4. Juan Manuel’s Libro de los estados (2: 6-32) and Godfrey of Viterbo’s Pantheon (Books 13-14)
p. 67-77
Texte intégral
1Juan Manuel’s Libro de los estados has been published five times, but it has been fully annotated only once. The first two editions appeared simultaneously in Madrid in 1860. One was by Juan Pascual de Gayangos (BAE, 51: 278-367); the other was by Antonio Benavides (Memorias de D. Fernando IV de Castilla, I: 444-599). The third edition appeared over one century later (Barcelona, CSIC, 1968) published by José Maria Castro y Calvo. We owe the fourth – actually the first really critical edition – to the collaboration of R.B. Tate and J.R. Macpherson1. The last is that by José Manuel Blecua2, who has published the work as part of his two-volume edition of the Obras completas of Juan Manuel. After a century of neglect, the Libro seems to be receiving some long overdue attention. Considering the importance that the notion of “estado” has in Juan Manuel’s thought (it certainly plays a decisive role in the Conde Lucanor}, there is no doubt as to the central place this treatise deserves in the canon of his works. This renewed availability will prompt (hoc est in votis) detailed studies on all of its aspects. Tate and Macpherson in their historical commentary have opened the way by clearing up many allusions, by pointing out sources and parallels with other works of Juan Manuel. The following pages proceed in the same direction.
2Chapter twenty-three of the second book of the Libro de los estados is quite brief, and it could be taken as an exemplary instance of praeteritio. Juan Manuel limits himself to mentioning a subject and declines to develop any of its parts, for it would take him too far; and he refers any curious reader to another source:
[Otrosi], la razon por quel vendieron por xxx dineros, dexolo de poner aqui, por que seria muy luengo si lo oviese a.dezir commo estos xxx dineros fueron fechos et traydos al tesoro de Jerusalen; mas si.lo quisieredes saber, fallar lo hedes en.el libro que llaman De infançia Saluatoris3.
3Maria Rosa Lida de Malkiel4 was the first scholar to call attention to this chapter as an example of Juan Manuel’s disconcerting way of quoting his sources. Indeed the apocryphal gospel De infantia Salvatoris does not mention Judas’ thirty coins. Lida de Malkiel suggests that Juan Manuel confused the apocryphon he quotes with De vendicta Salvatoris, another apocryphal gospel which presents the emperor Titus selling thirty Jews for a piece of silver. This hypothesis, sagacious as it may be – it has been accepted by Tate and Macpherson (1974, p. 301) and J.M. Blecua (1982, p. 455) –, creates some perplexity since in the De vindicta Salvatoris we find a mention of the thirty coins, but nothing is said about their origin and about their long journey to the temple in Jerusalem, that is, the two things that seem to interest Juan Manuel. I would like to present another text here which gives us the story of these thirty coins in full and which may, at the same time, explain Juan Manuel’s allusion. In order to identify this text we must examine Juan Manuel’s chapter. It contains allusions to two different, though interrelated, facts: one is the reason for the price of selling Jesus; the other, the origin of the thirty coins.
4The reason why Judas sets the price of his betrayal at thirty pieces of silver is not found in the Gospels, but rather in the medieval “legend of Judas Iscariot,” a legend which Juan Manuel summarizes in the following way: «mato a su padre et caso con su madre et sienpre fizo malos pecados» (Chap. 29, p. 458). This widespread and long-lasting legend originated in the 12th century. It portrays Judas as a parricide, a commiter of incest, and a traitor. The reasons for his betrayal vary considerably from one version of the legend to another. Sometimes Judas, Christ’s purse-bearer, steals for covetousness or greed, sometimes to feed his family; in other versions he steals because his mistress has stolen thirty pieces from him, and he either wishes to be repaid the exact amount he has lost or claims that thirty decimae were owed him as the salary for his job5. Juan Manuel could have had in mind any one of these apocryphal reasons.
