¹ This is something of a pity. The text falls into two parts, each of which would benefit from a fresh assessment. The ‘shorter Placidus’ glosses have been valued highly, and perhaps overvalued, as a source of information about Republican Latinity, while the much-denigrated ‘longer Placidus’ notes offer a fascinating, if often eccentric, document of Imperial Latin scholarship. Representative assessments of each part are on offer in Lindsay, W.M., ‘The shorter glosses of Placidus’, Journal of Philology 34 (1918), 255–66Google Scholar.

² J.W. Pirie and W.M. Lindsay (edd.), Glossaria latina iussu Academiae Britannicae edita IV: Placidus, Festus (Paris, 1930). An accurate judgement is expressed by J.E.G. Zetzel, Critics, Compilers, and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 bce–800 ce (New York, 2018), 239: ‘Goetz did not try to reconstruct a single version of this [text]; Lindsay tried and failed.’ See also Stok, F., ‘Su alcune glosse di Placido’, Orpheus 8 (1987), 87–101, at 87–9Google Scholar, with references to further bibliography, to which one may add Lindsay (n. 1) for illumination of that scholar's priorities in the Placidus, and Whatmough, J., ‘Review of The Bronze Tables of Iguvium by James Wilson Poultney’, CPh 55 (1960), 282–4Google Scholar for further insight into the history of the edition of Placidus for Lindsay's series.

³ CGL 5.vi: ‘Saeculo decimo quinto harum glossarum codex ex nescio qua biblioteca protractus est, qui cuius aetatis fuerit ignoramus; ex illo quotquot nunc exemplaria exstant ducta sunt omnia, cum ipse misero fato perierit.’

⁴ Dorez, L., ‘Latino Latini et la Bibliothèque Capitulaire de Viterbe (2^e article)’, Revue des bibliothèques 5 (1895), 237–55Google Scholar, at 246–7. See also L. Buono, R. Casavecchia, M. Palma and E. Russo (edd.), I manoscritti datati delle province di Frosinone, Rieti e Viterbo (Florence, 2007), 147, with plate 24 (fol. 98v, explicit of Fulgentius).

⁵ These are Auson. (Epigrams) 13.59 Green (Armatam uidit Venerem Lacedemona [sic] Pallas); ‘Quidam in quandam statuam marmoream fractam pulcherrimam in pala[…]’ beginning Veneri uixi aemula and published as being ‘in horto ducali’ at Pesaro by F. Sweerts, Selectae Christiani orbis deliciae (Cologne, 1608), 127; an unidentified poem beginning Quod genus hoc hominum? quae corpora? gracius una; ‘Hectoris epitaphyum’ beginning Defensor patriae iuuenum fortissimus Hector; ‘Achillis Epitaphyum’ beginning Pellides ego sum Tethidis notissima proles.

⁶ Dorez (n. 4), 247 noted only a single fifteenth-century hand; the annotators are discussed more extensively below.

⁷ The identification of Latini's hand was reported already by Dorez (n. 4), 247. On Latini generally, see Ceresa, M., ‘Latini, Latino’, DBI 64 (2005), 14–16Google Scholar.

⁸ R. Sabbadini, Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV, 2 vols. (Florence, 1905–1914), 1.134 with n. 34, 2.231.

⁹ J.W. Pirie, ‘New evidence for the text of Placidus’, ALMA 2 (1926), 185–90, at 186. His ‘new evidence’ was Vat. lat. 1469, a collection of grammatical and glossographical extracts that was known to Goetz but not used by him (see CGL 5.xviii–xix). There is no mention of R in Pirie and Lindsay (n. 2), Stok (n. 2), Gatti, P., ‘Trasmissione di alcuni testi lessicografici’, Filologia mediolatina 9 (2002), 1–14Google Scholar.

¹⁰ A small number of errors were removed by conjecture especially in the sixteenth-century apographs: e.g. 11.7 dixerint] dixerunt RT, evidently corrected by WY on the basis of quamuis, and 30.12 genere neutro] genere neutri RT. Goetz's apparatus criticus provides a convenient repository of individual errors of TWY.

¹¹ We will gladly supply our evidence to any reader not inclined to take this part of our claim on faith.

