliodor und seine Bedeutung fur dieLiteratur. Berlin: Verlag von Emil Felber.

Pettegree, A., Walsby, M., and Wilkinson, A. (2007). FrenchVernacular books: books published in the French language before 1601.Leiden: Brill.

Plazenet, L. (1997). L'ebahissem*nt et la delectation:reception comparee et poetiques du roman grec en France et en Angleterreaux XVIe et XVIIe siecles. Paris: H. Champion.

Plazenet, L. (2002). Jacques Amyot and the Greek Novel: theInvention of the French Novel. In: G. Sandy, ed., The Classical Heritagein France. Leiden, Boston, Koln: Brill, pp. 237-280.

Plepelits, K. (1996). Achilles Tatius. In: G. Schmeling, ed., TheNovel in the Ancient World. Leyden: BRILL, pp. 387-416.

Rajka, L. (1917). Heliodoros Aithiopikajanak Feldolgozasai A MagyarIrodalomban. Koloszvar: Magyar Irodalomtorteneti Szeminarium. Availableat: http://mek.oszk.hu/16300/16310/16310.pdf [Accessed 22 March 2018]

Rattenbury, R.M. (1925). The Manuscripts and Editions ofHeliodorvs. The Classical Quarterly, 19(3/4), pp. 177-181.

Rattenbury, R.M. (Ed.), Lumb, T.W. (Rev.), and Maillon, J.(transl.) (1960). Heliodore: Les Ethiopiques: (Theagene et Chariclee).2e edition. Paris: Belles Lettres.

Reeve, M. (2008). The re-emergence of ancient novels in westernEurope, 1300-1810. In: T. Whitmarsh, ed., The Cambridge companion to theGreek and Roman novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.282-298.

Rose, C.H. (1971). Alonso Nunez de Reinoso: the lament of asixteenth-century exile. Cranbury [N.J.]: Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityPress.

Sandy, G.N. (1979). Ancient Prose Fiction and Minor English Novels.In: Antike und Abendland, Band xxv Heft 1. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter,pp. 41-55.

Sandy, G.N. (1982). Heliodorus. Boston: Twayne.

Sandy, G.N., and Harrison, S. (2008). Novels ancient and modern.In: T. Whitmarsh, ed., The Cambridge companion to the Greek and Romannovel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299-320.

Seeber, S. (2017). Heliodor unter der Tarnkappe: ZschornsUbersetzung der Aithiopika (1559) im Kontext der Zeit. In: R. Toepfer,J.K. Kipf, and J. Robert, eds., Humanistische Antikenubersetzung undfruhneuzeitliche Poetik in Deutschland (1450-1620). Berlin/Boston: DeGruyter, pp. 511-526.

Urbanowicz, A. (2002). Heliodor: OPOWIESC ETIOPSKA O THEAGENESIE ICHARIKLEI. Z jezyka greckiego przelozyl, wstepem i przypisami opatrzylSylwester Dworacki. Poznan 2000 ss. 371. Wydawnictwo NaukoweUniwersytetu im Adama Mickiewicza. Pos-nanskie Studia Teologicsne, 13,pp. 300-301.

Vieillefond, J.-R. (Ed.) (1987). Longus: Pastorales: Daphnis etChloe. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Vieillefond, J.-R. (2016). Longus, Annibal Caro et Paul-LouisCourier. Prometheus. Rivista di studi classici, pp. 274-282.

Xenophon Ephesius, & O'Sullivan, J.N. (Ed.) (2005). DeAnthia et Habrocome ephesiacorum libri V. Monachii: Saur.

KIRSTEN RICQUIER

Ghent University

(1) This article is based on an MA dissertation written at GhentUniversity in 2016-2017 under the supervision of Professor Koen DeTemmerman, to whom I am very grateful for all his advice. It is writtenunder the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme(FP/2007-2013) with the support of the European Research CouncilStarting Grant Novel Saints (Grant Agreement n. 337344) at GhentUniversity.

(2) See Degen 1798, Hoffmann 1839, Pettegree, Walsby and Wilkinson2007.

(3) Oeftering (1901), Mazal (1966), and Colonna (2015:27-29) forHeliodorus, MacQueen (1990:261-267), Barber (1989) and Ferrini (1991)for Longus, or Nakatani (2005:253-256) for Achilles Tatius.

(4) A very short, chronological overview has also been provided byLetoublon (2015:75-77). A short, older bibliography was produced for allGreek romances and related texts by a certain C. d'I*** (Anonymous1864:334-340).