5As to the origin of the thirty coins, there is no mention of them either in the canonical or apocryphal Scriptures. This legend appears for the first time in the Pantheon of Godfrey of Viterbo, in a poem of sixty-nine lines. Since it is not easily accessible6, I transcribe some of its pertinent parts here:
Denariis triginta, Deum vendit Galilaeus,
Quos et Apostolus hic describit Bartholomaeus,
Unde prius veniant, quis fabricavit eos.
Fecerat hos nummos Ninus, rex Assyriorum,
Et fuit ex auro Thares fabricator eorum.
Cum quibus instituit rex Ninivita forum.
Regia denarijs erat his impressa figura.
Rebus ut aetemis exempla daret valitura,
Formaque sic fieret perpetuata sua.
Filius illius Thares, qui dicitur Abram,
Sustulit hos nummos post haec, cum coniuge Sara,
Quando iubente Deo transiit in Chanaan.
His nummis tunc emit agros, a Hierichonitis;
His etiam Joseph est emptus ab Ishmahelitis;
Hos tenuit Pharao dives in aere suo;
Hosque sibylla potens habuit regina Necaula
Austri regina, quae post Salomonis ab aula
In templum nummos dat reverenter eos.
Quos Nabuchodonosor, templo prius expoliato,
Detulit in Babylon ubi militis insolidatum,
Regibus in Sabba dicimus esse datos.
Hos reges Sabba quos post nova stella vocavit
Ferre Deo nummos Veterum scriptura notavit7
Cum tria, tres socij, dona tulere magi
6The poem goes on to say that after the Magi left, the infant Jesus got from the Heavens an «inconsuntilis tunica» which would always fit Him. Then the Holy Family is forced to flee to Egypt by Herod’s persecution. During the flight they hide the thirty coins (aurum), the incense, the myrrh, and the tunica which held the coins. Some shepherds find these gifts and take them away. An Armenian astrologer examines these gifts and, through the stars, becomes aware of Christ’s «portentum». When Christ began his preaching, an angel told the astrologer to return to God all the gifts that had been taken away from him.
Denarios triginta Deo, quos inde tulerunt,
In Gazam templi lesu mandante dederunt,
Quos ludam pretio post habuisse ferunt.
7The poem, at this point, retells the well-known story of Judas’ returning the money to the high priests of the Synedrium, his death, and the disposal of the thirty coins: fifteen are used to buy the orchard where Judas hangs himself, and the remaining fifteen are distributed by lot among the soldiers who guard Jesus’ tomb. Godfrey closes his poem by cautioning his readers against the discrepancy between this legend, which he purports to have taken from St. Bartholomew’s gospel, and the canonical gospels: the latter say that Judas’ coins were made of silver, not of gold as St. Bartholomew states.
8This poem tells us «commo estos xxx dineros fueron fechos et traydos al tesoro de Jerusalen» (II, Chap. 23, p. 455). As we have seen, it deals with a few episodes of the infancy of Jesus, but this may not be the reason why Juan Manuel refers his readers to the Liber de infantia Salvatoris. His conclusion may have been caused by the position of the poem in Godfrey’s work, in book 14 of the Pantheon, a book (pars) which focuses on the events of the New Testament, and whose first chapter is entitled: «De patre et matre Mariae Virginis et de ipsius nativitate, secundum librum De infantia Salvatoris» (col. 387). The chapter that follows bears the title «Angelus Gabriel annunciat Annae nativitatem Virginis Mariae secundum librum infantiae Salvatoris». The apocryphal Liber de infantia Salvatoris is not mentioned any more in the course of this book; but since it is mentioned twice at its beginning, it is possible for a reader to infer that the events present in this book are abstracted from the apocryphon. Such a possibility is stronger if one assumes that the inference is due to a process of memory association or to an error of “perseverence,” as textual critics would say.
