Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T23:57:33.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Transmission of Florus and the Periochae Again

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

M. D. Reeve
M. D. Reeve
Affiliation:
Pembroke College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article I tried to disperse the fog in which modern editions envelop the transmission of the Livian Periochae and Floras' Epitoma de Tito Liuio. Working from editions and catalogues, and without looking at more than a few readily accessible manuscripts, I argued that the Periochae reached the Middle Ages in the company of Floras and nothing else; that the mainstream of the medieval tradition, which probably issued from the region south-west of Paris, derived first from a manuscript that presented Florus and only 1–7 of the 142 Periochae, Λ, and then from one that presented Florus alone, e; that after appearing for several centuries only in N (s. ix1) and P (s. xii2) the complete text of Florus and the Periochae saw a revival in the Italian Renaissance, probably thanks to Petrarch and Boccaccio; and that most Italian manuscripts contaminate the text of e with the complete text. Pending visits to libraries, I left open several questions: whether Λ derived from the source of NP; whether e derived from Λ; whether the Italian manuscripts of the complete text all derive from one source; whether, if so, it was P; whether any of them have escaped contamination in Florus; and whether contamination had already begun in France.

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , December 1991 , pp. 453 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘The Transmission of Florus's Epitoma de Tito Liuio and the Periochae’, CQ 38 (1988), 477–91.Google Scholar

2 For travel grants that took me abroad I thank the British Academy, the University of Cambridge, and the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge; for access to microfilms, the Section Latine of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, Paris, and the Istituto per la Patologia del Libro, Rome (whose holdings have now been moved to the Biblioteca Nazionale). François Avril and Gilbert Ouy have very kindly given me their opinion on the date and origin of several manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale; Albinia de la Mare has helped me once more by not only annotating a draft but answering further inquiries; and László Havas has kept me abreast of his articles (see nn. 66, 81, 96, 104) and sent me comments on a draft. I have followed up the question of medieval quotations, which are rarer than has been supposed, in a separate article, ‘Freculf of Lisieux and Florus’, Revue d'Histoire des Textes 19 (1989), 381–90.Google Scholar

3 ‘II Petrarca e gli storici latini’, in Tra latino e volgare: per Carlo Dionisotti (Padua, 1974), i.67–145.Google Scholar

4 ‘The a Class of the Manuscripts of the Periochae of Livy’, in Owls to Athens: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, ed. Craik, E. M. (Oxford, 1990), pp. 367–79.Google Scholar

5 François Avril agrees: ‘La datation Xe siècle que vous retenez me parait être en effet la bonne. Le manuscrit est indubitablement d'origine françaìse, et peut être, comme vous le suggérez, en vous fondant sur la note du fol. 22v, d'origine chartraine’. Gilbert Ouy's opinion, ‘early Xlth cent., hand probably French’, is the same as Munk, Olsen's, Catalogue, i (Paris, 1982), p. 388.Google Scholar

6 Gilbert Ouy confirms the date: ‘ca. 1400’.

7 At 4.2.80 he left a gap for in medio and wrote in the margin ‘In ilia uacua platea sic habetur in exemplari: hinme· (himne Z). Silvia Rizzo observes that such scrupulousness recalls the work done at the same date by Nicholas of Clamanges on Paris Lat. 14749 of Pro Cluentio and other Ciceronian speeches.

8 Other parts of this miscellany are signed by Iohannes Steenaert and dated 1446 (fo. 131v) or 1448 (fo. 145v); the same or a similar hand wrote the text of Florus (fos. 85r–115v). On fos. 147–86 is a hitherto unreported copy of the Florilegium Gallicum.

9 I owe the suggestion to Albinia de la Mare. Barrie Hall and Francesco Lo Monaco have kindly given me their opinions on the date: s. xiimed. and s. xi2. For the extremes see on the one hand the Harleian catalogue (London, 1808), followed by Lehmann (who may just have been quoting) and by Munk Olsen, op. cit. 387, and on the other hand Rossbach's edition of Floras (p. xviii). Baehrens, who drew attention to the manuscript in Rhein. Mus. 30 (1875), 629Google Scholar, assigned it to s. xi/xii. As classical studies at Groningen have recently been celebrating a century of history, let me quote words from Rossbach's edition of Floras that I had not seen when I wrote something similar in Texts and Transmission, ed. Reynolds, L. D. (Oxford, 1983), p. 424 n. 18Google Scholar: ‘…Aem. Baehrensius, quern qui ob futtiles coniecturas uituperant saepe numero obliuiscuntur protractis codicibus qui diuturno situ sepulti iacuerant de scriptoribus Latinis bene meruisse…’ (p. xv).