¹² For the utility of this practice in eliminating derivative manuscripts, see M.D. Reeve, Manuscripts and Methods: Essays on Editing and Transmission (Rome, 2011), 155.

¹³ Placidus 41.6 is the last complete note on R fol. 89v; W adds 41.2 in contextu after that entry. The addition of Placidus 12.18 in the lower margin of W, below 12.24, is consistent with the copyist having noticed the omission after copying all of R fol. 75v, on which the last complete note is Placidus 13.7: having written two full pages in W, that copyist wrote 12.24 in slightly smaller lettering in the lower margin, at the point nearest to its proper location.

¹⁴ If our explanation of the transpositions of Placidus 12.18 and 41.2 is correct, there can be no doubt that W was copied directly from R.

¹⁵ Since this habit provides significant information about the antigraph of W, we provide a fuller list of these readings here. W preserves the uncorrected reading of R along with its correction in the following passages (= R^acW^ac): 11.12 calciamenti] calciamentum; 12.4 argentarius qui] qui argentarius; 12.19 caries enim] ut nouum lemma; 15.2 acraneorum] sacraneorum; 16.25 dumosum] ut nouum lemma; 21.28 Efflictim] efflictam; 21.29 Exanclata] exanglata; 27.9 candenti designare] designare candenti; 28.38 Iterant] interant; 29.43 Lorarius] lolararius; 31.2 herbi] herbae. In the following passages W preserves the uncorrected reading of R without its correction (= R^acW): 5.36 inante uadit] idest in ante uadit; 19.13 exertus] expertus; 27.19 emhiteus] emhites; 29.15 Inter stat] inter est stat.

¹⁶ Similarly, Placidus 15.29 (erit uel exit] erit R : al’ exit R²) and 33.14 (fingitur uel fungitur] fungitur R : uel fin R²). The hand that wrote praecipitabantur in R is very similar to the original hand. The temptation to regard it as a variant entered by collation should be resisted. Although praecipitabantur is found in other versions of Placidus edited by Goetz, we have found no evidence elsewhere for the variants exit and fingitur; if they are not purely conjectural, they may well have been found in the antigraph of R.

¹⁷ J. Gruter, Animaduersiones in L. Annaei Senecae opera (s.l., 1595), 195, ad Sen. Ep. 32.2 cited a similar gloss from a Cologne manuscript: ‘lancinamus, id est diuidimus, a lance, quia lance diuidimus.’ The words lancinare per lances diuidere therefore may not have a lengthy history.

¹⁸ Divisions or conflations of glosses, for better or for worse, occur in R at e.g. Placidus 4.12, 5.15, 7.33, 11.1, 12.19, 12.37, 17.11, 20.13, 20.27.

¹⁹ Sabbadini (n. 8), 1.134.

²⁰ In the margin of Cologny, Fondation M. Bodmer, codex 186, fol. 72r a later hand added the words: Reliquum quod sequitur repertum fuit anno salutiferae natiuitatis yhesu christi M CCCC XXXIIII tempore concilii Basiliensis. The same words appear in the text in Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, Lat. XIII 11 (= 4103), fol. 39r and in Berlin, SBPK, Ham. 524, fol. 55r.

²¹ The letter is published in Sabbadini, R., ‘Niccolò da Cusa e i conciliari di Basilea alla scoperta dei codici’, RAL 20 (1911), 3–40Google Scholar, at 9–14; A. Paredi, La biblioteca del Pizolpasso (Milan, 1961), 198–202; E. Meuthen (ed.), Acta Cusana: Quellen zur Lebensgeschichte des Nikolaus von Kues: Band I Lieferung 1: 1401–1437 Mai 17 (Hamburg, 1976), 85–8.