9But did Juan Manuel read the Pantheon? The mention of a rare legend (Juan Manuel is perhaps the first writer to allude to it in any vernacular8) and its association with an apocryphal gospel make a strong case for the hypothesis which we have just formulated. Some, however, may demand further proof and would be convinced only when Juan Manuel’s familiarity with the Pantheon is fully demonstrated: after all, couldn’t Juan Manuel have known the thirty-coin legend through another source? Fortunately, the evidence of his knowledge of the Pantheon is easy to produce.
10We can start with a generic consideration. Godfrey’s universal history was a primary source of information for the compilers of the General Estoria9. It was, therefore, a treasured work in the Alfonsine circles where Juan Manuel was brought up. This fact alone makes plausible the suggestion that Juan Manuel – passionate historian that he was – knew the Pantheon.
11Circumstantial evidence in this regard can be offered by the presence of a simile in both authors. Juan Manuel proves Mary’s virginity by a «semejança natural», namely: «el sol, que es criatura, entra et salle por vna vedriera, et la vedriera sienpre finca sana; pues si esto es en criaturas, mucho mas puede seer et es en el criador» (II, 8: 443). This may be compared with Godfrey’s «similitudo de partu Virginis»:
Ut radio solis vitream penetrante fenestram
Permanet integritás dum splender intus et extra
Integra Virgo magis concipit atque parit10.
12Equally circumstantial are other correspondences between the Pantheon and the Libro de los estados, such as the history of the six days creation and the problem of the human soul.
13Besides these small points, however, there is a series of correspondences which offer an irrefutable demonstration that Juan Manuel knew Godfrey’s work quite well. Chap. 6-32 of the second part of the Libro (pp. 431-62) form a peculiar section of the work. Here Juan Manuel gives a number of rational explanations of the major events which mark the birth of Christianity, from the Virgin Mary’s conception to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Almost all the topics he chooses to discuss are suggested by Godfrey in book 13 of his Pantheon. Both authors seem guided by the same intention. Juan Manuel’s explanations are meant (as he states in Chap. 6) to shield the Christian faith against possible objections raised by Christians as well as by Jews, Moslems, and heathens. In his book Godfrey culls «testimonia omnium prophetarum quae sunt de Domino lesu Christo ad defensionem fidei Christianae, et Judeorum sive haereticorum confusionem» (col. 322). It is interesting to note that both writers purport to follow Moses’ style in order to present Christian truths in the plainest way and thereby to avoid arousing any doubts11.
Chap. 7:413-17, is essentially an index of the topics to be discussed in the following chapters.
Chap. 8: «fabla en commo sancta Maria fue certificada por el angel que avia de nasçer della el Fijo de Dios» (442). This title does not fully represent the chapter’s content, which touches upon the Annunciation as well as upon the mystery of Mary’s virginity and the Incarnation. Godfrey deals with these themes in the sections entitled «Quod Christus de Virgine sine virili admixtione natus est» (col. 331) and «Quod filius qui dicitur Deus factus est homo» (col. 328).
Chap. 9: «fabla en qual hedat fue la nascençia de Ihesu Christo» (p. 445). It focuses on the same subject that Godfrey handles in «Quod Christus temporis Herodis erat nasciturus» (col. 329). Juan Manuel in this chapter considers again the problem of Mary’s virginity and the mystery of Incarnation to establish the lineage of David - Jaffe - Christ. Godfrey treats this theme in «Quod Christus de stirpe David nasciturus erat» (cols. 329-31).
Chap. 10: «qual fue la razon [ . . . ] por que nuestro Sennor nasciera ala media noche, quando cantaua el gallo» (449) has no correspondence in the Pantheon.
Chap. 11: explains why «nuestro Sennor quiso naçer en aquella villa que llaman Velleen» (p. 449). Godfrey has the same: «Quod Christus in Bethlehem nasciturus erat» (col. 332).
