Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
The Archivio Caetani, now owned by the Fondazione Camillo Caetani, is one of the most important and interesting family archives that have been preserved in Rome. In addition to numerous old documents, it also contains many letters and papers of writers and scholars of the sixteenth century, and a certain number of valuable literary manuscripts. The most famous among them is the Caetani Codex of Dante's Divine Comedy, which has been well known to Dante scholars since the last century and which was made available, along with the numerous Latin glosses accompanying the text, through a beautiful and accurate edition published by Don Gelasio Caetani in 1930. The manuscript is written on parchment in a beautiful calligraphic hand of the late fourteenth or very early fifteenth century and contains in its margin numerous Latin glosses.
1 Pecchiai, P., “L'Archivio dei Duchi di Sermoneta,” in Studi in onore di Riccardo Filangieri, I (Naples, 1959), 421–443 Google Scholar; Fiorani, Luigi, Onorato Caetani, un erudito romano del Settecento (Rome, 1969)Google Scholar. I wish to thank Dott. Fiorani for these references.
2 I should like to mention an anonymous copy of Campanella's Del senso delle cose (Miscellanea 1037/302) and a copy of his Monarchia Ispanica (Miscellanea 1037/1214, fasc. 2). For the manuscript of II Cammino di Dante by Piero di Ser Bonaccorso (Miscellanea 1198/1222), see P. Pecchiai, “II codice Caetani contenente ‘II Cammino di Dante’ di Ser Bonaccorso,” Archivi, 2nd ser., 19(1952), 179-202.
3 The manuscript has the shelf mark Miscellanea 1243/1267.
4 de Batines, Colomb, Bibliografia Dantesca, Tomo 2 (Prato, 1846), pp. 201–202 Google Scholar, no. 375; Carteggio Dantesco del Duca di Sermoneta, ed. De Gubernatis, A. (Milan, 1883)Google Scholar; Epistolario del Duca Michelangelo Caetani di Sermoneta, ed. Passerini, G. L. (vol. 2); Corrispondenza Dantesca (Florence, 1903)Google Scholar. This last edition also includes Tre chiose nella Divina Commedia di Dante Alighieri del Duca Michelangelo (pp. 153-194) which had been printed separately before in several editions.
5 Comedia Dantis Aligherii Poetae Florentini, ed. Don Gelasio Caetani (Sancasciano Val di Pesa, 1930). Cf. Gelasio Caetani, La prima stampa del Codice Caetani della Divina Commedia (Sancasciano Val di Pesa, 1930); published also under the title “La Nuova Edizione del Codice Caetani della Divina Commedia,” in the Atti della Società Italiana per II Progresso delle Scienze, Riunione 19, Bolzano-Trento 7-15 Sett. 1930, II (Rome, 1931), 667-676. Barbi, Cf. M., “II ms. Ashburnhamiano 839 e il codice Caetani,” Studi Danteschi, 16(1932), 137–156 Google Scholar, repr. in his Problemi di critica dantesca, II (Florence, 1941), 435-451; Kristeller, P.O., Supplementum Ficinianum (Florence, 1937 Google Scholar, repr. 1973), I, p. LV. The manuscript is mentioned as lost in the Edizione Nazionale of the Società Dantesca Italiana ( Alighieri, Dante, La Commedia secondo Vantica volgata, ed. Petrocchi, G., I, [Milan, 1966], pp. XIX, 545, 567Google Scholar.
6 Kristeller, P. O., “The Scholastic Background of Marsilio Ficino,” in Kristeller, Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters (Rome, 1956), 35–97 Google Scholar; “Un nuovo trattatello inedito di Marsilio Ficino,” ibid., 139-150. At least one of these early scholastic texts is dated 1454 (p. 150). A document recently discovered and dated 28 October 1451 informs us that “Master Marsilio, son of Master Fecino who stays as tutor with Piero de’ Pazzi” borrowed a copy of the logic of Paul of Venice, with “Master Piero di Antonio Dini elected to teach logic at the University of Florence” acting as a witness. See Hough, Samuel Jones, “An Early Record of Marsilio Ficino,” Renaissance Quarterly, 30 (1977). 301–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Kristeller, P.O., “Florentine Platonism and Its Relations with Humanism and Scholasticism,” Church History, 8 (1939), 201–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I never meant to say that Ficino was a pure scholastic, but only that there is in his work, as in that of Pico, a strong scholastic element.
8 The historians of classical scholarship mention Ficino as a philologist in a rather superficial way: Sandys, John Edwin, A History of Classical Scholarship, II (Cambridge, 1907), p. 82 Google Scholar and passim; Pfeiffer, Rudolf, History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 (Oxford, 1976), p. 57 Google Scholar. More important are the contributions of J. Festugière, Paul Henry, H. D. Saffrey, Martin Sicherl, and L. G. Westerink who deal with Ficino's translations and with the Greek manuscripts annotated by him. Kristeller, Cf. P. O., “L'Etat présent des études sur Marsile Ficin,” in Platon et Aristote à la Renaissance (Paris, 1976), pp. 59–77 Google Scholar. A dictionary copied by Ficino was recently published as a work composed by him, but it is an earlier text which he copied and which is still in need of further study: Ficino, Marsilio, Lessico greco-latino, ed. Pintaudi, R. (Rome, 1977)Google Scholar. See the rather severe review by Filippo Di Benedetto in Giornale italiano difilologia, n.s. 9 (30), (1978), 113-121. In spite of many general statements, there is still no study on the technique and accuracy of Ficino's translations as compared with the Greek text and with the earlier (or later) translations of the same texts. Such a study is now being undertaken by James Hankins.
9 Ficino as early as 1454 speaks with contempt of the rhetorical style used before even by himself and adds: “Let us from now on speak like philosophers and despise empty words” (Studies, p. 146). E. Cristiani, “Una inedita invettive giovanile di Marsilio Ficino,” Rinascimento, 17 (1966), 209-222.
10 For a list of manuscripts owned or copied by Ficino, see Suppl. Fic, I. pp. LII-LV; Studies, pp. 164-165, no. 31a; Saffrey, H.D., “Notes platoniciennes de Marsile Ficin dans un manuscrit de Proclus, Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 21 (1959), 161–184 Google Scholar. For a manuscript of Macrobius owned and annotated by Ficino, see Alberti, G. B., “Marsilio Ficino e il codice Riccardiano 581,” Rinascimento, 21 (1970), 187–193 Google Scholar. A manuscript of Hyginus owned by Ficino (Trivulz. 690) was recently indicated to me by Prof. Paola Zambelli. Biblioteca Trivulziana, Cf., Mostra di libri di Profezie, Astrologia, Chiromanzia, Alchimia, ed. Santoro, Caterina (Milan, 1953), p. 12 Google Scholar, no. 14.
