Alchemical Hands in the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili

s argument begs the question of redundancy. That two related individuals would each retain a personal copy is understandable. Likewise, combined annotation from individuals passing a book back and forth is also likely. Yet why would two individuals both annotate two identical copies of the same text? One note suggests that Benedetto approached the text with the eye of a collector, acquiring multiple copies for their own sakes. In his annotation to the infamous ‘Sacrifice to Priapus’ on ...

s argument begs the question of redundancy. That two related individuals would each retain a personal copy is understandable. Likewise, combined annotation from individuals passing a book back and forth is also likely. Yet why would two individuals both annotate two identical copies of the same text? One note suggests that Benedetto approached the text with the eye of a collector, acquiring multiple copies for their own sakes. In his annotation to the infamous ‘Sacrifice to Priapus’ on ...

the bark. The fact that the annotator decided to improve the details of trees, and only trees, would seem to accord with Benedetto’s known botanical interests. One of the annotators also appears to have had an on-again, off-again relationship with the act of censorship itself. The herm depicted on (x8v) has had its phallus partially erased. Yet strangely, the more egregious phallic image of the Sacrifice to Priapus has remained untouched. The annotator remarks on this fact, stating on ...

the bark. The fact that the annotator decided to improve the details of trees, and only trees, would seem to accord with Benedetto’s known botanical interests. One of the annotators also appears to have had an on-again, off-again relationship with the act of censorship itself. The herm depicted on (x8v) has had its phallus partially erased. Yet strangely, the more egregious phallic image of the Sacrifice to Priapus has remained untouched. The annotator remarks on this fact, stating on ...