¹ Ernout, A., Rev. de Phil. 35 (1961), 348;Google ScholarEnk, P.J., Latomus 21 (1962), 172.Google Scholar Similarly Bardon, H., REL 39 (1961), 345Google Scholar (‘une description … des manuscrits’); Gossage, A.J., CR 76 (1962), 214Google Scholar (‘all the extant manuscripts’); Kytzler, B., Gnomon 34 (1962), 567Google Scholar ( … hat Marastoni nun diesen ganzen Komplex sorgfaltig durchforscht’); Dilke, O.A.W., Phoenix 16 (1962), 132 (‘the manuscripts’).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² The landmarks in recensio before 1900 are Hand's unfinished edition (Leipzig, 1817), which drew together the material used by all the earlier editors, and Imhof's, A. dissertation P. Papinii Statii Ecloga ad Uxorem (Halle, 1863),Google Scholar which paved the way for all later investigators by making known nine of Klotz's eleven manuscripts and six others besides.

³ According to Frère, H., édition critique of Silvae (Paris, 1943), p. xvi,Google Scholar ‘on cite’ about thirty manuscripts; by my reckoning he mentions thirteen. For new information I am indebted, besides my own researches, to lists very kindly supplied by the I.R.H.T. and Professor A. Wasserstein; where these go beyond what I had discovered for myself, I make specific acknowledgement. Parm. Palat. Parm. 94, which I was told of by the I.R.H.T. and hung great hopes on because part of it dates from 1462, turned out to contain not Silvae but the Achilleid. Paris. Lat. 8274 fo. 140^v, which I learnt of from the same source, offers only 4.3.18–19 as an illustration of something in Suetonius’ life of Domitian; the date of this folio is shown by fos. 60–2 to be no earlier than 1462.

⁴ For three minor manuscripts I made do with less: a microfilm of UHI very kindly lent to me by Josef Delz had nothing of U between 1.3.75 and 5.5.6, nothing of H between 1.4.47 and 5.5.39, and nothing of I between 1.3.55 and 5.5.7. Professor Delz put me further in his debt by lending me complete microfilms of BSFKQC. For microfilms of other manuscripts I am obliged to their custodians, except that I was able to borrow a microfilm of the archetype from the library of Edinburgh University. Of the first four editions only a is not in the Bodleian; I was supplied with a microfilm by the Rylands Library, whose praises I have already had occasion to sing in Maia 27(1975), 232.

⁵ The exemplary latinity and lucidity of Klotz's preface are sadly lacking in Marastoni's, and empty phrases like ‘ne ab arte praeceptisve discedam’ occur more regularly than logical connections; but his stemma is clear enough.

⁶ de la Mare, A.C., The Handwriting of Italian Humanists I.i (Oxford, 1973), p.108 n.9.Google Scholar

⁷ Sinibaldus C. signed Laur. Faes. 43 (a. 1461), illustrated by Ullman, , the Origin and Development of Humanistic Script (Rome, 1960)Google Scholar plate 64, and wrongly ascribed by Ullman to Antonio Sinibaldi. Dr. de la Mare, who knows over twenty of his products, kindly tells me that S probably dates from about 1470. I am also indebted to Dr. de la Mare for the ascription of U to Riccius.

⁸ Cf. Morpurgo, S., Indici e Cataloghi XV.i.2 (Rome, 1893),Google Scholar incorporated in I manoscritti delta R. Biblioteca Riccardiana (Rome, 1900), p. 128.Google Scholar

⁹ For other examples of this procedure see Rizzo, Silvia, Il lessico filologico degli umanisti (Rome, 1973), p. 196Google Scholar n.l;add Chig. H VII 240, on which see Zwierlein, O., Der Terenzkommentar des Donat im codex Chipanus H VII 240 (Berlin, 1970), 7. One imagines that a chartaceus will not often have been copied in this way from a membranaceus.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Mazzatinti iv.214–15. Dr. R.D. Sider, who has kindly inspected the coat of arms for me, reports that nothing can be made out. The manuscript has been known for long enough: cf. Vollmer, p. 43 n.2, Sabbadini, , Riv. Fil. 27 (1899), 400–1, Klotz, p. xxxv n.l.Google Scholar

¹¹ I adopt the older foliation, whose only disadvantage is that it skips a leaf after fo. 90 and another after fo. 199. The newer foliation disguises the loss of fos. 80, 140–7 (fos. 146–7 Sidon. 1.1–2.72), 194 (14.21– 15.41), 206(22.167–218).