11 Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, Nouv. acq. lat. 650.
12 For an index of authors cited in the writings of Ficino, see Kristeller, P. O., Il pensierofilosofico di Marsilio Ficino (Florence, 1953), pp. 451–463 Google Scholar. Ficino cites or mentions Demosthenes, Euripides, Herodotus, Isocrates, Pindar, and Xenophon.
13 In addition to philosophical and patristic authors, Ficino mentions Amnianus Marcellinus, Claudian, Columella, Florus, Gellius, Horace, Juvenal, Livy, Lucan, Martial, Ovid, Plautus, the two Pliny, Pomponius Mela, Priscian, Quintilian, Solinus, Statius, Suetonius, Tacitus, Terence, and Varro.
14 For a list of contemporary persons mentioned in the writings of Ficino, see Suppl. Fic, II, 357-367.
15 For the text, see Suppl. Fic, I, 40-46. The only manuscript that preserves it (Rice. 85) was owned by Ficino and contains the Epistles of St. Paul in Greek with Latin summaries. Cf. Suppl., I, p. XVII and LIV; Kristeller, P.O., Iter Italicum, 1 (Leiden, 1963), p. 184 Google Scholar. The poem is a versification of the “Theological Prayer to God” contained in a letter from Ficino to Bernardo Rucellai (Ficino, Opera Omnia [Basel, 1561 and 1576, repr. Turin, 1959], I, 665-666). It corresponds to the last section of Lorenzo de’ Medici's Altercazione and must be dated 1473 ( Kristeller, , Le Thomisme et la pensee italienne de la Renaissance [Montreal and Paris, 1967], p. 111 Google Scholar; Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning, ed. Edward P. Mahoney [Durham, N.C., 1974], p. 83). The basis for this dating is a letter of Naldo Naldi to Niccoló Michelozzi of 12 September 1473 which mentions Lorenzo's poem (Nuovi documenti per la storia del Rinascimento, ed. T. De Marinis and A. Perosa [Florence, 1970], p. 56).
16 Ficino's Latin letters, divided into twelve books, are found in Opera, I, 607-964. They were printed for the first time in Venice, 1495. For the chronology of the letters and for the history of the collection, see Suppl.,, I, pp. LXXXVII-CX. For additional Latin letters, see ibid., I, 37-40, 46-64; II, 79-96. Among the letters we also find some orations (Opera, I, 757-760 and passim) and declamations (I, 659 and passim; cf. Suppl. I, p. LXXXIX). For another oration of historical interest, see Suppl., I, 58. The De raptu Pauli (Opera, I, 697-706), the Deamore (Opera, II, 1320-1363) and also a section of the Platonic Theology (VI, ch. 1, Opera I, 156) are dialogues. We find a number ofApologi among the letters (Opera, I, 840, 847-849, 855, 921-924; Suppl., I, 56, 58-59: Ficino, , The Philebus Commentary, ed. Allen, Michael J. B. [Berkeley, 1975], pp. 454–457 Google Scholar, 464-479). Prof. Allen found an Apologus of Ficino inserted in his translation of Hermias’ commentary on Plato's Phaedrus (Vat. lat. 5953, fols. 134-316). See Allen, Michael J. B., “Ficino's Hermias Translation and a New Apologus,” Scriptorium, 35 (1981), 39–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. at p. 46.
17 With reference to the enthusiastic passages that appear in books XII and XIV of the Platonic Theology, Raffaele Spongano makes the interesting observation that they are influenced in their style by the vernacular rather than by the Latin classical tradition (“Un capitolo di storia della nostra prosa d'arte,” in his volume Due saggi sull’ umanesimo [Florence, 1964], pp. 40-42). An unfavorable judgment on the Latin style of Ficino's letters was expressed by Vives, Johannes Ludovicus: “epistolas composuit … dictione invenusta et molesta” (De conscrihendis epistolis, in Opera omnia, II [Valencia, 1782], 314)Google Scholar. Thorndike, Cf. L., A History of Magic and Experimental Science, IV (New York, 1934), p. 562 Google Scholar, n. 1.
18 The vernacular compositions of Ficino, and the prefaces of his vernacular translations, were published in 1937 in my Supplementum Ficinianum. They are briefly discussed by Migliorini, B. (Storia della lingua italiana, 2nd ed. [Florence, 1960], p. 269)Google Scholar and treated at greater length by Buck, A. (Der Einfluss des Platonismus auf die volkssprachliche Literatur im Florentiner Quattrocento [Krefeld, 1965]Google Scholar). Otherwise, Ficino has long been neglected by the historians of Italian language and literature. See now Tanturli, G., “I Benci copisti, Vicende della cultura fiorentina volgare fra Antonio Pucci e il Ficino,” Studi difilologia italiana, 36 (1978), 197–313 Google Scholar, esp. at pp. 232, 240-241, and 244-245.
19 Kristeller, P.O., “The Origin and Development of the Language of Italian Prose,” in his Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters, pp. 473–493, repr. in his Renaissance Thought and the Arts (Princeton, 1980)Google Scholar, 119-141; Baron, H., The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance (Princeton, 1955), I, 297–312 Google Scholar; II, 422-429, 578-591; the same work (Revised One-Volume Edition, Princeton, 1966), pp. 332-353, 532-541; Folena, G., La crisi linguistica del Quattrocento e I’ “Arcadia” di J. Sannazaro (Florence, 1952)Google Scholar; Klein, H. W., Latein und Volgare in Italien (Munich, 1957)Google Scholar; Grayson, C., A Renaissance Controversy, Latin or Italian? (Oxford, 1960)Google Scholar; Migliorini, B., Storia della lingua italiana (1960)Google Scholar; Dionisotti, C., Geografia e storia della letteratura italiana (Turin, 1967), pp. 103–144 Google Scholar; Gli umanisti e il volgare fra Quattrocento e Cinquecento (Florence, 1969); Buck, A. and Pfister, M., Studien zur Prosa des Florentiner Vulgaerhumanistnus im 15. Jahrhundert (Abhandlungen der Marburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Jahrgang 1971 Google Scholar, No. 5, Munich, 1973). PP- 163-263; Nencioni, G., “Fra grammatica e retorica, Un caso di polimorfia della lingua letteraria dal secolo XIII al XVI,” Atti e Memorie dell’ Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere La Colombaria, 18 (n.s.4), 1953 Google Scholar (1954), 211-259; 19 (n.s.5), 1954 (1955). 139-269 (published also as a volume, Florence, c. 1955).
