¹ A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford 2 ii (Oxford, 1937), p. 1211, no. 8684*Google Scholar; I thank Bruce Barker-Benfield for showing me the draft of Madan's description, dated 6.12.1888 and made when the manuscript was called Add. B 53 (Manuscript Catalogue of MSS. Add. B, R 6 58/2 in Duke Humfrey's Library). For details about Thomas Marshall see p. 992 of the Summary Catalogue and D.N.B. 36 (1893), 247–8.Google Scholar

² Anna Maranini kindly told me that Leiden 760 D 13, a copy of Pricaeus' edition (Paris, 1635), has at the front three leaves of ‘Valentis Acidalii notae ineditae in L. Apuleii Apologiam priorum’; they must be the notes that Kristeller mentions in Iter Italicum, iv (London & Leiden, 1989), p. 377Google Scholar. Any notes on Apuleius at Leiden seemed unlikely to have escaped Oudendorp, and so it proved: in Oudendorp's posthumous edition (Leiden, 1786–1823), J. Bosscha claims to be publishing Acidalius' notes for the first time (ii.413, iii.553), by which he evidently means that unlike Gentilis he gives them in full and in Acidalius' own words. Bosscha led me to Gentilis.

³ See also Dihle, A. in the Neue deutsche Biographie, i (Berlin, 1953), p. 34Google Scholar and IJsewijn, J. in Die deutsche Literatur: Biographisches und bibliographisches Lexikon ii A 1–2 (Bern, 1985), pp. 74–92Google Scholar. I owe the latter reference to Gilbert Tournoy.

⁴ For this information too I thank Anna Maranini, who found the following note on the flyleaf of Leiden 754 G 37, a copy of Manilius (Heidelberg, 1590) owned by Hemsterhuis and one or other P. Burman: ‘Manilium promittit Acidalius in Curt. p. 57b’. By courtesy of Anthony Snodgrass I was able to consult a copy of Acidalius' notes on Curtius in the Fellows' Library at Clare.

⁵ The letter is Ep. LIII in the published collection, which omits ‘Vratislavia. Non. Octobr. M.D.XCIII. Tui amantissimus et studiosiss. Valentinus Acidalius’ before the last paragraph. Other letters are preserved at Leiden and at either West Berlin or Wroclaw, if not both; see Kristeller, , Iter Italicum, iii (London & Leiden, 1983), p. 499, iv.362, 432, 433.Google Scholar

⁶ ‘Scaliger and Manilius’, Mnem. 33 (1980), 177–9Google Scholar; pp. 223–4 of ‘Statius' Siluae in the Fifteenth Century’, CQ 71 (1977), 202–25Google Scholar; pp. 519–22 of ‘Some Astronomical Manuscripts’, CQ 74 (1980), 508–22Google Scholar; ‘Manilius’, in Texts and Transmission, ed. Reynolds, L. D. (Oxford, 1983), pp. 235–8Google Scholar; ‘The Marcianus of Manilius’, Vichiana n.s. 18 (1989), 171–6.Google Scholar

⁷ IJsewijn (n. 3), 73; B. Damcke, & Damcke, J., Leben des berühmten Joh. Friderici Gronovii (Hamburg, 1723), pp. 2–3Google Scholar, and Dibon, P., Bots, H. & Bots-Estourgie, E., Inventaire de la correspondance de Johannes Fredericus Gronovius (1631–1671) (The Hague, 1974), pp. 3–7.Google Scholar

⁸ C.L.M. 618 fo. 38r; see the Inventaire (n. 7), 494.

⁹ I am grateful to Bruce Barker-Benfield and Steven Tomlinson for their efforts.

¹⁰ Hoc, M., Étude sur J.-G. Gevaerts (Brussels, 1922), p. 168.Google Scholar

¹¹ Hoc, pp. 111–13 (cf. p. 35), 87–8, 125–6. By splitting his account of the feud with Tristan he fails to make it clear that between Tristan's first edition (1635) and his second (1644) Gevartius threatened Vindiciae Manlianae in his Pompa introitus…XV Kal. Mali ann. MDCXXXV (Antwerp, 1641), 136.Google Scholar

¹² See Heinsius' entertaining remarks in Burman's, Sylloge epistolarum (Leiden, 1727), iii. 139–40Google Scholar, the opening of a letter to Gronovius dated 10.1.1645. Blok, F. F., Nicolaas Heinsius in dienst van Christina van Zweden (Delft, 1949), p. 21Google Scholar, documents his visit to Belgium from unpublished letters.

¹³ Sylloge ii.763–5.