I owe my knowledge of X to Professor Wasserstein, who drew up a list of manuscripts in the 1950s when he was writing a commentary on Silvae I. For a this list is a very comprehensive piece of work, and his discovery of X fills me with admiration, because though the manuscript catalogue of the Fondo Conv. Sopp. of course includes it (microfilm in the Bodleian) the index does not.

In Ausonius it is presumably the source not only of Urb. Lat. 649 (U in Silvae) but also of Magi. VII 315 and Vat. Barb. Lat. 150 (olim 1472), see Schenkl, , Ausonii Opuscula (Mon. Germ. Hist. V.2, Berlin, 1883) xxv.Google Scholar Vat. Barb. Lat. 150, written by Cinico, is discussed and illustrated by de Marinis, T., Ital. Med. e Uman. 5 (1962), 181 + plate xv.Google Scholar

In Sidonius it has the same order and many of the same omissions as T = Laur. 45.23 (s. xii)f on which see Luetjohann's edition (Mon. Germ. Hist. VIII, Berlin, 1887) xiii–xiv; unlike T, it omits 21.Google Scholar

¹² Two possible Dominici known to Dr. de la Mare are Dominicus Brasichillensis, who signed Laur. 51.7 (a. 1456) and Laur. 89 sup. 30, and Dominicus Carrolus, who signed Brux. 14602 (a. 1458–72) and Taurin. Bibl. Nat. H III 11, she thinks they may be the same person. I have compared with both and am not eager to identify him with either. Dominicus Brasichillensis however, had connections with Poggio. He translated Poggio De mirabilibus mundi into Italian (Magi. XXIV 163, written in a hand like that of Dominicus Carrolus), owned Laur. 90 sup. 31, which comprises six of his works, and bought Vat. Ross. 500 from him in 1454; cf. Ruysschaert, J., Scriptorium 15 (1961), 213. I am grateful to Dr. de la Mare for this information.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ de la Mare, A.C., The Handwriting of Italian Humanists I.i (Oxford, 1973), 119.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The majority could have come from an edition, but not e.g. 1.1.38 praetendens, 43 e tergo, 1.2.12 lumina, 98 et tibi, 1.3.94 argetius, 1.4.27 potus.

¹⁵ On the date of S see n.7. U cannot be later than 1474, when Fridericus Comes became Fridericus Dux.

¹⁶ Walser, E., Poggius Florentinus. Leben und Werke (Leipzig and Berlin, 1914), p. 421Google Scholar no. 59, ‘astronomicon cum multis aliis in papiro coopertum corio albo’. Cf. Müller, B.A.BPhW 37 (1917), 463–4.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Two scholars who remain unconvinced are Rizzo, Silvia, Il lessico filologico degli umanisti (Rome, 1973), pp. 155–61,Google Scholar and Lotito, G., Atene e Roma 19 (1974), 29–36.Google Scholar Rizzo maintains that there is no evidence for Poggio's ownership of M (p.159), when in fact it has long been recognized that he annotated Silvae: see the illustration of the first page at the back of Klotz's edition and cf. Loewe ap. Hartel, W. von, Bibliotbeca Patrum Latinorum Hispaniensis (Vienna, 1887), pp.418–19,Google Scholar Klotz, ed., pp. xlviii–xlix and BPhW 30 (1910) 925–7,Google ScholarDunston, A.J., BICS 14 (1967), 99–100Google Scholar n.4, de la Mare, A.C., The Handwriting of Italian Humanists I.i (Oxford, 1973), 65Google Scholar n.ll, 73 n.3. If anyone still leans to the view espoused by Marastoni, that Politian collated the exemplar of M, a question put to Phillimore by Garrod, , CR 26 (1912), 262–3,Google Scholar is worth repeating. ‘M … was written by a scribe who, to say no worse of him, was no scholar. Politian was the foremost scholar of his age, with the widest knowledge of MSS. If they both had before them the original Constance MS., how comes it that the collation of the great Politian differs only in a few letters, and nowhere in any point of importance [in a footnote he excepts 1.4.86a and 5.S.24–7, the latter of which has been disposed of once and for all by Rizzo pp. 240–1], from the copy given to us by our “ignorantissimus omnium viventium”?’