²² R identifies the author in a way consistent with alphabetization by ‘Planc-’ rather than by ‘Fulg-’ (Virgilianae continentiae secundum philosophos moralis expositio A Fabio Planci de Fulgentio uiro clarissimo aedita explicit, fol. 98v). Two other pieces of evidence, probably connected ultimately to R, suggest that readers of this manuscript called him ‘Planciades’: (1) Biondo Flavio's confusion of Placidus and ‘Placiades’ is discussed below; (2) Florence, Riccardiana, 893, fols. 20r–24v is a copy of Fulgentius’ Expositio sermonum antiquorum (= Serm.). On fol. 20r, a reader crossed out the titulus and added in the inner margin ‘Sunt qui M. Fabii Placidii hunc libellum esse dicant.’ The name ‘M. Fabius Placidus’ is almost certainly a confusion of ‘Placidus’ and ‘Fabius Planciades’, and can hardly have arisen independently of R and its descendants. That the confusion spread to Serm. (not found in R) suggests that the name ‘Planciades’ was in wider use for Fulgentius.

²³ We know of no other manuscripts produced at Basel that show comparable arrangements.

²⁴ For evidence of an increase in manuscript production during the Council of Basel, see P. Lehmann, ‘Konstanz und Basel als Büchermärkte während der großen Kirchenversammlungen’, in id., Erforschung des Mittelalters: Ausgewählte Abhandlungen und Aufsätze, 5 vols. (Stuttgart, 1941–1962), 1.253–80; J. Miethke, ‘Die Konzilien als Forum der öffentlichen Meinung im 15. Jahrhundert’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 37 (1981), 736–73; U. Neddermeyer, Von der Handschrift zum gedruckten Buch: Schriftlichkeit und Leseinteresse im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit: quantitative und qualitative Aspekte (Wiesbaden, 1998), 1.280–2 and diagrams 36a–d at 2.654–5.

²⁵ At least two copies of Paulus other than R reached Italy after the Council of Basel. One might reasonably expect another copy of Placidus to have joined them if Placidus and Paulus were contained in the same manuscript before 1433.

²⁶ R. Helm (ed.), Fabii Planciadis Fulgentii V. C. opera (Leipzig, 1898).

²⁷ We are grateful to Gregory Hays for confirming that none of the earlier manuscripts of the Cont. can individually account for the text in R.

²⁸ Our remarks on the fifteenth-century tradition of Paulus and on the position of R within it are based on study of about one hundred and forty manuscripts; we hope to say more about the problems in this tradition soon. For the orthodoxy, see Sabbadini (n. 8), 1.134 n. 34; A. Moscadi, ‘Problemi filologici nell'epitome di Paolo Diacono del De verborum significationibus di Sesto Pompeo Festo’, in M. Simonetti (ed.), La cultura in Italia fra tardo antico e alto medioevo (Rome, 1981), 1.467–74; C. Woods, ‘A contribution to the king's library: Paul the Deacon's epitome and its Carolingian context’, in F. Glinister and C. Woods (edd.), Verrius, Festus, & Paul: Lexicography, Scholarship, and Society (London, 2007), 109–35, with further references.

²⁹ See Barlow, C.W., ‘Codex Vaticanus Latinus 4929’, MAAR 15 (1938), 87–124Google Scholar; Billanovich, G., ‘Ancora dalla antica Ravenna alle biblioteche umanistiche’, IMU 36 (1993), 107–74Google Scholar; Gormley, C.M., Rouse, M.A. and Rouse, R.H., ‘The medieval circulation of the De chorographia of Pomponius Mela’, MS 46 (1984), 266–320Google Scholar.

³⁰ The most substantive information on record is had from Gormley, Rouse and Rouse (n. 29), 302–20.

³¹ These manuscripts are numbers 17, 22, 73, 104, 79 and 88, respectively, in the catalogue of P. Parroni (ed.), Pomponii Melae De chorographia libri tres (Rome, 1984), 59–81, who also provides limited bibliography for each. We have collated passages in about sixty of the manuscripts listed by Parroni, none of which shows close connections with R; published information eliminates several more.

³² We have seen comparable readings also in New Haven, Beinecke Library, Marston 76 and in Paris, BNF, NAL 783; neither manuscript is especially close to R.

³³ A curious problem is posed by the two annotations epythia. T once had epythia written in its margin on fol. 108r in a hand strikingly similar to, perhaps even identical with, the hand in R, but the other annotations of this group have influenced the original text of T, and we have found no other traces of the hand in T. If the hands are indeed identical, the annotator could convincingly be situated in Perugia in 1453.