Chap. 12-14: examine the meaning of some symbols related to Jesus’ birth: «la razon [ . . . ] por que [ . . . ] quiso nacer en el portal et non en casa çerrada» (450); «por que [ . . . ] quisiera naçer en.el pesebre» (451); and why «quiso nacer en casa agena» (451 ). These themes fall under the general heading «Quod Christus mansuetus et pauper venturus erat» (cols. 333-34).
Chap. 15: it tells us the reason «por que nuestro sennor Ihesu Christo quisiera nascer en.el mes de dizienbre” (p. 452). It has no parallel in Godfrey’s Pantheon.
Chap. 16: «fabla [ . . . ] la razon por que los reys de Sabaa vinieron adorar a Jhesu Christo» ( 452), and corresponds to Godfrey’s «Quod magi Christo munera obtulerunt» (col. 332).
Chap. 17: «por que.la estrella fue naçida en.el naçimiento de Ihesu Christo» (453) has no specific correspondence in Godfrey’s work, but this theme is dealt with in the above mentioned chapter «Quod magi. . . »
Chap. 18 and 19 (453), concerning the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt, have no correspondence in book 13 of the Pantheon, but Godfrey talks about the same event in book 14: «Joseph in Aegyptum fugit» (col. 394).
Chap. 20 and 21 (454) deal with the fact that Jesus began preaching only at the age of thirty and only for three years. Godfrey does not treat these subjects.
Chap. 22 re-establishes the chain of correspondences. Touching upon the reason why Christ «consintió ser preso et muerto de tan vil gente commo los iudios» (455), it corresponds to Godfrey’s «Quod Christus tradidit semetipsum oblationem Patri pro nobis» and «Quod Christus traditus est ab impiis ludaeis» (cols. 336-37).
Chap. 23: it deals with the reason why Jesus was sold for thirty pieces of silver. As we saw, this chapter is inspired by a poem found in book 14 of the Pantheon, rather than in book 13, from which almost all the other correspondences are drawn.
Chap. 24: why Christ «quiso ser açotado et tormentado» (455) parallels «Quod flagella et palmas et ictus sustinuit Christus» (col. 337-38) and «Quod Christus tacuit dum pateretur» (col. 338).
Chap. 25: it considers the reason why «al Fijo de sancta Maria non dieron otra muerte sinon de cruz» (456), and corresponds to «Quod in ligno suspendendus erat Christus» (col. 339).
Chap. 26: it focuses on «la razon por que sangre et agua salio del costado de Ihesu Christo» (456), and is inspired by «Quod de vulnere eius sanguis et aqua exiret» (col. 342).
Chap. 27: it tells «[por] que·la cruz fue de tres maderos» (457). Godfrey talks about the three kinds of wood which formed the cross, but he does so in book 14: «Trias quaedam in sacro ligno crucis» (col. 404).
Chap. 28: it explains why the resurrection of Christ «se tardo fasta el terçer dia» (457). The same problem was foreshadowed by Godfrey’s «Quod per triduum redijt ab inferis» (col. 343).
Chap. 29: «fabla qual fue la razon por que [quiso que] ludas Scariote, seyendo vno de.los sus apostoles, lo vendiesse» (458). It corresponds to «Quod discipulus familiaris erat Christum ad precium venditurus» (col. 336).
Chap. 30: it examines the reason why «quando Ihesu Christo subio a.los çielos le vieron todos los que estauan con.el» (459). Godfrey touches upon this theme in his «Quod Christus usque ad Patrem ascendit in coelum» (cols. 343-45).
Chap. 31: it tells us the reason why God «envio el Spiritu Sancto sobre los apostoles el dia de Çinquaesma» (459). Godfrey’s corresponding text is entitled «Quod Christus sedet ad dexteram Patris et misit in Apostolos Spiritum sanctum» (col. 345).