¹⁸ On the decoration see Pächt, O. and Alexander, J.J.G., Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library Oxford ii (Oxford, 1970), 25Google Scholar no.247. I owe my information about the scribe to Dr. de la Mare, who tells me that he also wrote Oxon. Line. 45 ('Vespasianus librarius Florentinus fecit scribi Florentiae’ opposite fo. 1^r) and 44, Harl. 3261, and Edinb. Univ. 200, and was lot in Florence before the 1450s.

¹⁹ Cf. Lotito, G., Atene e Roma 19 (1974), 26–8.Google Scholar

²⁰ 1.2.4 quacumque, 168 ut, 2.3.51 ut, 5.2.3 -antur, 5.3.165 Alciade.

²¹ I should like to know more about the credentials of 1.1.2 peractum in M, which is not in either F or R.

²¹ de la Mare, A.C., The Handwriting of Italian Humanists l.i (Oxford, 1973), 108 n.9.Google Scholar

²³ This is Dr. de la Mare's inference from the illumination and the script, and something else can be said for it: R also contains parts of the Appendix Vergiliana, where its closest relative, A = Arundelianus 133, is without much doubt Paduan (1458–65); cf.Maia 27 (1975), 231 n.2.Google Scholar

²⁴ Dionisotti, C., Ital. Med. e Uman. 11 (1968), 180–3;Google Scholar cf. Dunston, A.J., BICS 14 (1967), 101 n.12.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ruysschaert, J., Miniaturistes ‘romains’ sous Pie II, in linea Silvio Piccolomini–Papa Pio II (Siena, 1968), p. 275.Google Scholar

²⁶ e.g. 5.5.31 nee diurno G nee eburno 1.

²⁷ Cf. Terzaghi, N., SIFC 11 (1903), 420Google Scholar no.54. C is mentioned by Thielscher, , Philologus 66 (1907), 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ At 1.4.29 C has a lacuna where MG have orsa. This would be of no consequence but that F omits orsa. Holding as I do that F and γ were copied independently from M, I am bound to invoke coincidence, and I have no compunction about doing so, because even with the aid of Marastoni's φ coincidence cannot be circumvented in any simple way.

²⁹ D is mentioned by Mueller, O., Quaestiones Statianae (Berlin, 1861), pp. 4–5,Google ScholarImhof, , op. cit. (n.2), pp. 3–4,Google Scholar Vollmer, p. 39. It omits 2.6.39–42 dubiis … qualis and 3.5.102 and repairs at the foot of the page the omission of 1.1.44 (om. EK), 1.2.3, 1.4.86a, 2.2.78.

³⁰ E omits 1.1.44 (om. DK), 1.3.67–8, 4.3.130.

³¹ Cf. the catalogue of C. Iannellius (Naples, 1827) 170. N is mentioned by Imhof, op. cit. (n.2), p. 2 + n.5, Vollmer, p. 39. It omits 1.2.154, 2.7.86, 3.5.50–3 (the last with Q, but through homoeoteleuton), and repairs in the margin the omission of 1.3.106, 2.1.71, 173. After 1.4.130 it adds sed tanten ut fuso taurorum sanguine centum (Ovid, Trist. 2.75) and then repeats 130. 1.3.4–59 follow 1.4.8 on fo. 10, which should precede fo. 9.

³¹ Cf. Mazzatinti xxii.149. With the exception of 1.4.86a, O repairs in the margin all its omissions: 1.1.51, 1.2.12–13, 34, 86–7, 100, 163, 234, 2.2.73, 3.1.123. A different hand or the same one at a later date has added 1.6.22–3 at the foot of the page.

³³ 1.4.9–2 follow 1.5.12 on fos. 92–3, which should precede fo. 86.

³⁴ Because it contains an epigram comosed by Paulus Aemilius Buccabella, de Nolhac, P., La Bibliotbèque de Fulvio Orsini (Paris, 1887), p. 362Google Scholar n.51, ascribed to him Vat. Lat. 3272, V of Aetna. The hand of O, however, wrote not this manuscript of Aetna but another, Vat. Lat. 3255; I have photocopies of both. Nolhac's ascription may be right and mine wrong if Zabughin, V., Giulio Pomponio Leto (Rome, 1909–1912) ii.67–8,Google Scholar is right in ascribing Vat. Lat. 3255 to Laelius Antonius Augustus on the strength of an autograph in Vat. Lat. 5337, which I have not seen; but the date of this autograph is 1500 (ibid. i.209). Here are the two epigrams in O.