20 Buck and Pfister, pp. 197-233. Since the greater part of the editions of fourteenthcentury texts is “normalized,” I doubt very much that their language and orthography are as regular in the manuscripts as is usually claimed. The authors of the fifteenth century wrote the language of their time as those of the fourteenth century had done. Only the authors of the sixteenth century wrote “with care” because they wanted to imitate the language of the fourteenth century.
21 It is sufficient to mention Fazio, Decembrio, and Boiardo, who all made vernacular versions of classical texts, and Filelfo, who wrote several works in Italian.
22 For Bruni, see Santini, E., “La produzione volgare di Leonardo Bruni Aretino el il suo culto per ‘le tre corone fiorentine',” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, 60 (1912), 289–339 Google Scholar. A vernacular version of Cicero's Pro Marcello made by Bruni has been discovered by G. Folena. See his review of Maggini, Francesco, I primi volgarizzamenti dei classici latini (Florence, 1952)Google Scholar in Rassegna della letteratura italiana, 57 (1953), 155-162 at p. 160; idem, “Volgarizzare e tradurre,” in La Traduzione (Trieste, 1973), pp. 57-102, at 89-91 (I owe this reference to Prof. Bodo Guthmueller; the shelf mark of the manuscript in question is Rice. 1095, as given in the review, and not Rice. 1905, as given in the later article). See also Wittschier, H. W., Giannozzo Manetti (Cologne, 1968)Google Scholar; Alberti, L. B., Opere volgari, ed. Bonucci, A. (5 vols., Florence, 1843-49)Google Scholar; ed. C. Grayson (3 vols, Bari, 1960-73); La prima grammatica delta lingua volgare, ed. C. Grayson (Bologna, 1964); Cristoforo Landino, Scritti critici, ed. R. Cardini (2 vols., Rome, 1974); Santoro, M., “Cristoforo Landino el il volgare,” Giornale storico delta letteratura italiana, 131 (1954), 501–547 Google Scholar; Cardini, R., La critica del Landino (Florence, 1973)Google Scholar; Lentzen, M., Studien zur Dante-Exegese Cristoforo Landinos (Cologne, 1974)Google Scholar. For the vernacular works of Fonzio, see Trinkaus, C., “A Humanist's Image of Humanism: The Inaugural Orations of Bartolomeo della Fonte,” Studies in the Renaissance, 7 (1960), 90–147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 130-147. For two vernacular works by Francesco Bandini, see P. O. Kristeller, Studies (1956), pp. 395-435; Lorenzo de’ Medici, Opere, ed. A. Simioni (2 vols. Bari, 1913-14). For theprotesti and other public speeches, see Santini, E., Firenze e isuoi “Oratori” nel Quattrocento (Milan, 1922)Google Scholar; idem, “La Protestatio de Iustitia nella Firenze Medicea del sec. XV,” Rinascimento, 10 (1969), 33-106. For the sermons held in the confraternities, see Kristeller, , Studies, p. 105 Google Scholar, n. 17. Many of the authors of these speeches and sermons were humanists.
23 Latin preface to the Triumphus virtutum, a vernacular poem by Bastiano Foresi (1474): Opera, I, 643; Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, ms. Pal. 345; Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Library, ms. Richardson 46. Preface to Landino's Commento alia Divina Commedia (1481): Opera, I, p. 840; edition of Landino's commentary (Hain 5946). Preface to Enea Silvio, Historia di due amanti, vernacular translation by Alamanno Donati (1481-82): Opera, I, p. 858; ms. Rice. 2670; edition of the work (Hain 246). Preface to the Geographia of Francesco Berlinghieri (1482); Opera, I, p. 855; edition of the work (Hain 2825; GW 3870). Preface to the Sermons of Leo Magnus in the vernacular version of Filippo Corsini (1485) in the edition (Hain 10016) and in Suppl., II, 183-184. Cf. Suppl, I, p. LXXIV. We may add the two Latin letters written in competition with Lorenzo de’ Medici's Altercazione. Buck, Cf. A., Der Platonismus in den Dichtungen Lorenzo de’ Medicis (Berlin, 1936)Google Scholar; Kristeller, , Studies (1956), pp. 213–219 Google Scholar.
24 Opera, II, p. 1355. Ficin, Marsile, Commentaire sur le Banquet de Platon, ed. Marcel, R. (Paris, 1956), p. 240 Google Scholar. For a different interpretation which attributes to Guido an “Averroist” rather than a Platonic conception of love, see Nardi, B., Dante e la cultura medievale, 2nd ed. (Bari, 1949), pp. 93–129 Google Scholar; “Noterella polemica sull’ Averroismo di Guido Cavalcanti,” Rassegna difilosofia, 3 (1954), 47-71.
25 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Nouv. acq. lat. 650. fols. 89-92v. Ficino had no doubts about their authenticity as have some modern scholars.
26 Suppl.,, II, 162.
27 For the preface only, see Suppl., II, 184-185. For a critical edition of the text, see Shaw, Prudence, “La versione Ficiniana della ‘Monarchia',” Studi Danleschi, 51 (1978), 289–408 Google Scholar (the text is on pp. 327-408, the list of manuscripts on pp. 290-297). Mrs. Shaw lists fifteen manuscripts, including three which arc lost, fragmentary, or late. A short piece entitled Nonnulla excerpta ex Dantis operibus in the Morgan Library, MA 842, fols. 338-339V (s. XVI) has been identified by Dr. Marcella Roddewig as a series of excerpts from Ficino's version of the De monarchia. See now Roddewig, Marcella, “Ein zusatzliches Fragment der Ficino-Version der ‘Monarchia’ in New York,” Studi Danteschi, 53 (1981), 219–240 Google Scholar. The translation had been printed before by Fraticclli (1839), by Torri (1844), and more recently by F. Chiappelli ( Alighieri, Dante, Opere [Milan, 1965], pp. 847–898 Google Scholar). See also Shaw, Prudence, “Per l'edizione del Volgarizzamento Ficiniano della ‘Monarchia',” in Testi e Interpretazioni (Milan, 1978), pp. 927–939 Google Scholar. Ms. Laur. 44, 36 has at the end the following note: “Scripto di mano di me Antonio di Tuccio sopradetto tracto dello originale anchora scripto da me et dectato da detto Marsilio Ficino homo doctissimo et filosafo platonicho… . “ Another anonymous version of the De monarchia, also made in the fifteenth century and preserved in three manuscripts, was published in a critical edition by Shaw, Prudence: “Il volgarizzamento inedito della ‘Monarchia',” Studi Danteschi, 47 (1970), 59–224 Google Scholar. One of the manuscripts (Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, cod. II III 210) was copied by Bernardo del Nero in 1456. I am much indebted to my friend Gianfranco Contini for having called my attention to these important editions and for having placed them at my disposal. For Antonio Manetti, see de Robertis, D., “Antonio Manetti copista,” in Tra Latino e Volgare, Per Carlo Dionisotti, II (Padua, 1974), 367–409 Google Scholar; Manetti, Antonio, Vita di Filippo Brunelleschi, ed. de Robertis, D. and Tanturli, G. (Milan, 1976)Google Scholar; Tanturli, G., “Codici di Antonio Manetti e ricette del Ficino,” Rinascimento, 20 (1980), 313–326 Google Scholar. Cf. Tanturli, “I Benci copisti,” p. 240.