¹⁴ Hoc, p. 75 n. 2. A list of his manuscripts appears in Bodl. d'Orville 397 pp. 25–7, and J. U. Meurer's list in Rawl. D 192 fos. 103v–104r seems to be a copy.

¹⁵ Thomas, P., Lucubrationes Manilianae (Ghent, 1888), p. 13 n. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁶ In his very thorough book The Poems and Translations of Sir Edward Sherburne (1616–1702) excluding Seneca and Manilius (Assen, 1961)Google Scholar, F. J. van Beeck includes a life of Sherburne and a list of extant autographs. He recounts the misunderstanding with Bentley on pp. xxxv–xxxvi and dates the letter between 1692 and 1694. On the date of the Examen poeticum see Kinsley, J., The Poems of John Dryden (Oxford, 1958), iv.2020.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Beeck 152 n. 35.

¹⁸ Garrod should have blamed Bentley, not his nephew (pp. xliii, xc n. 1), for confusing Voss. Lat. O 18, his δ, with the Pithoeanus, his α: in the note where he tentatively and mistakenly identifies the former with Voss. Lat. O 3, Bentley calls it ‘δ Pithoei’. It does seem, though, that in crediting Bentley with two collations of G (p. xiv) his nephew misunderstood ‘γ notat MS Gemblacensem a me denuo collatum’.

¹⁹ Jacob, , De M. Manilio poeta particula altera: Liber tertius et quartus (Lübeck, 1835), 17 n. 4Google Scholar, and for the current shelfmark Verzeichniss der Handschriften im preussichen Staate I 1 (Berlin, 1893), 31Google Scholar; Breiter, , ed. I (Leipzig, 1907), iiiGoogle Scholar (‘quam collationem Vratislauiensem uocant’: who?), corrected by Thielscher, P., Philol. 82 (1927), 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garrod, p. xvii n. 6.

²⁰ Monk, J. H., The Life of Richard Bentley, D.D. (London², 1833), i.35 n. 26Google Scholar. Where is the copy now?

²¹ Index to the Additional Manuscripts with those of the Egerton Collection Preserved in the British Museum and Acquired in the Years 1783–1835 (London, 1849), p. 38.Google Scholar

²² Warner, G. F. & Gilson, J. P.. Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections (London, 1921), ii.396–7.Google Scholar

²³ He made it in his fifth edition of Tacitus (Antwerp, 1589) on p. 49 of the commentary.

²⁴ He incorporated from Wadham on 4 July 1689, reclaimed his caution money on 30 July 1690, and had left Oxford when Edward Bernard wrote to him on 20 December; see Gardiner, R. B., The Registers of Wadham College, Oxford Jrom 1613 to 1719 (London, 1889), p. 359Google Scholar, and Corresp. i. 12. The possibility that he began work on Manilius in 1689–90, despite the lack of evidence earlier than 1692, was aired by Garrod, pp. xc–xci (for ‘thirty’ read ‘forty’).

²⁵ Wordsworth omits ‘ϕ (notat) editionem principem in 4^to ex Biblioth. Arundeliana. Imo posterior est editione Bononiensi’. I take this opportunity of mentioning that what Garrod calls ‘the first Naples edition (1475)’, ‘the second Naples edition (1475–80)’, and ‘editio Neapolitana prior, 1475–80’ (pp. lxxvi, 155), are all the same, and that what he calls ‘the folio edition sine loco et anno’ (p. lxxvi n. 3) was obviously an incomplete copy of the ed. Bonon., the ed. Ven. 1499, or the ed. Rheg. 1503, whether or not the designation came ultimately from the Catalogus selectissimae bibliolhecae Nicolai Rossii (Rome, 1786), 68Google Scholar ‘Manilii Astronomicon et Arati Phenomenon, fol. sine loco et anno’. Cambridge U.L. Norton a 29, an incomplete copy of the ed. Rheg. 1503, would fit both this description and Garrod's.

²⁶ A Catalogue of the Adversaria and Printed Books Containing MS. Notes, Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1864), p. 57 (Oo V 8)Google Scholar; Beeck, op. cit. (n. 16), 147.

²⁷ Similarly, Garrod, p. lxxvi, read too much into Scaliger's remarks in his earlier edition about the influence of Bonincontrius.

²⁸ De M. Manilio poeta particula prior (Lübeck, 1832), p. 3Google Scholar n. c and particula altera: Liber tertius et quartus (Lübeck, 1835), p. 17Google Scholar n. 4. Dr Ursula Winter of the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek has kindly confirmed that the shelfmark is still the same.

²⁹ Ed. (Berlin, 1846), xiv.Google Scholar

³⁰ I quote what Ursula Winter kindly reports.