Ingenio quantum haec celeri composta

feruntur,

praecipiti tantum scripta fuere manu.

aspicis errores, veniam concede: vetustas

temporis has mendas, non mea dextra tulit.

praeterea in Silvis cui non errare licebit

cum soleat nostrum fallere campus iter?

Quam cultus Danais et formidatus Achilles,

carus Amynthoridae quam fuit usque suo,

tam mihi grata mei venerandaque numina

Pauli

et constans placida cum pietate fides;

et quantum ingenio formaque excesserat

annos

Aeacides, tantum Paulus et ipse suos.

ergo qui veterem probat et miratur Achillem

viventem Paulum diligat ille meum.

³⁵ Nolhac, p. 200 n.4, Mercati, p. 81.

³⁶ Simar, Th., Musée Belge 14 (1910), 182–3.Google Scholar

³⁷ Op. cit. (n.25), pp. 275, 269.Google Scholar The statement in the life is not the only difficulty for Mercati: a marginal note on Theb. 12.481–4 reads ‘talis est noster princeps Paulus II pont.’ (Zabughin, ii.25), and who would have copied this after 26 July 1471 without altering ‘est’ to ‘fuit’? I observe too that Mercati has to place in 1473 Perottus’ letter to Francesco Guarnerio, in which he speaks of something that ‘nuper in Marco et Papinio fecimus’ (p. 91); Torre, A. Delia, Storia dell' Accademia Platonica di Firenze (Florence, 1902) p. 15n., makes a better case for 1471 (or rather 1470–1: cf. Mercati, p. 91 n.3), and preconceptions about the date of P do not enter into it.Google Scholar

³⁸ Errors perhaps due to the appearance of G occur in D at 3.2.49 (pare ^c toniis G palectoniis D G) and in E at 35 (geminoque hic G geminoque vehit E G) and 90 (petent^eq G petentque E).

³⁹ At 1 praef. 23, iniunxeras has been added for clarification in the margin of M to the right of iniunxeras scis (or whatever the scribe thought he was writing), which ends a line. The scribes of F and X inferred, as anyone might, that scis was to be ignored, and it is absent from a. Readings that point to M itself are 1 praef. 8 Batr- (Vatr- FX), 20 postero die (postera die E, postridie F), 1.1.1 geminata (gemmata EF), 6 effigere (effinxere EmX).

⁴⁰ The first signs of kinship with γ in general are 1.1.33 superfulgens and 37 laevam, with DE 40 laeta and 52 acasteus, with E in particular 1.2.144 vas (for iam) and 148 nec Libycus; readings from the better manuscript crop up after 1.1.33 at 44 (om. DE), 1.3.9 tecum, 1.6.22–3 (om. γ), 3.2.10 vobis, 13 ponti, 76 hiems (all om. γ), and perhaps in other parts of the text that I have not collated. The source of a could admittedly have been copied from M or something similar up to about 1.1.30 and then from a manuscript like E with occasional corrections from M; but it is simpler to suppose that the copying was consistent and the correction at first thorough but then, through lack of time or energy, sporadic.

Two of the omissions in a, 1.3.67–8 and 4.3.130, occur in E, and the muddle in a at 1.2.216–17 (Marastoni, p. xliv n.l) reflects the transposition of 216 and 217 in DE.

⁴¹ The explanation of this amazing supplement is that the scribe of M, wishing to indicate that he had copied the gap from his exemplar, wrote spatium in the margin. Its incorporation in the text cannot be blamed on the scribe of ρ, because it is not in R.

⁴² The case is strengthened if readings of Eab or DEab are added, e.g. 1.2.60 repserunt deprenso, 119 flammiferas, 3.2.143 claudit.