10 I had not noticed this passage when I asked Ruth Taylor to check another in M. After 4.2.95 terrarum Harl. omitted orbem, for which a hand of s. xiii/xiv substituted ambitum, and the omission can easily be blamed on Harl. itself, because the final sentences of 4.2 are crammed into the margin at the end of a quire. Dr Taylor kindly reported that M also omits orbem and after correction reads terras for terrarum.

11 Jerzy Axer has very kindly searched for the manuscript on my behalf, but so far to no avail. I am much obliged to Birger Munk Olsen for supplying me with a photocopy of the first page. See also Olsen, B. Munk and Petitmengin, P. in Histoire des bibliothèques françaises: Les bibliothèques médiévales, du VIe siècle à 1530, ed. Vernet, A. (Paris, 1989), p. 425 and n. 158.Google Scholar

12 It also reads Praef. 7 [ipsa], which Jal reports only from L of the manuscripts so far mentioned; but they all agree with L. Similarly, they all have qui prope at 2.1.2.

13 I quote what Gilbert Ouy tells me about three of these manuscripts: J ‘end of the XIIIth cent.; nice French hand’, 16536 ‘ca. 1375; probably written in Avignon (see flyleaves), but the scribe looks Italian (from the north)’; 16708 ‘last quarter of the XlVth cent.; ugly cursive, German hand’.

14 Nickel, H., ‘Textkritisches zuden Florus-Inkunabeln’, Philologus 118 (1974), 166–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar, makes the early editions sound much alike in the quality of their text. That does justice neither to the ed. Paris., for the reason just given, nor to the ed. Parm., which I shall mention below (p. 474). Admittedly it would have been hard to draw these distinctions without probing beneath the surface of Jal's edition, but Nickel made it even harder for himself by staying with Malcovati's.

15 Mirella Ferrari kindly tells me that on p. 214 there are notes by German hands of s. x/xi (‘possono essere dell'anno Mille circa o poco dopo’); she inclines to think that the manuscript was taken to Germany by Otto III but would not rule out Henry II. For my purposes the difference hardly matters.

16 László Havas tells me that he finds it hard to accept.

17 In my previous article I carelessly allotted H to the Palatini in the Vatican (p. 488). Patricia Stimemann and Françoise Gasparri have kindly given me their opinions on the date, which concur with mine. On the strength of a comparison with Bodl. 689 and 866 Dr Stimemann suggests that the place of origin may be Limoges; according to Albinia de la Mare, whom Dr Stimemann supplied with photographs of fo. 1 and fo. 83, ‘the initials are in the same style as the initial to the central portion of Bodl. 866 (a composite manuscript, though all from Limoges – contents in hand of Bernard Itier) and the first initial to Bodl. 689; the script of the central portion of Bodl. 866 is also similar, though not identical, and there is the same very pronounced pricking for the ruling’. I therefore repeat with more confidence my suggestion that H was the manuscript collated by Vinetus at the Dominican library in Bordeaux (p. 488 n. 50).

18 Avril, F. and Stirnemann, P., Manuscrits enluminés de la Bibliothèque Nationale: manuscrits d'origine insulaire VIIe–XXe siècle (Paris, 1987), p. 155 n. 194, with plate lxxix.Google Scholar

19 But for the files at the I.R.H.T. I should never have known about this manuscript, and but for Patricia Stirnemann I should still be waiting to see it. She tells me that it may be Genoese and probably belongs to s. xiii3/4. Virginia, Brown in Palaeographica diplomatica et archivistica: studi in onore di Giulio Battelli (Rome, 1979), i.131–2Google Scholar, mentions the table of contents but says nothing about the origin of the manuscript.

20 Cf. Novati, F., Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, i (Rome, 1891), 153.20–154.3Google Scholar. Salutati there uses the biographical note on Florus, very rare in Italian manuscripts but found in K.

21 François Avril confirms my less competent opinion: ‘Ce manuscrit date bien, d'après l'écriture, qui me parait française (Paris ??), de la deuxième moitié du XIIIe siècle, et non du XIVe siècle’. He adds this: ‘II vient de la librairie de Blois et comporte des notes et un poème final en écriture humanistique italienne, et je me demande s'il ne pourrait pas venir de la bibliothèque des ducs de Milan, bien qu'il ne corresponde à aucun des trois Florus mentionnés dans l'inventaire A de Pellegrin.’ Simonetta Cerrini, who kindly inspected it at my request, tells me that she found no evidence in favour of this interesting suggestion.

22 Every text in the manuscript except the Breuiarium of Festus occupies quires of its own, and the date occurs only in the rubricated subscription of Vegetius, where as Silvia Rizzo observes it could well have been copied from the exemplar; but it did not seem to me an impossible date for the manuscript itself. The learned annotations, thickest on Suetonius and probably no later than s. xivmed., call for the eye of a Billanovich.