(5) See e.g. Reynier, G. (1969). Le roman sentimental avantl'Astree. Geneve: Slatkine, p. 159.; Gesner 1970:154.

(6) See among others Adams, P.G. (2015). Travel Literature and theEvolution of the Novel. Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, pp.237-238; Sandy 1976 and 1982:108-110; Pattoni, M.P. (2014). Longus'Daphnis and Chloe: literary transmission and reception. In: E.P. Cuevaand S.N. Byrne, eds., A companion to the ancient novel. Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell, p. 589.

(7) These are the bigger tendencies which can be discerned. Butsome smaller details are interesting as well, e.g. the fact that theGreek novelists are not always acknowledged in the title (see Classe(2000 Vol.I: 864-5) for some English translations of Longus, and Seeber(2017) for Zschorn's intentional obliteration of Heliodorus) orreceive an epithet (Achilles Tatius is frequently called "theAlexandrian" and Longus "the sophist"). One can alsodistinguish differences among the Greek novelists, both in theirpopularity in print as well as the appearance of their editionesprincipes and first translations, but this has already been noted byother scholars such as Hofmann (2001:107).

(8) Asor Rosa, A. (1999). Gambara, Lorenzo. Dizionario Biograficodegli Italiani, 52, pp. 53-54.

(9) S.n. (1785). Fur aeltere Litteratur und neuere Lecture, DritterJahrgang, Vierter Heft. Leipzig: J.G.I. Breitkopf.

(10) Sometimes the authors themselves announce in their title orpreface the freedom they take with the original, like Sanford's"the Hystorie of Cariclea & Theagenes (gathered for the mostpart out of Heliodorus)" or Lisle's "The famous historieof Heliodorus. Amplified, augmented, and delivered paraphrastically inverse" (my emphasis).

(11) Nakatani (2005:135) argues that Malnoury de la Bastillerearranged the Aethiopica into chronological order, because an in mediasres structure was no longer admired.

(12) Regarding the translations of Heliodorus by the HungariansGyorgy, Czobor, Gyongyosi, and Dugonics, see Rajka (1917). For Czoborand Gyongyosi also Zsak, I.A. (1901). Czobor Mihaly a Chariclia elsomagyar forditoja. Irodalomtorteneti Kozlemenyek, 11(1), pp. 53-62. For amore recent reference, including the Hungarian Achilles Tatius, see Kiss(2017:266). See also the following website for Czobor: Jankovics, J.,Koszeghy P., and Szentmartoni, S.G. (s.d.). Regi magyar irodalmiszoveggyujtemeny II. 7. fejezet - VERSES REGENY. Czobor Mihaly(?):Theagenes es Chariclia:http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tkt/regi-magyar-irodalmi-2/ch07.html [Accessed 22 March 2018].

(13) According to Gillespie and Hopkins (2005:302), JamesCraggs's English version of Longus is at times a summary, at timesa translation. Next, Cozad (2013) argues that the Spanish humanistDamasio de Frias y Balboa provides a partial translation/adaptation ofDaphnis and Chloe in his chivalric romance Lidamarte de Armenia (1568)as an interpolated episode. Angell Daye frequently paraphrasesAmyot's French translation in English, instead of translating itdirectly, but the liberty he takes with the romance goes further thanthat: in the third book he introduces a virgin queen reigning over theisland of Lesbos, like the British Monarch, as well as shepherdscelebrating a holiday in Her honour, after which he inserts a lengthypastoral poem titled "The Shepheards Holidaie". Somethingsimilar happens to Achilles Tatius, among others, in the Frenchtranslation by A. Remy, pseudonym for Abraham Ravaud: Nakatani (2005:17)notices that several parts are rewritings or invented episodes, betweenthe word by word translated parts. For more information about the freeparaphrases/translations of Longus, see Classe (2000 Vol.I:865).

(14) Poliziano also mentions the sandals of Philetas inLongus' pastoral romance and the giraffe of the Aethiopica in Caput2 and 3. For Poliziano's relationship with the Greek romances, seeBianchi (2011:67-98).

(15) Plazenet 2002:250.

(16) Beta 2015:140; Nakatani 2005:9.

(17) Beta 2015:143.