⁴³ Cf. Imhof, , op. cit. (n.2), p. 4,Google Scholar and Dionisotti, C., Ital. Med. e Uman. 11 (1968), 181.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Klotz might have been slower to maintain that G + G² was the chief source of HIKQ if he had not misapprehended the origin of fervent (p. xxiv): ‘1.2.231 cum Q exhibeat et fervent, nota marginis G quae spectat ad v.230 fervent [fervet G cett.] perperam in sequentem versum inlata est’. Another objection to Klotz's view is that Q, written in 1463, has readings of G² that were not copied by 1, written c. 1470 (cf. Marastoni, p. xxiii).

⁴⁵ Emendatio is not the business of this article, but now that I have touched on the competence of editors I cannot resist saying a word about one passage that falls within the stretches of text that I have collated. 1.2.260–5

at te nascentem gremio mea prima recepit Parthenope, dulcisque solo tu gloria nostro reptasti. nitidum consurgat ad aethera

tellus

Eubois et pulchra tumeat Sebethos alumna, nec sibi sulpureis Lucrinae Naides antris nec Pompeiani placeant magis otia Sarni. ‘You were born on the banks of Sebethos, which should be proud of you, and may the Lucrine lake and the Sarnus at Pompeii not appeal more to themselves.’ So M, followed by Marastoni and others, while bNO², followed by Markland, read tibi. How long will Markland's note fall on deaf ears? ‘Vide enim constructionem: nec Lucrinae Naides magis sibi placeant antris sulfureis: hucusque recte et ordine omnia: iam pergas; nec otia Pompeiani Sarni: quid turn? nihil, nisi intelligas magis sibi placeant. qua re sibi placeant? an sulfureis antris? hoc enim solum restat; quod vides quam absurdum sit. Mitto quod versu priore dixisse debuit, nec Lucrinus magis sibi placeat suis nymphis, quam Sebetos sua alumna: non, nec Lucrinae Naides magis sibi placeant sulfureis antris.’ Statius himself provides support for tibi in similar contexts at the end of two other poems, 2.2.110–11, quoted by Markland in an intelligible form but not so printed by Marastoni, and 3.1.182–3 (generic critics can doubtless tell us whether the associations of the are primarily prosphonematic, propemptic, or genethliac); but from sibi to tibi, from nonsense to sense, is a long jump, and of course anyone who makes it fully deserves a reputation for recklessness.

⁴⁶ N has picked up grandis but leaves the rest as it stands.

⁴⁷ Cf. Mandarini, E., I codici manoscritti delta Biblioteca Oratoriana di Napoli (Naples, 1897), pp. 34–5. The mere description establishes its source, as Hand seems to have seen (p. xxv).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ I owe my information about the scribe to Dr. de la Mare. My assertion about the sources of the manuscript rests partly on a photograph of fo. l^r that she has shown me, partly on readings cited by Gronovius. Cf. Bandini's, catalogue ii (1775), 263.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cf. Elter, A. and Klotz, , BPhW 25 (1905), 1100–2,Google Scholar and Bohigas, P., Biblioteconomia 1 (1944), 86.Google Scholar Dr. Ramón Baltar of Santiago de Compostela greatly obliged me by obtaining permission from the owner, the Marquis of Campo-Franco, for the manuscript to be microfilmed, and the Marquis reported shortly afterwards that the filming had been carried out, but unfortunately I have not received the results. The Marquis kindly pointed out that the manuscript had been inspected by G. Colom and M. Dolç when they were editing Silvae. Their edition, with Catalan translation (3 vols., Barcelona, 1957–60), has remained quite unknown; thanks to Dr. Baltar I now own what I should like to think is the only copy on this side of the Pyrenees. One of the few respects in which it differs from Frère's edition is that they give the content of the Palmensis in vol. i, p. 36 n.l, and cite it in their apparatus. Despite several disagreements I regard its derivation from a as certain; no doubt it was transcribed from a corrected copy of a.

⁵⁰ Cf. Nolhac, , Mél. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 6 (1886), 142–5.Google Scholar Selected passages were inspected for Heinsius by O. Falconerius (cf. Syll. V.532–7), whose reports, entered in the margin of Heinsius's letter, lie behind all published readings; the autograph is in Diez B Sant. 81 in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Berlin, and I have consulted a copy made by Burman in Bodl. d'Orville 191. The only reading that does not appear in c is 1.2.41 licuit (b), which I dare say is not the reading of the first hand.