Chap. 32: it concludes Juan Manuel’s theological excursus. It deals with God’s omnipotence, and the reason «por que fue [Ihesu Christo] verdadero Dios et verdadero omne» (460, lines. 16-17). Godfrey includes the same subject in one of his opening chapters, «Quod Christus est Deus et Dominus omnium» (cols. 325-27).
14These extensive correspondences between the two texts exclude the possibility of a mere coincidence. It is true that a few chapters in the Libro show Juan Manuel proceeding suo Marte, and it is also true that some subjects treated by Godfrey (e.g., the dogma of the Trinity, the symbols of bread and wine, etc.) do not interest Juan Manuel; and it is also true that Juan Manuel arranges his materials respecting the chronological sequence of events more than Godfrey does; but these few discrepancies do not lessen the flagrant evidence of the correspondences.
15Yet, if after establishing these correspondences we go on to examine them in detail, we see at once that they hardly go beyond the enunciation of the subject matter. Let us compare two chapters: for example, chapter 26 and its parallel in the Pantheon.
16Juan Manuel:
Otrosi, la razon por que fue ferido en.el costado et sallio del sangre et agua seyendo ya muerto, segund yo tengo, esto fue por nos dar a.entender el sacrifiçio que el ordeno del su cuerpo; ca por ende dizen los saçerdotes: «Del costado de nuestro sennor Ihesu Christo sallio sangre et agua; por ende, los mesclaremos en vno por que.lo quiera santificar para nuestro melezinamiento» (456).
17Godfrey of Viterbo:
Zacharias propheta dicit: «Cum egrederetur vir ab Oriente, ecce aquae redundantes a latere dextro» scilicet Christi. Item Propheta de eadem aqua dicit: «Flumina aquae viventis egredientur de corpore ipsius». Aqua ista vivens est baptisma, quod vivificat credentes in Christo (col. 342).
18We may also compare chap. 30:
Otrosi, subio a.los çielos en cuerpo et en alma veyendo lo toda la gente, por mostrar manifiesta mente que era Dios et omne verdadera mente (459).
with what we called a “corresponding” chapter in the Pantheon. Actually, this chapter of Godfrey is one of his longest and the only passage in it that parallels Juan Manuel’s is the following:
David subiunxit: «Visi sunt ingressus tui Deus, ingressus Dei mei, regis mei qui est in sancto». Videntibus enim omnibus Apostolis et quingentis viris, ascendit in coelum (col. 344).
19These two examples show that the subject matter is the same in both authors, but their way of dealing with it is different. They both give a clear idea of the distance existing between the Latin text and its vernacular imitation. That distance, however, does not cancel at all the notion of “source” that we have used so far, because another relationship surfaces in the examples just quoted. It is clear that Godfrey is simply compiling a list of prophecies concerning a particular event; Juan Manuel is giving instead an explanation of each one of those events. Godfrey opens his titles with a declarative quod, “What the Prophets saw will happen”; Juan Manuel substitutes for it a quia, “la razon por que” an event occurred. In other words, we have here the complex relationship between a prophecy and its fulfillment, between the Old and the New Testament. It is a relationship which was called figuralis because it was based upon the notion of figura. We need not speculate as to whether Juan Manuel was aware of this notion, for he is quite explicit about it and even uses the technical term figura at the opening of this theological section of his Libro:
Otrosi pueden [i.e., los sacerdotes] vençer a ios judios, mostrándoles por su ley que por los dichos delas sus prophetas que todas las cosas que en su ley fueron dichas, que todo fue figura desta nuestra et que todo lo que fue dicho del Mesías, que todo fue dicho et se cunplio por Ihesu Christo (423).
20The same idea is expressed in chapter 26 of book one:
Ca commo quier que las patriarchas et las prophetas que fueron ante que Ihesu Christo viniese en sancta Maria et tomase muerte en.la cruz por saluar los pecadores, todos merescieran ser saluos; pero que.la ley que.los judios avian era figura desta que an agora los christianos, et non era del rodo conplida, por ende nunca ellos pudieron yr a Parayso fasta que Ihesu Christo dio esta ley (241).