28 Alighieri, Dante, Monarchia, ed. Ricci, Pier Giorgio (Milan, 1965)Google Scholar. On p. 5, he speaks of twenty-two manuscripts, and another manuscript has been discovered recently: P. G. Ricci, “A sette anni dall’ Edizione Nazionale del De Monarchia,” Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Danteschi, Ravenna 1971 (Florence, 1979), pp. 79-114. I am indebted for a reprint of this posthumous article to the courtesy of Signora Adriana Materassi Ricci.
29 See note 27.
30 Bigongiari, Dino, Essays on Dante and Medieval Culture (Florence, 1964)Google Scholar proposes a number of emendations for the text of the De monarchia and criticizes Ficino's translation three times. In two cases (II 6 and III 12, Bigongiari, pp. 26-27), Bigongiari attributes to Ficino an interpolation which does not occur in Ficino's original text. See De monarchia, ed. Ricci, pp. 194 and 264-265, cf. 102-103, and Shaw, pp. 364 and 393. In the second of these cases Ricci rejects the variant on which Ficino and Bigongiari are actually in agreement. In two other cases, Bigongiari rejects Ficino's translation (the first time without mentioning him, p. 26 on II9 and pp. 33-34 on III 6) and meets with Ricci's approval (p. 207 and 272-273). The last passage is rather interesting because Ficino does not accept the Aristotelian conception in Dante's text according to which man aS*a combination of soul and body is corruptible. He changes the text in such a way that according to his own Platonic view the body alone is corruptible. Walther Bulst (“Zu Dantes de Monarchia I 3 , “ Historische Vierteljahrsschrift, 26 [1931], 840-842; 27 [1932], 389-390) proposes a very interesting and plausible emendation which is in agreement with Ficino (Shaw, p. 332, line 49), but it is rejected by Ricci (p. 142).
31 Ricci, pp. 102-105.
32 Shaw, pp. 289-290, 308-324.
33 Suppl, II, 184-185. Shaw, pp. 327-328.
34 Opera, I, 840.
35 See above, note 8.
36 See above, note 5.
37 Sicherl, M., “Die Humanistenkursive Marsilio Ficinos,” Studia Codicologica = Texte und Untersuchungen, 124 (1977), 443–450 Google Scholar, with plates.
38 Kristeller, P. O., “Some Original Letters and Autograph Manuscripts of Marsilio Ficino,” in Studi di Bibliografia e di Storia in onore di Tammaro De Marinis (Verona, 1964), III, 5—33 Google Scholar, with plates after pp. 12 and 20. We shall give in the appendix a few plates from the Caetani Codex.
39 A. C. de la Mare, The Handwriting of Italian Humanists, vol. I, fasc. 1 (Oxford, 1973)-
40 See Appendix II for Dr. de la Mare's opinion, and Appendix III for Campana's “Observations.” According to a communication from Dr. Marcella Roddewig, ms. Laur. Gadd. 90 sup. 132 is closely related in text and script to the Caetani Codex.
41 Barbi, M., “La lettura di Benvenuto da Imola e i suoi rapporti con altri commenti, I. II ms. Ashburnham 839 e il codice Caetani,” Studi Danteschi, 16 (1932), 137–156 Google Scholar, reprinted in Barbi, M., Problemi di critica dantesca, 2nd ser. (Florence, 1941), pp. 435–470 Google Scholar. For the early commentaries on Dante, see Sapegno, N., Il Trecento (Milan, 1948), pp. 115–119 Google Scholar; Sandkuehler, B., Die fruehen Dantekommentare und ihr Verhaeltnis zur mittelalterlichen Kommentartradition (Munich, 1967)Google Scholar.
42 “Dicit Augustinus in libro De Civitate Dei quod Termegistus philosophus avus Mercurii Magni dixit: Deus est spera cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia vero nusquam,” ed. Gelasio Caetani, p. 496, Gloss on Paradiso XXXIII 115 (“Nella profonda e chiara sussistenza“). This quotation of Hermes also occurs in the commentary of Benvenuto da Imola, as I was informed by Dr. Roddewig: “Et hie nota quod autor bene describit Deum in forma sperica, quia, sicut refert Augustinus, Trimegistus avus magni Mercurii sic diffinit Deum: Deus est spera intelligibilis etc.” (Benevenuti de Rambaldis de Imola, Comentum super Dantis Aldigherii Cotnoediam, cd. J. P. Lacaita, V [Florence, 1887], 523, on Paradiso XXXIII). For the text, see C. Baeumker, “Das pseudo-hermetische Buch der vier und zwanzig Meister (Liber XXIV philosophorum),” in Festgabe von Herding (Freiburg, 1913), pp. 17-40, reprinted in Baeumker, Cesatnmelte Aufsaetze (Beitraege zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittelalters, 25, 1-2 [1927], 204-217). Cf. M. Th. d'Alverny, in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, ed. Kristeller, P. O., I (Washington, 1960), 151–154 Google Scholar.
43 For the history of the concept, see Mahnke, D., Unendliche Sphaere und Allmittelpunkt (Halle, 1937)Google Scholar. Harries, Cf. K., “The Infinite Sphere,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 13 (1975), 5–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Suppl.,, I, pp. CXXIX-CXXX; Kristeller, , Studies (1956), pp. 221–247 Google Scholar; Dannenfeldt, K. H. in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, ed. Kristeller, P.O., I (Washington, 1960), 138–140 Google Scholar.