⁵¹ Readings are given in the edition of Amar and Lemaire (Paris, 1825), and besides many passed on by c to later editions they include 1.2.83 urgendum (urgendem c, urgentem cett. codd. et edd.). I should add that the ‘ed. Rom.’ cited by Amar and Lemaire is not the original edition of 1475 but the reprint of c. 1481–2, which has the same subscription (B.M.C. vii.1145–6).Google Scholar

⁵² e.g. 1.2.103 finis erat, 1.3.5 aestu, 94 argetius (X²), 3.5.32 doleres. Cf. Inventario e stima delta Libreria Riccardi (Florence, 1810), p. 18.Google Scholar

⁵³ ‘Florentine MS. of c. 1480–90; same scribe as Laur. Strozzi 94’ (Dr. de la Mare). A few of the conjectures may have nothing to do with Politian, e.g. 1.4.62 hic antiqua vides, 3.4.97 hic, 5.3.132 verus, 5.5.84 (solebam). The manuscript is mentioned by Vollmer, p. 39 n.l.

⁵⁴ Readings are given by Amar and Lemaire (cf. n.51), and Professor Wasserstein has kindly lent me his photographs of the manuscript, which has a redeeming interest that I shall mention in a moment. The ed. Vic. 1481 is a conflation of abc, and no other edition resembles it; one distinctive reading is 1 praef. 24 cclxxvii.

⁵⁵ Cf. Tullia Gasparrini Leporace, ‘I manoscritti Capilupiani della Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma’, Guida storica e bibliografica degli archivi e delle biblioteche d'Italia 5 (1939), 34. Readings from book 5 are given in Queck's edition (Leipzig, 1854). The source is established by a number of misprints, e.g. 1 praef. 23 iniungeras.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. Skutsch, F., Jahrb. fur class. Phil. 39 (1893), 483.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ 67 famosusque … servat, 85 traderis orsus (Avantius). The excerpt was discovered by Reitzenstein, who collated it for Skutsch; cf. op. cit., p. 469Google Scholar n.1. Skutsch did not realize that it was just an excerpt; at least I presume, since fo. 21^v is blank, that the text does not continue after the inserted ‘cahier’ (fo. 22) spoken of by Nolhac, , La Bibliothèque de Fulvio Orsini (Paris, 1887), p. 374 n.202. The manuscript was first brought to my attention by Professor Wasserstein.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ At 4.1 tit. Gronovjus has transposed the readings of D and S.

⁵⁹ Cf. Bruun, C., Johan Rode (Copenhagen, 1893), pp. 80–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Werlauff, E.C., Historiske Efterretninger om det store Kongelige Bibliothek i Kiøbenbavn (Copenhagen, 1844), p. 33 n.k.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Bodl. d'Orville 486, fo. 63; cf. Gaisford's catalogue of the d'Orvilliani (Oxford, 1806), p. 6.Google Scholar

⁶² To judge from a note by d'Orville on the flyleaf, they are in the hand of Drakenborch himself.

⁶³ ‘Cod. Drakenborch. Aristeus’ at 1.1.52 according to Hand, but the note on Adrastaeus in Bodl. d'Orville 327 reads simply -teus.

⁶⁴ Cf. Dunston, A.J., Ital. Med. e Uman. 11 (1968), 74–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Cf. Marastoni, p. lxxxiv.

⁶⁶ Lungo, I. del, Florentia (Florence, 1897), pp. 176–7;Google ScholarStocchi, Pastore, op. cit. (p. 205), p. 40 n.3.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ My colleague Nigel Wilson tells me that it will shortly be published by a pupil of A. Perosa.

⁶⁸ I am not convinced that he had much to do with the annotations in Flor. Nat. B 4 13 (ed. Flor. 1480), attributed to Antonio Benivieni (1443–1502) by Pugliese, Olga Zorzi, La biblioftlia 72 (1970), 37–52.Google Scholar Incidentally, Benivieni owned a ‘Statius in papiro', almost certainly Silvae, in 1487 (ibid. 44).

⁶⁹ In my opinion, though not in Wasserstein's, the same hand wrote both text and commentary.

⁷⁰ I owe the attribution to Dr. de la Mare.