³⁴ iuuentus] iuuentus in contextu T : iuuentus in margine W : om. Y; sicut] sicut in contextu TWY. For the annotation Senectus (etc.), as for the annotation Nuptiae (etc.) of group d, W copies the notes in the margin, Y omits the notes entirely, and T adds the annotation in contextu after the reading of the first hand in R.

³⁵ These are the annotations beginning Lancinare (but cf. above, page 6), Nuptiae (but the corrupt text of R admits of easy correction, with assistance from Placidus 36.4) and Senectus (but a Romulo is obviously necessary given the following words qui uel fundauit uel auxit Romam).

³⁶ See above, n. 33.

³⁷ T is listed in the Vatican inventory of 1475; J. Fohlen, ‘Les manuscrits classiques dans le fonds Vatican Latin d'Eugène IV (1443) à Jules III (1550)’, HumLov 34 (1985), 1–51, at 44. Vat. lat. 1889, fols. 91r–108v, is a fifteenth-century apograph of its Placidus joined to unrelated texts: B. Nogara, Codices Vaticani Latini tomus III: Codices 1461–2059 (Rome, 1912), 338–9. Vat. lat. 3898, fols. 133r–141v, is a sixteenth-century copy of its Fulgentius owned by Angelo Colocci: M. Bernardi, ‘Angelo Colocci (Jesi [Ancona] 1474 – Roma 1549)’, in M. Motolese, P. Procaccioli and E. Russo (edd.), Autografi dei letterati italiani: Cinquecento II (Rome, 2013), 75–110, at 81. The excerpts of Paulus in Vat. lat. 1558 were copied in the sixteenth century (or later) from T.

³⁸ Roma Triumphans (Basel, 1531), 50. All references to Biondo's text are given from this edition.

³⁹ See A. Mazzocco, ‘Some philological aspects of Biondo Flavio's Roma Triumphans’, HumLov 28 (1979), 1–26 for the date and for references to the citations of Placidus. F. Muecke, ‘Biondo Flavio on the Roman theatre: topography and terminology’, Erudition and the Republic of Letters 3 (2018), 241–73, at 247 n. 17 reports that there is no trace of Placidus in Biondo's earlier works.

⁴⁰ The citations attributed to Placidus in Biondo's text at 17 and 195 probably come from Nonius Marcellus 3.26 and 548.10 Mercier, respectively. The citation at 101 certainly comes from Paulus 519.10 Lindsay. Most curious is the citation at 189: the views on the word zeta attributed there to Placidus should perhaps be referred instead to Angelo Decembrio and the Ferrarese court; see M.T. Sambin De Norcen, ‘De vocabulis: Angelo Decembrio e una singolare interpretazione della “zeta” di Plinio il Giovane’, in M. Basso, J. Gritti and O. Lanzarini (edd.), The Gordian Knot: Studi offerti a Richard Schofield (Rome, 2014), 39–49, at 45–6.

⁴¹ Despite his claim, Biondo's information about orchestra, mirmillones and pantomimi in the same note shows only coincidental connections with Placidus.

⁴² The version at CGL 5.65.19, deriving from Isidore, has deputantur. Interestingly, the first hand in R gave dominantur; the word is expunged, but evidently no replacement was offered until the ‘Aporria’ annotator added ‘tenebantur’ (an obvious guess) in the margin. The content of the gloss makes damnantur an easy correction, whether by Biondo himself or by someone working on a lost descendant of R.

⁴³ Cf. above, n. 31.

⁴⁴ Vatican City, BAV, Urb. lat. 1157 is a scholarly miscellany put together before 1474 for Federico da Montefeltro, subsequently duke of Urbino: M. Passalacqua, I codici di Prisciano (Rome, 1978), 326–7. Its text of Paulus (fols. 108r–173v) certainly descends from R (it has inherited some distinctive readings that derive from misunderstandings of the ductus of R), but it was probably copied from an intermediary: corrections in Florence, BML, plut. 90 sup. 6² derive from such a manuscript, and in the Urbinas the omission of Paulus 13.11 diligi solent uidelicet seems best explained as a skipped line of text in a manuscript other than R. Moreover, if R were the antigraph of the Urbinas, the decision not to copy Placidus would be difficult to explain. The manuscript contains Paulus and thirteen other texts on grammar, metre and lexicography, to which the glosses of Placidus would have made a welcome addition.