23 I learnt from the description at the I.R.H.T. that the manuscript has the signature of Guy de Roye, archbishop of Reims 1390–1409, and a note by the cathedral librarian Gilles d'Aspremont, who died about 1414–15.

24 de la Mare, A. C. in Garzelli, A., Miniatura fiorentina del Rinascimento 1440–1525: un primo censimento i (Indici e cataloghi toscani 18, 1985), 504–5Google Scholar no. 32 (19) and (26). The scribe, Hubertus W., wrote two other manuscripts of Florus, B.L. Harl. 3694 = ibid. (22), which has an unrelated text, and Verona Capit. CXXXVII (125) = ibid. (41), which has yet a third type of text; on Escorial ç. IV 16 (not 66) = ibid. (2) cf. no. 91 below.

25 I am very grateful to Dr Martin Engels of the Provinciale Bibliotheek van Friesland for information about the two manuscripts. On Ambroise de Cambrai and his relations with Gaguin see Thuasne, L., Revue des Bibliothèques 11 (1901), 13–15Google Scholar; Fournier, M. and Dorez, L., La faculté de décret de l'Université de Paris au XVe siècle ii (Paris, 1902), p. 208 n. 2Google Scholar; Delisle, L., Journal des Savants (1902), 332–8.Google Scholar

26 See n. 56 of my previous article.

27 I.M.U. 25 (1982), 368–72.

28 I owe this information to François Avril, who will shortly be discussing the illuminator in an article.

29 De la Mare, op. cit. (n. 24), 500 no. 28 (18).

30 As I mentioned in my previous article (p. 489 n. 53), the precise date is highly controversial, and I give what all parties accept as the outer limits. See now Petrucci, A. in Renaissance- und Humanistenhanaschriften, ed. Autenrieth, J. and Eigler, U. (Munich, 1988), p. 4 n. 16.Google Scholar

31 I quote the opinion of François Avril.

32 For confirmation see now Jeudy, C. and Riou, Y.-F., Manuscrits classiques latins des bibliothèques publiques de France, i (Paris, 1989), p. 154.Google Scholar

33 Cf. Wright, C. E., Fontes Harleiani (London, 1972), p. 228Google Scholar. It includes works of Poggio's.

34 I wrongly described fos. 103–4 of P as a bifolium (p. 480). Munk Olsen, whom I was citing, rightly says that they are two single leaves, and stubs remain of their other halves. It is therefore possible, though no more than possible, that another work has been cut out after the Periochae. In his editions of both Florus (I cxx) and the Periochae (I c) Jal astonishingly contradicts Rossbach's statement that P is written in two columns.

35 Eleven more (cf. n. 3 of my previous article): Aix-en-Provence 1466 (1323), West Berlin Lat. 40 343 and 436, Bologna Univ. 2675, Cesena S. 15.5, Fermo Com. 45, Lucca Capit. VIII 512 (a. 1467), Modena Est. Lat. 699, Munich C.L.M. 568, Palermo Com. 2 Qq c 73 (which never went beyond 46.10), Parma Palat. 253. I am much obliged to Dr Xavier Lavagne for details of the manuscript at Aix, which has lost its first leaf; strangely, it was missed by Jeudy and Riou, op. cit. (n. 32). On Fermo Com. 45, which contains only Florus and the Periochae, see Serafino, Prete, Studia Picena 24 (1956), 35–7Google Scholar. I exclude from the total manuscripts that have only a selection.

36 I took on trust Maria Teresa Casella's ascription to Boccaccio of the glosses on an Italian translation of Valerius Maximus (p. 483 n. 35), but I have since learnt by following up the last footnote of her article ‘La singolare biblioteca di un chiosatore trecentesco’, Studi Petrarcheschi n.s. 3 (1986), 117–202Google Scholar, that her arguments have been contested in detail by Lippi, E., Studi sul Boccaccio, 14 (1983–1984), 357–72Google Scholar, and Petrucci, L., Riv. Letterat. Ital. 2 (1984), 369–87Google Scholar. For their part Lippi and Petrucci take it on trust from Billanovich and Casella that Boccaccio used a text of Livy prepared by Petrarch; see, however, Riv. Fil. 115 (1987), 424–30.Google Scholar

37 Sabbadini, , Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV, i (Florence, 1905), 12 n. 57Google Scholar, as interpreted by Fera, V., La revisione petrarchesca dell’ Africa (Messina, 1984), pp. 65–6Google Scholar (I am grateful to Silvia Rizzo for this reference). The quotations occur on fos. 124–30 of the only printed edition (Venice, 1547).