21Transferring the notion of figura12 to an intertextual analysis, we may say that Godfrey’s text is the figura of Juan Manuel’s. Thus, Pantheon, rather than being a material source, is a stimulating text which generates a discourse bearing the mark of an original mind.
22One might admire as original the «razones» which Juan Manuel sees in some major Christian events. His explanations are methodologically close to those produced by the typological hermeneutics of theologians, and a systematic survey of the figural reading done by the Church Fathers as well as by medieval doctores may, perhaps, show his debts towards the authoritative interpreters of the Prophets. This would be worth doing, but for the time being there is another question that matters more. Why did Juan Manuel decide to devote such a large space to these problems in a book which was meant to illustrate the concept and the nature of the estado? The answer lies in his concept of estado, an historical status, bearing specific functions and with metaphysical roots. Such, at least, are the estados of the Emperor and of noblemen which Juan analyzes in book one of his treatise. The estado of the clergy is not different as far as its metaphysical origins are concerned, but its function is unique. It consists in explaining that specific relationship between its historical being and the providential design which makes the priest indispensable for all mankind. In other words, a priest must preach catholice the eternal truths. He must explain why these truths were first figurally foreshadowed and then clearly revealed and fulfilled. Priests are the followers of the prophets: both speak the truth, but the prophets speak before the events while priests do so after the events. They are able to understand and explain how a figura becomes historia. Thus Juan Manuel’s excursus, inspired by Godfrey of Viterbo’s Pantheon, is meant to explain both the theological and the historical function of the priestly estado. It should be noted as a corollary that Juan Manuel limits his observation to historic facts and avoids dogmatic matters as much as possible. This is not only because of his Dominican bent but also because he needed to bring to the fore the “reasons” of history: indeed there is no estado without an historical life.
[1985]
Notes de bas de page
1 Manuel J., 1974.
2 Manuel I., 1982. The Libro de los estados is found 1, pp. 195-502. All quotations are from this edition.
3 Ibidem: 455.
4 Lida de Malkiel M. R., 1950-51: 112.
5 A still unsurpassed study on the origin, diffusion and variety of versions of this medieval legend is that of Baum P. F., 1916. For a more recent study see Hahn T., 1980.
6 Gotfridus Viterbensis 1559. This is the only complete edition of the Pantheon. It was partially reprinted by Johann Pistorius and Gotthelf Struve Burkhard in Rerum Germanicarum scriptores insignes qui historiam et res gestas Germanorum medii potissimum aevi [ … ] consignarunt (Ratisbone, 1726), II: 1-392. Partial editions, limited to the “historical” sections are those of Muratori L. A. (Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, 7: 353-520; reprinted by Migne I. P., PL., 198: coll. 875-1044; and MGH, Scriptores, 22: 137-338; neither one contains our poem). It was published by Du Méril E. 1847: 321-24. Du Méril, however, bases his text on a manuscript source found in the Bibliothèque National of Paris. The poem that we quote in the Basel ed. of 1559 is found in Pantheon, Pars XIV, columns 406-407, and the titles reads: «Quod triginta denarij, quibus venditus est Christus, fabricati sunt tempore Nini regis Assyriorum, et de manu in manum usque ad Christi tempora pervenerunt».
7 This line is missing in the 1559 text, and I have integrated it with the Du Méril’s text. The lacuna becomes obvious if one notices the strophic order: each strophe contains three lines, the first two being rhyming hexameters and the third a pentameter. Our transcription makes it clear, but in the Basel edition the “terzetto” system is not made evident. Incidentally, this texts contains an allusion to St. Bartholomew’s Gospel: it is therefore an important witness for an apocryphal text about which only two allusions exist through the 19th century (see Cherchi P., 1984).