⁴⁵ See fols. 9r, 31r, 79r, 90v and 99v. Most of these are corrections to the text of R; of those not already mentioned the most interesting is Pomponius Mela 1.6 †magno et paludi†] magnae paludi. On fol. 9r the hand we call ‘De mensium appellatione’ wrote Auidus non ut indocti auens aurum, to which Latini added uide ut sibi constet auctor cum supra in aueo sibi aduersetur (a cross-reference to Paulus 13.17 Lindsay).

⁴⁶ For the manuscript, see P. de Nolhac, La bibliothèque di Fulvio Orsini (Paris, 1887), 378, from the catalogue preserved as Vat. lat. 7205, fol. 39r; CGL 5.vii. The same small capital letters that Orsini uses for notabilia in Vat. lat. 3402 (see M. Ferrari, ‘Le scoperte a Bobbio nel 1493: vicende di codici e fortuna di testi’, IMU 13 [1970], 139–80, at 167) are found on fol. 86v in the Placidus.

⁴⁷ Corrections made in the copyist's hand are cited in Orsini's (regrettably unpaginated) Notae in fragmentum for Nefrendes and Pullus, and in the Notae in epitomam for Agina. Orsini's own annotations are reflected probably in the Notae in fragmentum for Municas, and certainly in the Notae in schedas for Uruat.

⁴⁸ The lengthy period in which Orsini's Festus was ‘forthcoming’ would make it reasonable to put his acquaintance with Placidus even earlier; that history is reviewed by D. Acciarino, ‘The Renaissance editions of Festus: Fulvio Orsini's version’, AClass 59 (2016), 1–22, at 6–9.

⁴⁹ These are Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, 918 (not saec. xv, pace E. Narducci, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum praeter graecos et orientales in Biblioteca Angelica olim Coenobii Sancti Augustini de Urbe [Rome, 1892], 393) and a manuscript in Hamburg about which inadequate information has been recorded; according to Goetz (CGL 5.x) they derive certainly from W after it had been annotated by Fulvio Orsini. Leah Stephens kindly supplied us with photographs of the Angelicus, allowing us to confirm Goetz's claim for that manuscript.

⁵⁰ Vat. lat. 3402 is a manuscript well studied for its role in the transmission of the discoveries at Bobbio in 1493; in the rest of this paragraph we report information put on record mostly by G. Billanovich, ‘Il Petrarca e i retori latini minori’, IMU 5 (1962), 103–64, at 150–1 and by Ferrari (n. 46), and augmented variously by G. Morelli, ‘Per il testo dell’Ars Caesii Bassi De metris’, in L. Munzi (ed.), Problemi di edizione e di interpretazione nei testi grammaticali latini: Atti del colloquio internazionale, Napoli 10–11 dicembre 1991 (= AION[filol] 14) (Rome, 1994), 131–48; G. Morelli, ‘Metricologi latini di tradizione bobbiese’, in M. De Nonno, P. De Paolis and L. Holtz (edd.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Erice, 16–23 October 1997 (Cassino, 2000), 533–59; A. Di Stefano, Arusiani Messi Exempla elocutionum: Introduzione, testo critico e note (Hildesheim, 2011); M. Di Napoli, Velii Longi De orthographia: Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento (Hildesheim, 2011).

⁵¹ Description of and references to editions of the texts can be had from Ferrari (n. 46), 144–5.

⁵² On this individual, born Pietro Zanchi, see E. Pellegrin, Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane (Vatican City, 1975–), 3.2.655–6 (on Vat. lat. 7044); H. Hofmann, ‘Le egloghe di Basilio Zanchi di Bergamo (1501–1558)’, StudUmanistPiceni 31 (2011), 45–54. Admittedly nothing requires that Zanchi copied ‘Fronto’ after Vat. lat. 3402 came into Orsini's possession; the close connection between the two, however, makes that inference rather more likely than not.