38 Billanovich, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 97–8. For the text see Billanovich's edition (Florence, 1943), pp. 17–18; for the date of composition, ibid. lxxxii–cxxiv.

39 Bosco, U., Giorn. Stor. Lett. Ital. 120 (1942), 98–9 =Google ScholarSaggi sul Rinascimento italiano (Florence, 1970), p. 198Google Scholar, cited by Fera. Cf. Martellotti's, G. edition (Florence, 1964), p. 55.Google Scholar

40 Op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 69, 87–9.

41 See most conveniently Billanovich, , Tradizione e fortuna di Livio tra Medioevo e Umanesimo (Padua, 1981), p. 124.Google Scholar

42 Beryl, Smalley, Arch. Fratr. Praed. 24 (1954), 95Google Scholar and English Friars and Antiquity in the Early Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1960), pp. 92–7Google Scholar. She mentions a copy of all three decades written at Modena, namely Paris Lat. 5741 of 1405 (p. 95 n. 5), and there is another, written by a scribe who like Guido de Guisis came from Reggio: Ambros. D 542 inf., dated 1388–9. Their texts differ considerably; see Riv. Fil. 114 (1986), 135, 141Google Scholar with n. 2, and 115 (1987), 141 (on Esc. g 1 8), 143, 145.

43 de Meyier, K. A., Codices Vossiani Latini I: codices in folio (Leiden, 1973), p. 45.Google Scholar

44 Dean, Ruth J., Med. et Human. 3 (1945), 89–90Google Scholar. She discusses the chronicle on pp. 335–9 of ‘Nicholas Trevet, historian’, in Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt, ed. Alexander, J. J. G. and Gibson, M. T. (Oxford, 1976), pp. 328–52Google Scholar; in the list of manuscripts on p. 351 (and in the index to the volume) read 4929 for 4949. I have not noticed any reference in Billanovich's many publications on Livy to the quotations in the chronicle.

45 Riv. Fil. 115 (1987), 145–6.Google Scholar

46 Jones, B., John Le Neve, Fasti ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300–1541 iv (London, 1963), p. 7Google Scholar; Dean, op. cit. (1976), 335–6.

47 François Avril confirms that part II is French. Mainly for stemmatic reasons, I had wondered whether it might be Italian.

48 Besides the agreements with P listed by Billanovich, op. cit. (n. 3), 88 n. 2, some agreements with NP against Λ can be seen in plate IV (opposite p. 95).

49 So Albinia de la Mare judges from the illuminated initial.

50 Giorn. ltd. di Filol. 3 (1950), 347–51.Google Scholar

51 Cf. Zwiercan, M. in Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum medii aeui latinorum qui in bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracouiae asseruantur, ii (Wroclaw, 1982), pp. 240–2.Google Scholar

52 Goldmann, A., Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 4 (1887), 153Google Scholar. Rossbach, ed. of Florus, p. xxii, resolved gñs as gens; Antonia, Mazza, I.M.U. 9 (1966), p. 51, as gentes.Google Scholar

53 Anna Maranini Gobbo very kindly supplied me with film of Florus 2.1–2 and 4.2 before I was able to see the manuscript itself. Procacci, G., S.I.F.C. 19 (1912), 40 n. 26Google Scholar, gives a description, misleading inasmuch as it suggests that the text of Loschi's Ciceronian commentary on fos. 238r–265v postdates more than one printed edition. The watermarks that I noticed, one of a dog and the other of a half griffin, are securely Italian but do not sufficiently match any in Briquet.

54 At Per. 80.6, where Jal gives rostra like Rossbach, rostris is perfectly clear and unambiguous in N, and at Per. 97.1 neither N nor P adds et after caesis as Jal says and Rossbach implies. In n. 44 of my previous article I mentioned that according to Reid N omits Per. 2.22 debilis, but it does not.

55 Lepore, U., Giorn. Hal. di Filol. 5 (1952), 254–60Google Scholar, had already put forward the same contention, though for other reasons, about Naples Naz. IV C 32.

56 See Billanovich's plate (cf. n. 48).

57 They can be seen in the plate given by Lewandowski, I., Florus w Polsce (Wroclaw, 1970) opposite p. 32Google Scholar. I am most grateful to Mieczyslaw Mejor of Warsaw for providing me with a copy of this monograph.

58 See e.g. S. Eklund, , Ann. Soc. Litt. Human. Reg. Upsaliensis (1975–1976), 82 n. 16Google Scholar. Had I known this article, ‘On Errors and Contamination’, I should have cited it in ‘Stemmatic Method: “qualcosa che non funziona”?’, in The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture, ed. Ganz, P. (Bibliologia 3–4, Turnhout, 1986), pp. 57–69Google Scholar. I thank the author for bringing it to my attention.