8 Some indications of the diffusion of this legend can be found in Sandys W., 1833: LXXXV-LXXXVII, and Baum P. F., 1916: 545. It should be remembered that many local churches in the wake of the Crusades claimed to have some of Judas’ coins in their reliquaries: see Mely F. de, 1889.
9 Just opening at random Alfonso el Sabio,1930, Primera Parte, book 6, chap. 20: 156.
10 Col. 392. Unfortunately this simile, ingenuous as it may be, is not very rare. Berceo 1975, strophe 209, used it in his Loores before Juan Manuel. See on this subject Ricard R.,1946: 321, where Juan Manuel is quoted. See also and Dagens J., 1949, who incorrectly places the origin of this metaphor in Apocalypses 21, whereas it is a 12th-c. creation. See Tate and Mcpherson in Manuel J., 1974: 301, n. 137.
11 Godfrey, in the first chapter of this book XIII writes” «Verumtamen quia Iudaei nostri adversarij, scripturam metrice prolatam, pro minori forsitan authoritate suscipiunt, quam si stylo simplici sicut ipse Propheta [i.e. Moses] protulit, verbo tenus prosaice proferantur. Ego autem haereticis occasionem malignandi in hac parte subtraxi, et quicquid de prophetis dicere proposui, stylo simplici, de verbo ad verbum brevissime compilavi, ne forte legentibus maior esset obscuritas vel adversarijs occasionem praestarem» (col. 322. Juan Manuel seems to echo him: « [… ] los omnes [ … ] non podemos entender las cosas sotiles spirituales, sinon por algunas semejanças. Et por ende, el sancto propheta Moyses, por que entendio que si dixiese las cosas de Dios casi sotil mente commo son et commo lo el entendia, que [non] bien [las] entiendrien las gentes» (chap. 6: 432)
12 On this notion see Auerbach E., 1959. See also Lubac H. de, 1959-1964, in particular the chapter «omnia in figura», vol. 4:60-84.

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International - CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Reading in Russia
Practices of Reading and Literary Communication, 1760-1930
Damiano Rebecchini et Raffaella Vassena (dir.)
2014
Mujeres y Emancipación de la América Latina y el Caribe en los siglos XIX y XX
Irina Bajini, Luisa Campuzano et Emilia Perassi (dir.)
2013
The Battle of Konotop 1659
Exploring alternatives in East European history
Oleg Rumyantsev et Giovanna Brogi Bercoff (dir.)
2012
Il fascino inquieto dell'utopia
Percorsi storici e letterari in onore di Marialuisa Bignami
Lidia De Michelis, Giuliana Iannaccaro et Alessandro Vescovi (dir.)
2014
Formula e metafora
Figure di scienziati nelle letterature e culture contemporanee
Marco Castellari (dir.)
2014
Provence and the British Imagination
Claire Davison, Béatrice Laurent, Caroline Patey et al. (dir.)
2013
La ‘cultura X'. Mercato, pop e tradizione
Juan Bonilla, Ray Loriga e Juan Manuel de Prada
Simone Cattaneo
2012
« La grâce de montrer son âme dans le vêtement » Scrivere di tessuti, abiti, accessori. Studi in onore di Liana Nissim
(Tomo I) - Dal Quattrocento al Settecento
Marco Modenesi, Maria Benedetta Collini et Francesca Paraboschi (dir.)
2015
« La grâce de montrer son âme dans le vêtement » Scrivere di tessuti, abiti, accessori. Studi in onore di Liana Nissim
(TOMO II) - L'Ottocento e il Tournant du Siecle
Marco Modenesi, Maria Benedetta Collini et Francesca Paraboschi (dir.)
2015
« La grâce de montrer son âme dans le vêtement » Scrivere di tessuti, abiti, accessori. Studi in onore di Liana Nissim
(TOMO III) - Dal Novecento alla Contemporaneità
Marco Modenesi, Maria Benedetta Collini et Francesca Paraboschi (dir.)
2015