45 See the statement of Dr. Albinia de la Mare in Appendix II.
46 Kristeller, P.O., “The Scholar and his Public in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” in Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning, pp. 3–25 Google Scholar; Schalk, F., Das Publikum im italienischen Humanismus (Krefeld, 1955)Google Scholar. Cf. Tanturli, “I Benci copisti.“
47 Suppl.,, II, 109-123.
48 Ibid., p. 122-123.
49 Ibid.,p. ui-112.
50 Ibid., p. 120.
51 Suppl., I, p. CLIX. For the manuscripts listed in my Index Operum Ficini (Suppl.,, I, pp. LXXVII-CLXVII) it is always necessary to check the list of the manuscripts on p. V ff., and for the complete content of the manuscripts, my Iter Italicum (I—II, Leiden, 1963-67) and the printed catalogues of the manuscripts of the respective libraries should be consulted. Several manuscripts came to my attention after the publication of the Supplementum Ficinianum (1937). For the vernacular miscellanies, see Appendix I. Of the Epistola aifratelli I know twenty-five manuscripts (Suppl.,, I, p. CLIX), most of which are vernacular miscellanies (including Verona, Capitolare CCCCXCI; cf. Suppl., II, 369; Parma Pal. 306, cf. Studies, p. 168; Tours and New Haven). Some manuscripts contain only other works of Ficino (Laur. 27, 9; Rice. 146; Ambr. D 3 inf; Casanat. 1297; Maruc. C 286, s. XVI). I think that the work is listed under the title Oeconomica in the first catalogue of Ficino's writings (Suppl., I, p. 1). Cf. Tanturli, p. 232.
52 Suppl.,II, 162-166.
53 Suppl.,I, p. CLX. We must again add the mss. in Verona, Parma, Tours, and New Haven. The work appears under the title De consolatione parentum in obitu filii in the first catalogue (Suppl., I, p. 1). Cf. Tanturli, p. 232.
54 Suppl.,II, 173-175. Cf. Tanturli, p. 232. Ficino's contribution to consolatory literature has been studied in an unpublished dissertation defended at the University of Michigan by George McClure.
55 Suppl.,II, 128-147.
56 It appears in 19 manuscripts, most of them vernacular miscellanies (Suppl., I, p. CLIX-CLX), including the manuscripts in Verona, Parma, Tours, and New Haven. We must add a philosophical miscellany of the sixteenth century (Padua, Museo Civico CM 328, cf. Suppl., II, 368). The text appears with other works of Ficino in Laur. 27, 9 (and in Maruc. C 286, s. XVI). The work is listed in the first catalogue of Ficino's writings under the title Compendium de opinionibus philosophorum circa Deum et animam (Suppl, I, p. 1) and in the second catalogue under the title Opiniones philosophorum de Deo et anima (Suppl., I, p. 2). Cf. Tanturli, p. 232.
57 De quatuor sectis philosophorum (Suppl., II, 7-10) and De voluptate (Opera, I, 987-1012) of which the latter is dated 1457.
58 L. Stein, “Handschriftenfunde zur Philosophic der Renaissance I, Die erste ‘Geschichte der antiken Philosophic’ in der Neuzeit,” Archiv fuer Geschichte der Philosophic, 1 (1886), 534-553; Kristeller, P.O., “Giovambattista Buoninsegni,” Dizionario Biografico degti Italiani, 15 (Rome, 1972), 255–256 Google Scholar; Brown, Alison, Bartolomeo Scala (Princeton, 1979), pp. 263–266 Google Scholar.
59 Suppl., II, 129.
60 Ibid., 132 and 146.
61 A. Warburg, “Francesco Sassetti's letztwillige Verfuegung,” Kunstwissenschaftliche Behraege August Schmarsow gewidmet (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 149-150, n. 49; idem, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. Bing, I (Leipzig, 1932, repr. Nendeln, 1969), 147- 148, n. 2; idem, Ausgewaehlte Schriften, ed. D. Wuttke, 2nd ed. (Baden-Baden, 1980), pp. 149-150, n. 49; Kristeller, Suppl., II, 169-172; Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, I; “II Zibaldone Quaresimale,” ed. A. Perosa (London, i960), 114-116, cf. 176 and 203-205. The letter occurs in ten miscellaneous manuscripts including the ones in Verona, Parma, Tours and New Haven. Cf. Tanturli, p. 232.
62 Suppl., II, 158-161. Kristeller, Cf., The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino (New York, 1943), pp. 171–199 Google Scholar; Il pensierofilosofico di Marsilio Ficino (Florence, 1953), pp. 189-212.
63 Suppl., I, p. CLX. The text appears in ten miscellaneous manuscripts including those in Verona, Parma, Tours, and New Haven. It is listed in the first catalogue of Ficino's writings under the title De appetitu. Cf. Tanturli, p. 232.
64 Suppl., II, 167-169, cf. I, p. CLX (where the date is wrong). The text is found only in two miscellaneous manuscripts, Rice. 1074 and 2544. Cf. Tanturli, p. 232 (who rightly stresses the fact that Ficino sends greetings to Tommaso and Giovanni Benci, cf. ibid., p. 197, n. 3).
65 E. Santini, Firenze e i suoi “Cratori” nel Quattrocento (Milan, 1922), pp. 91-92 and passim. For the vernacular miscellanies which contain writings by Ficino, see Appendix I. There are many more miscellaneous manuscripts of the same type which do not contain works by Ficino.
66 Suppl., I, pp. LXXXVI-LXXXVII and 24-25. Opera I, 575-606.
67 Suppl., II, 175-182 from ms. Magi. XV 190. Caroti, Cf. S. and Zamponi, S., Lo scrittoio di Bartolomeo Fonzio (Milan, 1974), p. 130 Google Scholar. See also Tanturli, G., “Codici di Antonio Manetti e ricette del Ficino,” Rinascimento, 20 (1980), 313–326 Google Scholar. He publishes two recipes of Ficino copied by Antonio Manetti from Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, ms. Conv. Soppr. C I, 1259, f. 84 (pp. 325-326, cf. p. 319).
68 Suppl., II, 182. The letter to Lorenzo is in the Archivio Mediceo avanti il Princip a l and now has the shelf mark 73, 292.