⁵³ This, at any rate, is the view of Di Stefano (n. 50), lxxiv. The evidence recorded by A. Della Casa, Arusianus Messius: Exempla elocutionum (Milan, 1977) does not seem to support the position of Vat. lat. 7179 in her stemma (at 42).

⁵⁴ The identification of the hand was made by Campana; see A. Mazzarino, ‘Due note filologiche’, Maia 1 (1948), 64–7, at 64–5. On the manuscript, see Ferrari (n. 46), 180; Della Casa (n. 53), 27; Pellegrin (n. 52), 3.2.657–9; Di Stefano (n. 50), lxxiv. On Chacón in Rome, see G. Cardinali, «Qui havemo uno spagnolo dottissimo»: Gli anni italiani di Pedro Chacón (1570ca.–1581) (Vatican City, 2017).

⁵⁵ Fragmenta Ciceronis passim dispersa, Caroli Sigonii diligentia collecta et scholiis illustrata (Venice, 1560). On the manuscript sent to Sigonio, see W. McCuaig, Carlo Sigonio: The Changing World of the Late Renaissance (Princeton, 1989), 296 n. 8.

⁵⁶ H. Keil, Grammatici Latini, 8 vols. (Leipzig, 1857–1880), 7.445–6. On the Contubernium Polonorum at Padova and its connections with Sigonio, see Slaski, J., ‘Marian Leżeński, un polacco a Padova (1556–1559)’, Quaderni per la storia dell'Università di Padova 38 (2005), 171–96Google Scholar with references to further bibliography.

⁵⁷ The only discussion of its Arusianus known to us is Di Stefano (n. 50), lxxvi–lxxix.

⁵⁸ That description is an oversimplification; in particular, we pass over the messy history of fols. 24–33, recorded in Y in the Ranaldi catalogue but now bound in Vat. lat. 5170. That history has been traced by G. Morelli, Caesii Bassi De metris, Atilii Fortunatiani De metris Horatianis (Hildesheim, 2011–2012), clxxiii–clxxxi, and matters very little for Placidus.

⁵⁹ For fuller discussion, see Di Napoli (n. 50), lix–lxi; Di Stefano (n. 50), lxxiii–lxxiv; Morelli (n. 58), clxxiii–clxxxv.

⁶⁰ See Morelli (n. 58), clxxvi.

⁶¹ See Di Napoli (n. 50), lx–lxi. On Estaço, the epigraphic sylloge and his work on orthography, see A. Guzmán Almagro, ‘A Portuguese contribution to 16th century Roman antiquarianism: the case of Aquiles Estaço (1524–1581) and Roman epigraphy’, in M. Berbera and K.A.E. Enenkel (edd.), Portuguese Humanism and the Republic of Letters (Leiden, 2012), 353–73 with references to further bibliography.

⁶² Billanovich (n. 50), 150–1; Ferrari (n. 46), 168–9. No one has expressed an opinion on the date of the manuscript other than to say that it was written soon (‘presto’, ‘in breve arco di tempo’) after Y. On 29 November 1579, Pinelli wrote to Aldus Manutius the Younger that he still had ‘quelli due libri di grammatici di V. S. che gli manderò un di questi giorni’; see E. Pastorello, Inedita Manutiana 1502–1597: Appendice all'inventario (Venice, 1960), 455–6 for the letter, a reference we owe to Di Napoli (n. 50), lx n. 94. Given the physical state of Y at the end of the sixteenth century, it is at least not impossible that Pinelli means the two parts of Y. On Pinelli and his library, see Callegari, M., ‘Pinelli, Gian Vincenzo’, DBI 83 (2015), 727–32Google Scholar, with references to further bibliography.

⁶³ On Aldus's library after his death, see J. Bignami Odier, La bibliothèque Vaticane de Sixte IV à Pie XI: Recherches sur l'histoire des collections de manuscrits (Vatican City, 1973), 81, 95–6, 118, 119. Preliminary research indicated to her that the manuscripts of Aldus are to be found before or after the Cabrera manuscripts (Vat. lat. 5009–Vat. lat. 5042), in the range up to about number 5400, which is consistent with the shelfmark of Y.