³¹ The Vossianus tertius still existed for Bechert, , Leipziger Studien, i (1878), pp. 14–15Google Scholar. Garrod, pp. xlv–xlvii, postulated a Vossianus tertius different from Jacob's and similar to Voss. Lat. O 18 (Jacob's Vossianus primus), but I showed in CQ 71 (1977), 224 n. 98Google Scholar that he was muddled, and predictably he also tied himself in knots by misapplying to his own Vossianus tertius what Jacob and Bechert had said about theirs.

³² Oates, J. C. T., A Catalogue of the Fifteenth-Century Books in the University Library Cambridge (Cambridge, 1954), p. 373 no. 2189.Google Scholar

³³ Withycombe, E. G., The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names (Oxford³, 1977), p. 94Google Scholar; Ekwall, E., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names (Oxford4, 1960), p. 416.Google Scholar

³⁴ There is a letter of 1632 in Add. 11759, which I have not inspected, but I did inspect a Flemish letter of 1664 preserved as Harl. 4933 fo. 59, and the unlabelled plates between pp. 92 and 93 of F. Silverijser's two–part article on Wendelinus, , Bull, de l'Inst. Arch. Liégeois 58 (1934), 91–158, 60 (1936), 137–90Google Scholar, apparently show him annotating copies of his own published works. The three letters that I have cited are absent from Silverijser's list of his correspondence (p. 96), nor did I notice any mention of Manilius in either part of the article.

³⁵ Mnem. 33 (1980), 179Google Scholar. The volumes were unknown to Hoc (n. 10) and Hoc's book to me.

³⁶ I ascribed this diagnosis to Anthony Grafton (n. 10), but it had already been made by Grayson, C., Diz. Biog. degli Ital. 12 (1970), 210.Google Scholar

³⁷ Subsequent catalogues of printed books in the Bodleian, (Oxford, 1738, 1843)Google Scholar register it under both Gevartius and Manilius. The internal date, 1656, is confirmed by a letter of 1.10.1656 sent to Gevartius by the censor; see p. 65 of Bentley's notebook.

³⁸ The volume had been inaccessible to readers because the catalogue gave its place and date of publication but not its shelfmark. The collation that it turned out to contain, mentioned by Goold on p. vii of his edition, has now been discussed by Taylor, Ruth, CQ 83 (1989), 454–7.Google Scholar

³⁹ Sherburne repeats the conjecture not only in Auct. O 5 19 but also in his interleaved volume, where he refers to 2.346, 466, 3.103, 117, 4.126, 5.52, 332, 334, 371. Knox, P. E., CQ 83 (1989), 564–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has made it again.

⁴⁰ His hand can also be seen in a letter written to Camden on 5.11.1618, preserved as B.L. Cotton Julius C V fo. 280 (formerly 133).

⁴¹ Kristeller, , Iter Italicum iv.56Google Scholar, describes the dedication as ‘signed at the end by Godefridus Wendelinus’.

⁴² Not surprisingly, there is some overlap. The notes include the conjecture terrae commercia at 1.88, followed by ‘nec male Acidalius Iter in’. Both conjectures appear in Auct. S 2 23, but the note on Acidalius' is longer.

⁴³ The letter from Sherburne that Vossius was answering survives as Amsterdam Univ. RK III E 10 fo. 136; see Beeck (n. 16), 147. Sherburne also kept a draft of his reply to Vossius, partially preserved as B.L. Sloane 836 fo. 46.

⁴⁴ For this information I thank Steven Tomlinson, who found it cited by Macray, W. D., Annals of the Bodleian (Oxford², 1890), p. 430Google Scholar. The catalogue of 1738 (cf. n. 37) has 22 Manilian entries with shelfmarks, some still current but others not; most of the volumes that I have mentioned are readily identifiable.

⁴⁵ Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne, iii, ed. Doble, C. E. (Oxford, 1889), p. 306.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Adv. d 44.5 appears under Manilius on fo. 126v of U.L. Oo 7 49, a handwritten catalogue of his quarto books; Luigi Lehnus kindly brought the catalogue to my attention. U.L. Inc. 3 B 3 134 [1827] should appear in the handwritten catalogue of his folio books, Bodl. Add. D 81*.

⁴⁷ I am much obliged to Ornella Bellavita and Luigi Lehnus for bringing the notebook to my attention. In a forthcoming article on Callimachus Professor Lehnus will explore Seller's connexions with Sherburne and Bentley.

I discussed parts of this article with Anna Maranini and Luigi Lehnus, whom I should like to thank for their comments.