69 See above, note 23. Cf. SuppL, II, 183-184; Tanturli, “I Benci,” p. 244.
70 Suppl., II, 185-187, cf. I, p. CLXII.
71 Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Lat. 1161, 1428, 10526, 10545, 13285, Franc. 24728; London, British Library, Royal 2 A VIII, King's 9, Add. 17012; Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, ms. 49, 51, 52, 54. The text usually occupies about ten folios. It is not mentioned by Dekker, Stegmueller, or B. Lambert in their lists of the apocryphal works of St. Jerome. The incipit given by V. Leroquais (Les livres d'heures manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale [Paris, 1972], I, pp. XXVIII-XXIX) “Verba mea uribus percipe Domine” corresponds to that of Ficino's version (“Signore mio ricevi co’ tuoi orecchi le parole mie“). The short text usually appears in Books of Hours or in Prayer Books. The probable source of Ficino's translation is ms. Laur. 25, 3, a miscellaneous manuscript written on parchment and illuminated in the thirteenth century, which has the title Supplkationes variae, and belonged to Lorenzo de’ Medici. It contains on fols. 25V-33 a Psalterium Beati Ieronimi (inc. “Verba mea auribus percipe domine, des. quoniam ego servus tuus sum“), preceded by a short prologue (Prologus Beati Hieronimi presbiteri, inc. “Propter hoc breviatum est psalterium hoc ut meditetur“). I have seen the manuscript recently, with a special permission from Dott. Antonietta Morandini, at the time when it was displayed in an exhibition. Bandinius, Cf. A. M., Catalogus codicum latinomm Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae, I (Florence, 1774)Google Scholar, col. 748-754, at col. 749, no. 9 (with the title B. Hieronymipresbyteri Psalterium cum Prologo, and without incipit or explicit); Disegni nei manoscritti Laurenziani (exhibition catalogue [Florence, 1979], pp. 71-76, no. 45). A text with a similar title (Psalterio di Sancto Hieronymo abreviato) is found in several rare editions of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, but it is much longer and has different incipits (“obsecro te mi domine; comitetur nos quesumus domine; Deus in adiutorium meum intende“). For this text I used the copy of the Biblioteca Casanatense in Rome, with the shelf mark Rari 166 (formerly Inc. 166), cf. Reichling, 1039; Sander 5951; Indice Generate degli Incunaboli delle Biblioteche d'ltalia, vol. 4 (1965), p. 335. Ficino's translation is found in Rice. 341, 1497, 1622 and Triv. 84 (Suppl., II, 369). The prayer of St. Augustine in Ficino's version is found only in Rice. 1622. Ficino's example as a vernacular translator of religious texts was followed by his cousin and collaborator Sebastiano Salvini. He translated from the Latin the letter of Rabbi Samuel against the Jews (for Card. Raffaele Riario, 25 Nov. 1479), the Symbolum Athanasii (for Ficino's brother Daniele), a Psalter (inc. “Beatus vir,” for Bartolomea de'Medici, wife of Tommaso Minerbetti, dated 10 Oct. 1477) and added a vernacular sermon addressed to Antonio Manetti. The texts are all contained in an incunabulum printed about 1480 (Hain 14275, 14276, Copinger 5260, GoffS 117, cf. Reichling VI, p. 144). Kristeller, Cf. P. O., “Sebastiano Salvini” in Didascaliae, Studies in Honor of Anselm M. Albareda, ed. Prete, S. (New York, 1961), 205–243 Google Scholar, at pp. 238-239.
72 Opera, I, 753.
73 Suppl., I, p. XCIV. Opera I, 612-615. The letter is found as a separate piece in Laur. 21, 8 (f. 133), Laur. 21, 21 (f. 131), Rice. 146 (f. 49), 351 (f. 27v), 574 (f. 51), 966 (f. 63), Glasgow Hunterian Museum U 1.10 (206, fols. 96v-99), British Library Harl. 5335 (f. 54). Ambr. D 3 inf. (f. 156v;), Piacenza Landi 50 (f. 109v). On the importance of this short work and its influence on Landino and others, Buck, cf. A., “Dichtung und Dichter bei Cristoforo Landino,” Romanische Forschungen, 58–59 (1947)Google Scholar, 233-246; idem, Italienische Dichtungslehren vom Mittelalter bis zum Ausgang der Renaissance (Tuebingen, 1952), pp. 87-97; Tigerstedt, E. N., “The Poet as Creator,” Comparative Literature Studies, 5 (1968), 455–488 Google Scholar.
74 For the preface, see Suppl., I, 68-69, based on Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, cod. II III 402. The text without the preface is also found in Rice. 1074, 2544, and Siena J VI 25. All these manuscripts, except for the Siena manuscript, are closely linked with Ficino's circle.
75 For the preface, see Suppl., I, pp. 98-101.
76 To the twelve manuscripts listed in Suppl., I, 98-99, we must add Rice. 2174, Naz. Panciatichi 125, Ottob. lat. 1167 and Genoa, Universitaria A IX 28 (Gaslini 47). This last manuscript (Iter, I, 244-245) is a miscellany and contains other works by Tommaso Benci and by his brothers Giovanni and Lorenzo. Among the other manuscripts, only Naz. III 71 belongs to the usual type of vernacular miscellanies. Cf. Tanturli, pp. 233-234 and 287-296.
77 For the preface, see Suppl., I, 102-103. The edition of 1548 has been reprinted in facsimile (Milan, 1944).
78 Ricc. 1074 and 2544. Cf. Suppl, I, pp. CVII-CVIII. An anonymous vernacular version of the Hipparchus attributed to Plato (a dialogue translated by Ficino before 1464) is found in Magi. VIII 1415, fols. 157-163v (Suppl., I, p. CLV, cf. Iter, I, 134). The manuscript was written by Filippo Benci (Tanturli, pp. 280-282, no. 14), and the translation may be by Tommaso Benci.
79 Opera, II, 1320-1363. Ficin, Marsile, Commentaire sur le Banquet de Platon, ed. Marcel, R. (Paris, 1956)Google Scholar. On the author's variants which distinguish the redactions of the De amove and which are not clearly indicated in Marcel's edition, see Devereux, James A., “The Textual History of Ficino's De amore,” Renaissance Quarterly, 28 (1975), 173–182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (cf. Suppl., I, p. 86-87). For an English version, see Jayne, Sears R., Marsilio Ficino's Commentary on Plato's Symposium (Columbia, Missouri, 1944)Google Scholar.
80 Por the preface, see Suppl., I, 89-91.
81 To the nine manuscripts listed in the Supplementum (I, p. CXXVI), of which at least four were written in the sixteenth century, we must add Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, ms. Tordi 345 (Studies, p. 164). Laur. 76, 73 has the following note at the end: “ed e di Antonio di Tuccio Manetti Fiorentino e di sua mano scripto e copiato dallo originale.” De Robertis, loc. cit. Cf. Tanturli, “I Benci copisti,” p. 241.
82 For Barbarasa's translation, see SuppL, I, 92-93; Anthony Hobson, Apollo and Pegasus (Amsterdam, 1975), pp. 91-92 and passim.
83 Suppl., I, 91-92. The text was reprinted in 1594 and in 1914.
84 Suppl., I, 133-134. Kristeller, , “Between the Italian Renaissance and the French Enlightenment, Gabriel Naude as an Editor,” Renaissance Quarterly, 32 (1979), 41–72 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, at p. 65. Bartoli translated Alberti's De re aedificatoria (Florence, 1550) and his Opuscoli morali (Venice, 1568).