59 Fam. 3.18.5, ed. Rossi, V., vol. i (Rome, 1933), pp. 140.39–40.Google Scholar

60 Martellotti, G., Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. di Pisa III 9 (1979), 1468–74Google Scholar = Scrittipetrarcheschi, ed. Feo, M. and Rizzo, S. (Padua, 1983), pp. 555–60Google Scholar; on the date of De gestis Cesaris, ibid. 484. Martellotti's itaque seems to be a slip: both Schneider and Razzolini give ita.

61 Cf. n. 22.

62 Petrucci, A., La scrittura di Francesco Pelrarca (Vatican, 1967), pp. 125–6 n. 39Google Scholar, assigns Petrarch's notes in Q to about 1350–5, and other texts in it, for instance Suetonius, certainly have notes for which the ascription is incontestable and the date very plausible; but it would be useful to know what he makes of the notes on Florus, which to an inexpert eye are in at least two hands both different from Petrarch's of c. 1350–5. Cf. Nolhac, , Pétrarque et l'humanisme2 (Paris, 1907), i.246–8.Google Scholar

63 Pellegrin, É., La bibliothèque des Visconti et des Sforza (Paris, 1955), 148 A 341Google Scholar. The words redactus occubuit conclude an extract from the Getica of Jordanes, 27.139–33.171 (fos. 18v–19v).

64 On this manuscript, a palimpsest apparently from Emilia, see Fera, V. in Codici latini del Petrarca nelle biblioteche fiorentine, ed. Feo, M. (Florence, 1991), p. 52 no. 23.Google Scholar

65 On Pal. Lat. 895 see also n. 98. In 2.1–2 two relatives are Verona Capit. CCXXXIII (198) (a. 1431) and its descendant Ambros. E 73 inf. (membr. 1458 ut uid.). All read 2.2.3 ut eodem, 23 [ducem], 25 [suos], 26 grauior, 28 insignis.

66 This manuscript, bought by the library in 1826 according to Mostowska-Glombiowska, B., Eos 61 (1973), 258Google Scholar, fits the description of one in private ownership that F. Jacob collated at Poznén; see Klette, A., Catalogi chirographorum in Bibliotheca Academica Bonnensi seruatorum particula I (Bonn, 1858), pp. 39–40 nos. 166–7Google Scholar. In an article of 1987 published at Debrecen (written in Hungarian and summarized in German), L. Havas associated it with a manuscript that I am about to mention, Vat. Lat. 1859.

67 I have not seen this manuscript and am much obliged to Harry Jocelyn for collating Florus 2.1–2 and 4.2.1–25.

68 The first page of Genoa Durazzo 220 (B VI 9) is illustrated by Puncuh, D., I manoscritti delta raccolta Durazzo (Genoa, 1979)Google Scholar, fig. 111. I am extremely grateful both to Dr Puncuh and to Franco Montanari for supplying me with reproductions of 2.1–2 and 4.2.

69 Albinia de la Mare kindly gave me her opinion on the date and origin of the manuscript. A change of hand on fo. 43v in the middle of 3.18.6 Telesinus may have brought with it a change of exemplar, which certainly took place somewhere between 2.2 and 4.2. I return below to the other exemplar; cf. n. 75.

70 Blum, R., La biblioteca della Badia fiorentina e i codici di Antonio Corbinelli (Studi e Testi 155, Vatican, 1951)Google Scholar; de la Mare, A. C. in Das Verhältnis der Humanisten zum Buch, ed. Krafft, F. and Wuttke, D. (Boppard, 1977), pp. 96–8Google Scholar. This is presumably the manuscript of Florus described by Montfaucon, , Diarium Italicum (Paris, 1702), p. 375Google Scholar (‘Lucii Flori codex membr. In fine legitur: Iste liber est mei Antonii Tomasi de Corbinellis conscriptus anno 1398’), and spoken of as untraced by Blum, 48 n. 3, and de la Mare, 98 n. 31.