(18) According to Nakatani (2005:14-15), their edition is probablyderived from the manuscript Vaticanus Graecus 2367 or Parisinus Graecus2913. In the opinion of Plepelits (1996:393), it comes from thePalatinus Graecus 52, then in the Palatine Library at Heidelberg, butaccording to Pouderon (2015:7), however, it is derived from the codexVaticanus Palatinus graec. 523. See Pouderon, B. (2015). Avant-propos.In: B. Pouderon, ed., Les romans grecs et latins et leurs reecrituresmodernes: etudes sur la reception de l'ancien roman du Moyen Age ala fin du XIXe siecle. Actes du colloque de Tours octobre 2013. Paris:Beauchesne Editions, pp. 7-18.

(19) Gesner 1970:149, Nakatani 2005:15.

(20) Viellefond 2016:280.

(21) Berger 1988:147.

(22) Gillespie and Hopkins 2005:302; Classe 2000:864.

(23) For this purpose, other bibliographies such as Gesner (1970),Ferrini (1991), and Plazenet (1997) provide a chronology of the itemsbased on the dates of (re)print. In my opinion, however, it is useful toorder them chronologically per author and per language, instead of peryear.

(24) According to Gillespie & Hopkins (2005:302), the personwho had initiated it died during the process, and Nahum Tate completedthe task.

(25) cf. Nakatani 2005:23.

(26) If one looks at paintings of the Greek romances in theeighteenth century, for example, Heliodorus is no longer depicted butXenophon and Longus are. See Ricquier, K. (2017). De receptie van deantieke romans bij Fielding en Richardson: de erfenis van een antiekgenre in enkele 18e-eeuwse zedenromans. Masters dissertation, GhentUniversity, Ghent, pp. 111-112. Available at:https://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/375/949/RUG01-002375949_2017_0001_AC.pdf.

(27) See Gesner (1970) for the influence on Shakespeare, and Sandy(1979, 1982) for a more general account of the English afterlife of theGreek romances. See de Armas Wilson (2014:3-23), Gual (2011:192), andRose (1971:94-134) for la novela bizantinas. See Plazenet (1997) for agood overview of their afterlife in France and Great Britain.

(28) Sandy 1982:122-123.

(29) Rattenbury 1960:xlviii.

(30) For Burton's dependence on della Croce, see Nakatani(2005:13), and for that of Belleforest, see Calvet-Sebasti (2015:53).

(31) See for the Spanish one de Armas Wilson (2014:20), for Daye,among others, Hofmann (2011:109) and MacQueen (1990:265). For Dolce, seeGesner (1970:149) and Hofmann (2011:107); for de Vienne, see Nakatani(2005:10); for the German one, Nakatani (2005:18); for Vargas, see Gual(2011:192). See for Zacharzewski's translation Urbanowicz (2002)and Krzyzanowski (1984:248; 2012), for Czobor, see Rajka (1917:37-62).

(32) For Underdowne, see Gesner (1970:147) and de Armas Wilson(2014:20). For Zschorn, see Seeber (2017:514).

(33) Mockel 2007:137-138.

(34) See the ICCU.

(35) See the catalogue of the ONB.

(36) Dionisotti (1995:88) says that this Greek text was intended toaccompany the Latin translation of Renatus Guillonius and has the date1551, while the Latin of Guillonius has the date 1552. See Dionisotti,A.C. (1995). Claude de Seysell. In: M. Hewson Crawford and C.R. Ligota,eds., Ancient History and the Antiquarian: Essays in Memory of ArnaldoMomigliano. London: Warburg Institue, pp. 73-104.

(37) The Ccfr mentions a copy of this reprint in the library ofBesancon: http://ccfr.bnf.fr/por-tailccfr/jsp/public/index.jsp?record=bmr%3AUNIMARC%3A8945723&failure=%2Fjsp%2Fpublic%2Ffailure.jsp&action=public_direct_view&success=%2Fjsp%2Fpublic%2Findex.jsp&profile=public [Accessed 16 April 2018].

(38) For information on this translation, see Rajka (1917:9-16).

(39) A copy of 1746 is situated in Det Kongelige Bibliotek:https://rex.kb.dk/primo-ex-plore/fulldisplay?docid=KGL01002157039&context=L&vid=NUI&lang=en_US&search_scope=KGL&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=default_tab&query=any,con-tains,Heliodor&sortby=lso01&offset=0 [Accessed 21 March 2018].

(40) See also Pol, L.R. (1987). Romanbeschouwing in voorredes. Eenonderzoek naar het denken over de roman in Nederland tussen 1600 en1755. Deel 2: Teksten. Utrecht: H&S. Available at:http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/pol_002roma02_01/pol_002roma02_01_0014.php[Accessed 2 March 2018].

(41) See for information on this translation Plazenet 2002:249-250.