85 See above, note 32.
86 Opera, I, 1-77. Suppl., I, 7-12, cf. LXXVII-LXXIX.
87 Suppl., I, 12-15. The manuscript formerly owned by Conte Giulio Guicciardini in Sesto (Studies, p. 165, no. 33) seems to be the dedication copy. Cf. Tanturli, p. 244.
88 Opera, I, 697-706. Ficin, Marsile, Theologie Platonicienne, ed. Marcel, R., III (Paris, 1970), 345–367 Google Scholar, Cf. Suppl, I, pp. XCIV-XCVII.
89 Suppl., I, 71, cf. pp. CX-CXI. Ms. Naz. Pal. 109 has at the end the following copyist's note: “Finito di trascrivere questo libretto per me Ser Luca d'Antonio di Luca di Francesco Bardini del Popolo de S(an) M(ichele) V(isdomini) et sotto di HII di giugno 1522, el quale transcripsi d'uno origine (sic) stato scripto sotto di XI di dicembre 1477 et da huomo degno di fede” (Suppl., I, p. XXV, recently corrected by me from the manuscript).
90 Prosatori latini del Quattrocento, ed. Garin, E. (Milan, 1952), pp. 931–969 Google Scholar.
91 Suppl., I, 72, cf. p. CXI. For the dedication copy, Rice. 2684, see Suppl., I, pp. -XX-XXI. Cf. Tanturli, p. 245.
92 Suppl., I, pp. XX-XXI, CXI, 71-72.
93 Opera, I, 636-638.
94 Buck, A, “Democritus ridens et Heraclitus flens,” in Wort und Schrift, Festschrift fuer Fritz Schalk (Frankfurt, 1963), pp. 167–186 Google Scholar, where the ancient sources (Seneca, Juvenal and others) and their literary repercussions to the seventeenth century are discussed.
95 Weisbach, W., “Der sogenannte Geograph von Velazquez und die Darstellungen des Demokrit and Heraklit,” Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 49 (1928), 141–158 Google Scholar; Wind, E., “The Christian Democritus,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, I (1938-39), 180–182 Google Scholar; Gombrich, E. H., Symbolic Images (London, 1972), pp. 77 Google Scholar and 219; Chastel, A., Marsile Ficin et I'art (Geneva, 1954), pp. 67 Google Scholar and 70; idem, Art et Humanisme a Florence au temps de Laurent ie Magnifique (Paris, 1961), pp. 248-249; Bruschi, A., Bramante architetto (Bari, 1969), pp. 762–763 Google Scholar; Pedretti, C., “The Sforza Sepulchre,” part I, Gazette des Beaux Arts, VI 90 (119), 1977, pp. 121–131 Google Scholar, at pp. 123-125 and 129, n. 12. It seems likely that Leonardo brought the motif from Florence to Milan. According to Craig Smyth, Bramante may have seen it in Florence.
96 Kristeller, , The Philosophy ofMarsilio Ficino (1943), p. 24 Google Scholar and passim; II pensiero filosofico (1953), p. 14 and passim.
97 Suppl., I, pp. XLV-XLVI and CX. The manuscript in question is Casanatcnse 1297. Cf. Tanturli, pp. 244-245.
98 Suppl., I, 70, cf. Opera I, 609.
99 Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Library, ms. Lea 42 contains a Latin treatise De misercordia by Laurentius Cyathus, dedicated to Jacopo Guicciardini.
100 Vespasiano dedicated to Bernardo del Nero his Commentario delta vita di messer Giannozzo Manetti (Vespasiano da Bisticci, Le vite, ed. Aulo Greco, II [Florence, 1967], 515-517). In the preface, Vespasiano addresses “you (Bernardo del Nero) to whom several works of Marsilio Ficino have been sent, full of eloquence and of learning” (p. 516, cf. Suppl., II, 238-239). For the contribution of the Florentine merchants to literature, see Bee, C., Les marchands écrivains à Florence (Paris, 1967)Google Scholar.
101 Marcel, R., Marsile Ficin (Paris, 1958), pp. 170 Google Scholar, 204 ff. and passim.
102 See above, note 6.
103 He dedicated to Antonio Canigiani the De voluptate (Opera, I, p. 986) and the De virtutibus moralibus (Suppl., II, 1-6) and mentions a visit to the villa of his father Giovanni in 1458 at the beginning of the treatise Di Dio et anima (Suppl., II, 129). For Ficino's relations with the Benci family, see Suppl., II, 358 and 364 where the respective passages are indicated. See also Tanturli, “I Benci copisti.” We may note that some members of the Benci and Canigiani families were connected with the Medici bank ( de Roover, R., The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank [Cambridge, Mass., 1963]Google Scholar, on the pages listed in the index). For the biographies of Ficino's friends, the work of Delia Torre, A. (Storia dell'Accademia Platonica di Firenze [Florence, 1902]Google Scholar, passim) is still indispensable. The case of Piero de'Pazzi shows that young Ficino served as a tutor not only for his contemporaries, but also for some of his elders. See above, note 6.
104 Suppl., I, 58-64. Cf. ibid., 47-50 for the letters omitted after the Pazzi plot.
105 Suppl., II, 218-220.
106 For ficino's correspondence with Tommaso, Francesco, Gianvittorio, Paolantonio, and Piero Soderini, see Suppl., II, 362 and 367, for that with Filippo and Niccolo Valori, ibid., II, 362-363 and 367. Filippo Valori paid for the costs of the edition of Ficino's translation of Plato in 1484, Kristeller, cf. P.O., “The First Printed Edition of Plato's Works and the Date of Its Publication,” in Science and History, Studies in Honor of Edward Rosen (Studia Copernicana, 16, Wroclaw, 1979), pp. 25–35 Google Scholar. Filippo Valori had several works of Ficino copied at his expense, adding dedicatory letters to Lorenzo and Piero de’ Medici and to Matthias Corvinus: De vita, for Lorenzo, Laur. 73, 39 (Suppl., I, 22); Epistolae, books I-VIII, for Matthias Corvinus, Wolfenbuettel 73 Aug. fol. (Suppl., I, 65-66); Epistolae, books III and IV and translation of Synesius, for Matthias Corvinus, Wolfenbuettel 2 Aug. 40 (Suppl., I, 66); translation and commentary of Plotinus, for Lorenzo, Laur. 82, 10 (Suppl., I, 94); translation of Priscianus Lydus, for Matthias Corvinus, Wolfenbuettel 10 Aug. 40 (Suppl., I, 95); translation of Synesius and Psellus, for Piero de’ Medici, Ottob. lat. 1531 (Suppl., I, 104-105); translations of Alcinous, Speusippus and Pythagoras, for Lorenzo, Genoa, Biblioteca Durazzo, ms. B III 3 ( Kristeller, , Iter Italicum, I [1963], p. 248 Google Scholar). To Niccolo Valori Ficino dedicated the edition of his commentaries on Plato (1496), and we may suspect that he subsidized the publication (Opera, II, 1136). However, in a letter to Aldus Manutius dated 1 July 1497, Ficino writes: “nee in urbe nee in suburbiis habitare tuto possum” (Suppl., II, 95.).