⁷¹ It is a conflation of a and the ed. Ven. 1475, with more than its share of misprints. Bartolomeo Fonzio was involved in its production; cf. Nesi, E., Il diario delta Stamperia di Ripoli (Forence, 1903), pp. 46–7 no. LII.Google Scholar

⁷² Any inquiry into Laetus' work on Silvae would also have to take account of ‘le poche glosse a penna, di mano del Leto, sparse nell’ esemplare corsiniano delle “Selve” di Stazio, edite nel 1475 dal Calderini’, mentioned by Zabughin, , op. cit. (n.34) i.263.Google Scholar

⁷³ At 1.4.64 damnantis is actually in the text.

⁷⁴ e.g. 1.2.244 tinxit (Guyet).

⁷⁵ Cf. Hand, pp. xlvii–xlviii; ‘annotationes incipiunt a v.91 carm. 3 libri primi, et non tan turn multas bonas explicationes continent, sed etiam lectiones e codicibus scriptis, ut videtur, depromptas’. Of the two copies mentioned in Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, Beiheft xxxv (1909), 216Google Scholar no. 3861, it is presumably the one in the Universitätsbibliothek. I cannot find anything more informative about Amiterninus than Dragonetti, A., Le vite degli illustri Aquilani (Aquila, 1847), pp. 39–42.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Ven. c. 1481–2 (B.M.C. vii. 1145–6).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Avantius' epilogue is dated mcccclxxxviii, but an x must have fallen out, because some of his alterations correct misprints peculiar to the ed. Ven. 1494, e.g. 1.1.64 continuis, 1.2.79 summam, 92 firmavitque, 227 mic thyrsos. Cf. Hand, p. xxxv.

⁷⁸ e.g. per auras (ed. Ven. 1475), 1.2.225 ingressi (ingressa a, ed. Ven. 1475, ed. Flor. 1480), 1.3.63 damnat (damnet eaedem), 3.1.97 suaderet (ed. Flor. 1480), 138 divis (ed. Flor. 1480). Until recently I wondered whether these readings might be found together in a precursor of the ed. Flor. 1480, published c. 1475–6 (Reichling, no. 334, Goff, S–699); but I have now examined the copy at Harvard, and it turns out to be the ed. Ven. 1475 (I see too late that Goff has entered a correction to this effect in his new edition).

⁷⁹ Professor Delz thinks he may be Petrus Marsus, because the note refers to his commentary (ed. pr. Ven. 1483) and the hand could be his.

⁸⁰ Also in the Capilupianus.

⁸¹ One reading recurs in the margin of Rice. 712, 1.3.5 aestu.

⁸² Parco, F. lo, Aulo Giano Parrasio (Vasto, 1899), pp 13, 19, 101, 120, 134, 147.Google Scholar

⁸³ Welsh, M., Class. et Med. 28 (1967), 300 + n.38.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Kristeller, , Iter Italicum 1 (1963), 400.Google Scholar Cf. Abbamondi, A., Le Selve di P. Papinio Stazio ed un commento inedito di Giano Aulo Parrasio (Naples, 1906), especially pp. 48–52.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Parco, Lo, op. cit. (n.82) pp. 101, 177–8.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Abbamondi, , op. cit. (n.84) p. 80.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cf. Müller, B.A., BPhW 37 (1917), 463–4.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Others who claim to know more about Calderinus' work on Silvae than his edition reveals are Avantius, who says in his preface and epilogue that most of his corrections were not unknown to ‘Domitius meus’ (they both came from Verona) but were ignored or botched by the printer, and whoever was the authority for the note in Bodl. Auct. N inf. 2 27 that he ‘saw’ the additional verse cederet atque tibi servatos viveret annos after 1.1.28.

⁸⁹ Cf. Ellis, R., Noctes Manilianae (Oxford, 1891), p. 232 n.l: ‘alaterxvth century hand’.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Cf. Garrod, , Manili Astronomicon liber II (Oxford, 1911), p. xxxv.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Cf. Hartel, , op. cit., pp. 418, 454 n.l.Google Scholar

⁹² So does Luc. 1756, which was no more than a name to Clark; and the subscription of another ‘melior’, Pistor. Fabr. 319 (Clark, p. xxi), is very similar to that in Harl. 5238.

⁹³ Dr. de la Mare tells me, however, that Laur. 54.29 was written by the scribe of Vat. Lat. 1613; cf. under (a).

⁹⁴ Marucchi, A., Studi e Testi 237 (1964), 76 no. 100.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ This information comes from Dr. de la Mare.