⁶⁴ Another suggestion recently advanced is plausible but not yet proven. Morelli (n. 58), clxxxiii suggests that the volume ‘De orthographia’ listed in the inventory of books seized from Aldus (Vat. lat. 7121, fol. 3r) represents the texts of Velius, Adamantius and ‘Fronto’ from Y.

⁶⁵ On Aldus Manutius the Younger, see Russo, E., ‘Manuzio, Aldo, il Giovane’, DBI 69 (2007), 245–50Google Scholar, with bibliographic detail on the Eleganze and Orthographiae ratio and with further references.

⁶⁶ Di Napoli (n. 50), lx.

⁶⁷ C. Sallustii Crispi Coniuratio Catilinae et Bellum Iugurthinum. Eiusdem nonnulla ex libris historiarum. Fragmenta eiusdem historiarum, e scriptoribus antiquis ab Aldo Manutio, Pauli F. collecta (Venice, 1563).

⁶⁸ If this range—suggested by Diller, A., ‘Scipio Tettius’ Index Librorum Nondum Editorum’, AJPh 56 (1935), 14–27Google Scholar, at 15 n. 4—is correct, it certainly bears on the question of when R came to the attention of the sixteenth century. On the conflicting evidence for the date of Tettius's Index, see N. Zorzi, ‘Appendice 2: Il codice Strozziano della Biblioteca di Fozio’, in L. Canfora, Il Fozio ritrovato: Juan de Mariana e André Schott (Bari, 2001), 363–74, at 366 n. 11. We choose to reach a similar answer from different evidence, since there are indications that Tettius saw at least some of the libraries, or their inventories, mentioned in his Index after 1558. Notably, in 1566 Tettius borrowed from Latino Latini the inventory of the then-dispersed library of Rodolfo Pio da Carpi (†1564), returning it two years later; see G. Mercati, Note per la storia di alcune biblioteche romane nei secoli XVI–XIX (Vatican City, 1952), 122 n. 2.

⁶⁹ The Index was published by P. Labbé, Nova bibliotheca MSS librorum, sive Specimen antiquarum lectionum latinarum et graecarum (Paris, 1653), 166–74, from a copy written in the hand of Claude Dupuy (1545–1594) and surviving now as Paris, BNF, Dupuy 651, fols. 236–245. Labbé's text contains significant errors; we have inspected Dupuy's copy and Vat. lat. 3958, fols. 155r–162v, in microfilm.

⁷⁰ Omitted by Labbé but plainly original in Dupuy 651. The editio princeps of Fulgentius, Cont. appeared at Heidelberg in 1589: D.S. Wilson-Okamura, Virgil in the Renaissance (Cambridge, 2010), 216 n. 89.

⁷¹ The other three texts in Y, namely Fortunatianus, Donatianus and Caesius Bassus, are absent from Tettius's Index, since they had already been printed in Milan in 1504; Ferrari (n. 46), 168; Morelli (n. 50), 549 n. 73; Morelli (n. 58), cxci–cxcii.

⁷² Tettius perhaps provided Aldus with other anecdota. He recorded a ‘Plauti Comoedia Philodoxium in Bibliotheca Achillis Statii’, doubtless the Philodoxeos fabula printed in 1588 at Lucca by Aldus as a work of a comic poet Lepidus, but properly the first version of the play written by Leon Battista Alberti, for which see L. Cesarini Martinelli, ‘Leon Battista Alberti. Philodoxeos fabula’, Rinascimento 17 (1977), 111–234.

⁷³ In his notes on Pomponius Mela, Petrus Ciacconius cited readings of R both indiscriminately and as deriving from a ‘liber Latini Latinii’, which corroborates Latini's ownership of the manuscript in the 1570s but adds nothing new on its earlier history. For those notes, see e.g. A. Gronovius, Pomponii Melae De situ orbis libri III (Leiden, 1748), 404 and 407.

⁷⁴ The phrase is Latino Latini's, from a well-known letter written to Orsini in July of 1569, surviving as Vat. lat. 4104, fol. 267r, cited also by Nolhac (n. 46), 15 n. 2.