71 Cf. Schmidt, P. L., ‘Eine Cicero-Handschrift des ermlandischen Bischofs Johannes Abeczier’, Rhein. Mus. 109 (1966), 170–84.Google Scholar

72 Klette, op. cit. (n. 66), 40–1. The manuscript was reported as missing by Burr, V., Universitätsbibliothek Bonn: Verzeichnis der nach dem 2. Weltkrieg als fehlend festgestellten Handschriften (Bonn, 1968), p. 18Google Scholar, and Dr Thomas Klein kindly reports that it has not resurfaced. For Grimm's description and collation see his Beschreibung und Vergleichung einiger lateinischen Handschriften in der Duisburgischen Universitäts-Bibliothek, in Joh. Hildebrand Withof kritische Anrnerkungen über Horaz und andere römische Schriftsteller (Düsseldorf, 1792–1802), i.97–119, ii.147–73.Google Scholar

73 See most recently Teubner, J. Delz's edition of Silius Italicus (Stuttgart, 1987), pp. xv–xvi.Google Scholar

74 On Laur. 63.12, Harl. 2731, Naples Naz. IV C 33, Valencia Univ. 482, Barb. Lat. 175, and Verona Capit. CXXXVII, see de la Mare, op. cit. (n. 24), 530 no. 62(9), 537 no. 68(9), 599 no. 85, 532 no. 62(53), 504 no. 31(17), 504−5 no. 32(41). She kindly tells me that Wolfenbüttel Gud. Lat. 175 is Florentine; like Harl. 2731 and Naples Naz. IV C 33, it contains only the Periochae and Florus. Reid missed it but groups together Laur. 63.12 and 66.38, Harl. 2731, Naples Naz. IV C 33, and Barb. Lat. 175 (pp. 386–406); the Reginenses and Verona Capit. CXXXVII do not include the Periochae, and Poblet 50–51–52 and Valencia Univ. 482, which Reid also missed, took them from different sources.

75 See n. 69. Similar in many respects, for instance in interpolating stare(n)t after 4.2.80 acies, is Glasgow Univ. Gen. 212, which Roger Green very kindly collated for me; but it also shares some readings with the next group to be discussed.

76 As Albinia de la Mare confirms, he wrote Bodl. Canon. Class. Lat. 300 (Livy III) and Phillipps 6744 (Livy IV); see Riv. Fil. 114 (1986), 166 n. 1, 115 (1987), 159 n. 1. László Havas did me the great favour of sending me a complete reproduction of the manuscript.

77 For no obvious reason, Giacone, J. Deangeli illustrates Hamilt. 261 in her edition of Florus (Turin, 1969), opposite p. 400.Google Scholar

78 See Mecacci, E., La biblioteca di Ludovico Petrucciani (Milan, 1981), pp. 46, 154–7.Google Scholar

79 Lidia, Avitabile, Studi Medievali III 11.2 (1970), 1019–20Google Scholar, says ‘s. xv’, and I may well have put it too early.

80 The same scribe and annotator wrote and annotated Laur. 48.25, on which see Riv. Fil. 114 (1986), 142 n. 2Google Scholar. Martin Davies and Albinia de la Mare have since identified the annotator as Mattia Lupi; cf. Humanistica Louaniensia 33 (1984), 6–21.Google Scholar

81 Another member of this group appears to be Budapest Nat. 167, discussed by Havas, L., Acta Classica Univ. Scient. Debrecen. 23 (1987), 85–94.Google Scholar

82 Ullman, , The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati (Padua, 1963), pp. 196–7 no. 102Google Scholar (‘Salutati notes chiefly on fos. 1–22’; Floras occupies fos. lr–27v). I have the same difficulty with the notes in K as with those in Q (cf. n. 62). On Salutati's ownership of K see n. 20.

83 I owe this information to Albinia de la Mare. Guido, Billanovich in Medioevo e rinascimento veneto con altri studi in onore di Lino Lazzarini (Padua, 1979), i.302–18Google Scholar, with plates V–VIII between pp. 296 and 297 (I thank Mirella Ferrari for this reference), attributes Ambros. S 16 sup. to Sicco Polenton; Albinia de la Mare agrees with me that the plates in Ullman's edition of Sicco's, Scriptorum illustrium Latinae linguae libri XVIII (Rome, 1928)Google Scholar do not support the attribution, and in particular she draws attention to Sicco's unusual s, which does not occur in Billanovich's plates. Naples Naz. IV C 31 may derive from it.

84 I am very grateful to Dr C. A. McLaren, Keeper of Manuscripts, for providing me with reproductions of several pages.

85 I owe this information to de la Mare, Albinia. Schmidt, P. L., Die Überlieferung von Ciceros Schrift ‘De legibus’ in Mittelalter und Renaissance (Munich, 1974), pp. 305–6Google Scholar, assigns it to 1450–60 and central Italy, and Jeudy and Riou, op. cit. (n. 32), pp. 270–2, judge its origin to be ‘bolonaise d'après la décoration’.