⁹⁶ Again I owe this information to Dr. de la Mare, who also attributes to him Mus. Brit. Add. 24894 (Asconius) and Burn. 206.

⁹⁷ Cf. Thielscher, , Rh. Mus. 62 (1907), 46–53, 485–6;Google ScholarGarrod, , op. cit. (n.90), p. lvii;Google Scholar Housman, ed.² (Cambridge, 1937), V.xvi. On the presence of the Cusanus at Basel see Sabbadini, , Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne' secoli XIV e XV II (Florence, 1914), pp. 20–1.Google Scholar Did it come from Speier? ‘M. Manilii Stronomicon liber primus sic incipit et est in bibliotheca Spirensi’ Parm. 283, fo. 37^v; cf. Kristeller, , Iter Italicum 2 (1967), 46.Google Scholar

Some of the annotations in M that bring it into line with the other branch of the tradition are in the hand of Niccoli (I have consulted Housman's photographs in Cambridge University Library, 899 a 400). If the Marcianus was their source, therefore, not only must it antedate Niccoli's death (1437), but M can hardly have been back in Poggio's possession by 1430, a possibility I mentioned in (3), because the Council of Basel did not begin until 1431. After 1431 Poggio could most easily have recovered M during his stay in Florence from summer 1434 to April 1436; cf. Walser, p. 164.

⁹⁸ Besides those mentioned by Thielscher, , Philologus 66 (1907), 126–9,CrossRefGoogle Scholar Garrod, p. lv, Housman, p. xvii, I have come across Paris. Nouv. Acq. Lat. 483, membr. (a. 1461), on which see Delisle, L., Nouvelles acquisitions 1875–1891 ii (Paris, 1891), 391,Google Scholar and Matr. 4252 (olim M 175), on which see Pellegrin, E., Bull, d'lnf, de l'I.R.H.T. 2 (1953), 9.Google Scholar

I take the opportunity of mentioning that despite Garrod, p. xlv, the manuscript collated by Is. Vossius in Bod. Auct. 0 5 17 (ed. Bonon. 1474) is Leid. Voss. Lat. 0 18; 2.716–17 are omitted not by the manuscript but by the edition. A volume of greater interest in the Bodleian is Auct. S 6 12, the very copy of his first edition that Scaliger submitted with corrections to the printer of his second.

⁹⁹ According to Sabbadini, , Storia e critica di testi latini (ed.²Padua, 1971), p. 165,Google Scholar Decembrio composed the work ‘verso il 1447'. Smith, L.F., Manuscripta 10 (1966), 94, suggests for no very good reason that Fr. Patricius modelled poems on Silvae in the 1450s; he seems unaware that the text was only just beginning to circulate.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Lotito, G., Atene e Roma 19 (1974), 31;Google Scholar cf. Frère, , édition critique (Paris, 1943), p. xlix.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ I have nothing to add about K (except that the letter to Panormita on fo. 91^r seems to be unpublished). EOPc include ‘Neapoltani’ in the title, and E draws attention in the margin to passages from which it appears that Statius was born at Naples. Someone has written ‘Neapolitanus fuit Statius’ in the margin of M itself at 3.5.78 and a note to the same effect on 3 praef. 26.

¹⁰² Marastoni does not mention that Nolhac, , La Bibliothèque de Fulvio Orsini (Paris, 1887), p. 241,Google Scholar followed by Cian, V., Giorn. Stor. della Lett. Ital. 31 (1898), 67,Google Scholar attributed Q to Bernardo Bembo, who was in Venice or at any rate no further away than Padua when it was written (cf. Cian, pp. 71–5). The attribution is rightly contested by Delz, , Ital. Med. e Uman. 9 (1966), 429.Google Scholar Professor Delz tells me that the decoration strikes him as Roman, which is confirmed by what I have learnt from Dr. de la Mare about the scribe: he wrote Lond. V. & A. L.1769–1952 at Rome in 1465 and Phillippicus 829 (lot 467 at Sotheby's on 25 Nov. 1969) at Rome in 1460.

The date ‘xx decemb. 1463’ appears at the end, and according to Nolhac ‘tout au bas du frontispice, on distingue: 26 oct. 1462’ (no mention of this in Marastoni, p. xiii n.l). The foot of the page seems to have been trimmed, but even from micro– film I am fairly confident that 1462 should be 1463.