(42) See the ICCU and BNF, and the USTC for the sixteenth-centuryeditions specifically with links to libraries and digitalised copies.

(43) See the ICCU for items in libraries.

(44) A copy is consultable in the Bibliotheque Mazarine.

(45) See for the 1620 edition the BNF:http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb39334807b [Accessed 21 March 2018],for the 1622 a copy in the Bibliotheque Municipale de Lyon:https://catalogue.bm-lyon.fr/ark:/75584/pf0000289749?posInSet=9&queryId=70e05947-ac9e-4d36-b937-a2f70392817b [Accessed 21 March 2018], andfor the 1623 print the BNF:http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb339938302 [Accessed 21 March 2018].

(46) See for the 1624 and 1630 editions the Ilmenauer DiscoveryTool.

(47) Digitalised copy available at:https://rmk.hungaricana.hu/en/RMK I 1564/?query= [Accessed 21 March2018].

(48) Available athttp://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb1004808700001.html [Accessed 22 February 2018].

(49) See USTC.

(50) For references to the libraries where to find them, see thecatalogue of the ICCU. For the 1633 edition, however, see the BNF:http://catalogue.bnffr/ark:/12148/cb30589060x [Accessed 21 March 2018].

(51) Ivanovic, M. (1998). Polska ksiqzka na Litwie w XVII w.Vilnius: Lietuvos Nacionaline Martyno Mazvydo biblioteka, Bibliografijosir knygotyros centras, p. 70; Urbanowicz (2002:300).

(52) Gesner 1970:147-148; Gual 2011:193; see for more informationon what happened to the manuscript footnote 46 of Plazenet 2002:250.

(53) All editions can be found on the USTC.

(54) See copy BNF: RES P-Y2-3137. The BNF also comments on theattribution: http://cata-logue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb35766717m [Accessed21 March 2018].

(55) Spelled Roquemaure by Jouanno (2015:164), Rochemore byCalvet-Sebasti (2015:5).

(56) See copy BNF: RES-Y2-1267 for the 1573 edition, and the USTCfor a reference to the 1556 edition.

(57) See catalogue BNF for the editions.

(58) See catalogue BNF for both editions.

(59) See for both editions the Ilmenauer Discovery Tool.

(60) So does Hofmann (1832:3); Schincke, J.C.G. (1838). Handbuchder Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur fur den Gymnasial- undSelbstunterricht: mit besonderer Rucksicht auf L. Schaaff'sEncyklopadie der classischen Alterthumskunde. Vierte Ausgabe. 1. Bd. 1.Abth. Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur. Magdeburg: WilhelmHeinrichshofen, p. 579; Jacob, F. (1821). Achillis Tatii Alexandrini DeLeucippes et cl*tophontis amoribus libri octo. Leipzig: In BibliopolioDykiano, p. lxiv.

(61) According to Kiss (2017:266), however, the author is anonymousand the date ca. 1600.

(62) Information in Hungarian about as well as a link to adigitalised fragment of this translation are available on this website:http://mek.oszk.hu/15300/15397/cimkes.html [Accessed 21 March 2018]. Seefor both editions https://rpha.oszk.hu/id/4019 [Accessed 22 March 2018].

(63) Nakatani 2005:18.

(64) For the 1719 edition, see the Ilmenauer Discovery Tool.

(65) See as with all English translations the catalogue of the BL.

(66) See the catalogue of the BNF.

(67) See the USTC for the sixteenth-century editions.

(68) See for the 1785 edition the BNF:http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb41007969r [Accessed 21 March 2018].

(69) See for this edition the ICCU.

(70) According to Cozad (2013:129), Caro's translationprobably did not circulate in his own age, but Hofmann (2011:108)suggests that it was known in manuscript form during his lifetime amonghis friends and the literate circle of cardinal Alessandro Farnese inRome. In the eighteenth century it is rediscovered and finally printed.

(71) See for Londra 1794 the ICCU.

(72) See Cozad (2013) for the translated/adapted lines of Longus inthis chivalric romance.

(73) The editions are consulted by Pontani in the introduction ofPoliziano, A. & Pontani, F.M. (Ed.) (2002). Angeli Politiani Liberepigrammatum Graecorum. Roma: Edizioni Di Storia E Letteratura.

(74) See for the editions the ICCU.

(75) See information on the BNF:http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb41007986b [Accessed 21 March 2018].

(76) See the ICCU.

[Please note: Some non-Latin characters were omitted from thisarticle]

COPYRIGHT 2018 Barkhuis Publishing
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.