86 Michael Winterbottom very kindly collated it at my request. For an illustration of the last page see the catalogue of the Mostra di codici umanistici di biblioteche friulane (Florence, 1978), plate II.Google Scholar

87 Albinia de la Mare kindly inspected the manuscript for me. On Cantarelli see her remarks in The Handwriting of Italian Humanists, I.i (Oxford, 1973), p. 42 no. VGoogle Scholar; Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 18 (1975), pp. 239–40Google Scholar; Manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, i (1975), p. 240Google Scholar on Borg. Lat. 411. She would assign the first part of the manuscript, which contains Festus' Breuiarium and Florus, to s. xivmed. and probably Bologna, and the second part to s. xiv2. ‘On the end (paper) flyleaf’ she adds ‘is a list of contents in a 15th-century hand not dissimilar to that of Francesco Barbara’.

88 I thank Albinia de la Mare for inspecting it. A note on fo. 73r, Iste liber est mei Cardinalis S. Crucis quern emi ab heredibus olim domini Petri de Carbonibus de Rachaneto per manus domini Berardi eorum affinis. Idem d. Cardinalis manu propria, follows a partly erased notarial record of the same transaction; Albinia de la Mare identifies the cardinal as Niccolò Albergati and reads the date in the erasure as 5 February 1430.

89 Billanovich, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 100 n. 4, also regards the copies of Florus and the Periochae as contemporary.

90 Cf. Gilmore, M. in Diz. Biog. degli Ital. 9 (Rome, 1967), p. 382.Google Scholar

91 Whichever it was copied from, it is surely much too late to have been written by Hubertus W. (cf. n. 24). The script apparently imitates print, and like the decoration I should assign it to northern Europe.

92 Manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, i (Paris, 1975), p. 776Google Scholar. It will become clear why I do not accept their date, ‘xve s. (fin)’.

93 The interpolation also occurs in Fermo Com. 81, from which the Marcianus may derive (cf. n. 27). It migrated to a descendant of Q, Vat. Lat. 1859, a very handsome manuscript written about 1400 and probably at Bologna.

94 Paächt, O. and Alexander, J. J. G., Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, ii (Oxford, 1970), p. 41 no. 401Google Scholar, assign Canon. Class. Lat. 194 to s. xv3/4 and Ferrara. According to Manuscrits classiques, ii.l (1978), pp. 128–9Google Scholar, the watermarks of Vat. Reg. Lat. 924 point to Bologna. The first page of Fermo Com. 45 is illustrated by Prete, loc. cit. (n. 35). Michael Winterbottom very kindly collated Ravenna Class. 245 for me.

95 Marc. Lat. Z 370, written by Bessarion's doctor, should come from Bologna, where Bessarion spent 1450–5; cf. Lotte, Labowsky, Bessarion's Library and the Biblioteca Marciana (Rome, 1979), pp. 187Google Scholar A 237, 208 B 307, 460, and Concetta, Bianca in Scrittura biblioteche e stampa a Roma nel Quattrocento: atti del seminario 1–2 giugno 1979 (Vatican, 1980), pp. 137–8Google Scholar. Pächt and Alexander, op. cit. (n. 94), p. 34 no. 343, tentatively assign Laud Lat. 58 to Rome; cf. Watson, A. G., Dated and Datable Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries (Oxford, 1984), i.65–6Google Scholar no. 583, ii plate 507.

96 Several innovations in 4.2, e.g. 5 sed auxilia, 16 peteret ‹consulatum›, 23 ipse pacem, 52 Septimi ‹Photini›, 56 odium ‹etiam›, connect Add. 26068, Lucca Gov. 1402, Naples XIII G 11, Vitt. Eman. 11, and Madrid Nac. 8593, and B.L. Harl. 5438 (membr. xv3/4) also has them. Behind their text lies the second copy of Q and in particular a manuscript like Bologna Univ. 2476, to which they owe e.g. 14 fortuna tanta imperil, 30 est fortuna, 35 Epiron Pompeius, 75 Oceani ostio. Havas, L. discusses Vitt. Eman. 11 and 221 in Acta Classica Univ. Scient. Debrecen. 25 (1989), 101–14.Google Scholar

97 An elegiac couplet based on it, Floro quid breuius…?, occurs in Laur. 89 inf. 28 and Bodl. Laud Lat. 58.

98 See Pellegrin, É., I.M.U. 19 (1976), p. 494Google Scholar, cited in Manuscrits classiques, ii.2 (Paris, 1982), p. 73Google Scholar, and Feo, M., Giorn. Stor. Lett. Ital. 152 (1975), 335–6Google Scholar, who reports that Campana announced the attribution at a conference in 1970 (I thank Michele Feo himself for this reference). After repeating it at another conference in May 1991 (‘Il Petrarca latino e le origini dell'umanesimo’, held at Florence), Professor Campana kindly told me that he interprets the hexameters as a note of thanks added by Petrarch to a manuscript of Floras and the Periochae on returning it to its owner. If he is right, the manuscript in question can hardly have been any but what I have been calling Petrarch's manuscript of the complete text. Regrettably, I did not transcribe the verses but assumed instead, through a lazy reading of Manuscrits classiques, that they came from one of Petrarch's known works. I will return to the matter if the other things that have been competing since 1970 for Professor Campana's time prevent him from ever discussing it in print.