107 Opera, I, 963.
108 Suppl, II, 76-79.
109 We should extend this investigation to Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who wrote in Florence and in Tuscan his Commento sopra una canzone de amore composta da Girolamo Benivieni (G. Pico della Mirandola, De hominis dignitate, Heptaplus, De ente et uno, e scritti vari, ed. E. Garin [Florence, 1942], pp. 451-591) and also to Francesco da Diacceto who made vernacular versions of two of his own writings, the De amore and the Panegyricus in amorem. The two vernacular treatises were printed in Venice in 1561, whereas the Panegirico alone had been printed in Rome in 1526. The works were composed between 1508 and 1511. Cf. Kristeller, Studies (1956), pp. 304 and 308-311.
110 I wish to thank Dott, Luigi Fiorani for his help with my work in the Archivio Caetani, and for various bibliographical references, and my friends Gianfranco Contini and Augusto Campana for their careful revision of my Italian typescript. I am also grateful to Dott. Fiorani for his painstaking editorial work on the Italian edition of my lecture. I am especially grateful to Dr. Albinia C. de la Mare and to Prof. Augusto Campana for the valuable palaeographical and codicological opinions which they made available to me and which they allowed me to publish as appendices to my lecture. They greatly enhance the value of this article, especially for specialists in Dante and in palaeography.
The English version has been prepared by me and edited by Prof. Edward P. Mahoney, whereas the “Observations” of Professor Campana were jointly translated by Professor Mahoney and myself. I have made some changes, additions, and corrections, and wish to thank Professor Carlo Dionisotti, Dr. Andrew McCormick and Dr. Marcella Roddewig for much valuable information.
page 36 note 1 Barbi, M., “II ms. Ashburnhamiano 839 e il codice Caetani,” Studi danteschi, 16 (1932), 137–156 Google Scholar, reprinted in his Problemi di critica dantesca, II (Florence, 1941), 435-451, at 449-
page 36 note 2 For the text, see Barbi, Problemi, II, 436; as to the glosses, the errors indicated by Barbi are almost all errors of the Caetani edition, and not of the manuscript. I have been able to verify this fact in the manuscript for six cases indicated by Barbi, II, 439, n. 1, including Ensus p. 232 (MS: Corsus, fol. 104v). There are, however, errors of the manuscript, that is, of its source. On p. 78 de Boccis for Biccis (fol. 38*, where the manuscript, however, reads correctly qui portant, not qui portabant), and p. 188 Cassato (fol. 83v) for Cassaro. Also p. 213 (see Barbi, II, 451 and n. 1) reads plausibly Quid vis, velpati penitentiam in hocrnundo …, vel in alio [?] (fol. 95v). I have by chance come across other errors in the edition: p. 85 in Inferno 18, 122 has a Deo (fol. 4iv adeo); p. 233 in Purgatorio 14, 105 has de Ubaldis (fol. 105v de Ubaldinis); p. 234 in Purgatorio 14, 112 has primam (fol. 105v patriam). Another shortcoming of the edition, though an intentional one, is the*practise of printing the lemmata in ordinary characters so that they are at first sight indistinguishable from the commentary; in the manuscript, the lemmata are accurately underlined. It would have been better to print them in Italic or spaced characters. For these last collations I was able to use the photostats in white on black made for Don Gelasio Caetani, probably for the purposes of his edition, and preserved in the Archivio Caetani under the shelf mark Miscellanea 1221-1243/1245-1267. In order to remove all possible doubts, and also because it has never been clearly stated by anybody up to now, I want to add here that the Dante text is arranged as follows: fols. 154r-234r (Inferno); fols. 73r-153r [Purgatorio); and fols. 154r-234r (Paradiso).
page 37 note 3 See Comedia Dantis Aldigherii Poetae Florentini, ed. Gelasio Caetani (Sancasciano ValdiPesa, 1930), pp. 36, 38, 41, 43 etc.
page 37 note 4 Caetani, Gelasio, La prima stampa del Codice Caetani della Divina Commedia (Sancasciano Val di Pesa, 1930), p. 8 Google Scholar.
page 38 note 5 Ibid.,p. 8.
page 38 note 6 See De Gubernatis, A., Carteggio dantesco del Duca di Sermoneta (Milan, 1883), pp. 23 and 32Google Scholar.
page 40 note 7 Caetani, , La prima stampa, pp. 8–9 Google Scholar.
page 40 note 8 Alighieri, Dante: La Commedia secondo Vantica vulgata, ed. Petrocchi, G., I (Milan, 1966), pp. xix, 545 Google Scholar, 567.
page 40 note 9 Caetani, La prima stampa, p. 8 n. 1, and Comedia Dantis Aldigherii, ed. Caetani, pp. 139 and 155.
page 40 note 10 Caetani, , La prima stampa, p. 8 Google Scholar.
page 41 note 11 Up to now there has been only a much reduced reproduction of two pages given by Fiorani, L., “Una figura dimenticata del Settecento romano,” Studi Romani, 15 (1967)Google Scholar, plate 9, and then in his Onorato Caetani, un erudito romano del Settecento (Rome, 1969), plate 7.
page 41 note 12 Caetani, , La prima stampa, p. 12 Google Scholar.
page 42 note 13 Ibid., p. 12.
page 42 note 14 Barbi, , Problemi, II, 436 Google Scholar.
page 42 note 15 See above, pp. 2-3 and 12-13.
page 42 note 16 Colomb de Batines, Bibliografia Dantesca, 2 vols. (Prato, 1846), II, 202.
page 42 note 17 Caetani, , La prima stampa, p. 7 Google Scholar.
page 43 note 18 Batines, , Bibliografia Dantesca, II, 205 Google Scholar.
page 43 note 19 Petrocchi's “Chig” is of course this manuscript. For relevant bibliography regarding it, see Petrocchi, (ed.), La Commedia, I, p. xiv Google Scholar, p. 18f., and p. 42.
page 44 note 20 Bandini, A. M., Novelle letterarie, II (Florence, 1780)Google Scholar, n. 37, col. 578 f. and n. 40, col. 627 f.
page 44 note 21 Fiorani, “Una figura dimenticata,” p. 46 and p. 491”.; idem, Onorato Caetani, pp. 32f. and p. 36.