99 I owe this information to Albinia de la Mare, who kindly inspected the Ottobonianus for me; she recognized the scribe but could not name him until mention of Lamola jogged her memory. On Lamola I have found nothing that supersedes or much augments the works of Sabbadini's cited by Sabbadini himself in Encicl. ital. 20 (Rome, 1933), p. 436Google Scholar, especially ‘Cronologia documentata di Giovanni Lamola’, Propugnatore n.s. 3 (1891), 417–36Google Scholar, and Epistolario di Guarino Veronese, iii (Venice, 1919), pp. 436–9.Google Scholar

100 From the ed. Ven. derives Agira Com. 4, a sumptuous manuscript produced at Naples for Ferdinand I of Aragon; the mayor of Agira most kindly presented me with a copy of Patanè, R., Agira (Enna, 1989)Google Scholar, of which plate 85 shows the frontispiece in colour. See also Lattanzi, A. Daneu, I manoscritti ed incunaboli miniati della Sicilia (Palermo, 1984), pp. 53–5 nn. 22–3 and plates X-XI.Google Scholar

101 Cf. also nn. 67, 75, 86, 94.

102 Novati, op. cit. (n. 20), iii (Rome, 1893), 298.17–18 with n. 3. See also Martellotti, G., I.M.U. 15 (1972), 164Google Scholar = Scrittipetrarcheschi, ed. Feo, M. and Rizzo, S. (Padua, 1983), pp. 377–8.Google Scholar

103 Malcovati, ed. pp. xvi–xvii and more fully in Athenaeum 25 (1937), 294–6Google Scholar (she says the same about T and Ravenna Class. 245); Jal, ed. i. cxvii, cxxii.

104 Op. cit. (n. 81), 93–4; Athenaeum 67 (1989), 34–5Google Scholar; op. cit. (n. 96), 111–14.

105 The four examples that he gives in op. cit. (n. 96), 112–14 are a particularly unfortunate choice. In the third, 2.17.13 (sic, not 3), he misreports the reading of C.

106 At 7.7 some descendants of [z15] read liberauerat with Λ (uindicauerat NP cett.). Without knowing them better I must suspend judgement, but I should expect the agreement to be coincidental in default of other evidence that the text of Λ reached Italy (except of course through e and k, which did not include anything of the Periochae).

107 On Harl. 6510, though, see my previous article (p. 481); N has it as part of the text. I thank John Briscoe for checking Rylands 48 here and at 61.6.

108 On Harl. 6510 and B.R. 36 see my previous article (p. 481); on S7, written by Francesco Contugi, de la Mare, op. cit. (n. 24), 494 no. 20 (6); and on Rylands 48 n. 69 above.

109 These errors, compounded at 110.5 (rostratae nauis for res rate) and 135 (gentes Alpinae), recur in another group of manuscripts that does not appear in Reid's stemma, the well-defined group that includes the editio princeps (Rome, c. 1469). Its earliest member may be B.L. Burn. 202 (s. xv1, Milanese according to Albinia de la Mare), which incidentally, like some descendants of [z15], reads liberauerat at Per. 7.7 (cf. n. 106). In my previous article (p. 484) I derived another member, B.L. Harl. 3694 (1470s, Florence), from Campano's edition (Rome, c. 1470), which was certainly one of its sources; but from about the end of Per. 49 its main source was a manuscript like Laur. 89 inf. 25. On the scribe see above, n. 24.

110 I simplify. After numbering 135 correctly, Kraków 416 has the numbers 136–7, 140, 141 altered to 151, and 152 (or 142 altered to 152); Edili 186 before correction gave the number 134 to 135 but then skipped the numbers 135–7 and so ended correctly with 138–42; and Marc. Lat. Z 368, which also gives the number 134 to 135, has hic deficit after it and again ends correctly with 138–42. The note after 135 that I reported from Valencia Univ. 482 in my previous article (n. 39), namely Hic deficiunt duo libri nec repperi quenquam habentem, also occurs in Florence Naz. Magl. XXIII 12 (chart. 1461, written at Florence by Iohannes Stagnensis), and like the Marcianus both derive from Reid's [z15].

111 Op. cit. (n. 3), 99–100.