Page 1

newsletter 2/2009 (3) ISSN 1899-640X

The history of the collection of Romance manuscripts in the Berlin Collection at the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow


2

Supported by a grant from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Financial Mechanism


info.filg.uj.edu.pl/fibula


2

Editorial Board: Piotr Tylus (Chief Editor) Roman Sosnowski (Co-Editor) Translation: Sylwia Barnett Design and DTP: Marcin Klag

ISSN 1899-640X Copyright © by Interdisciplinary Research Team ”FIBULA” and Faculty of Philology, Jagiellonian University of Cracow cover: gall. fol. 205 All rights reserved. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form without prior written permission from the Publisher Faculty of Philology, Jagiellonian University of Cracow ul. Gołębia 24, 31-007 Kraków, Poland fibula@inbox.com www.filg.uj.edu.pl www.filg.uj.edu.pl/fibula


newsletter 2/2009 (3)

ISSN 1899-640X

The history of the collection of Romance manuscripts in the Berlin Collection at the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow


4


Contents Magdalena Bartkowiak-Lerch Venetian books of heraldry in the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 7

Lorenzo De Santis A new witness to ser Alberto della Piagentina’s volgarizzamento of the De consolatione philosophiae by Boethius . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Jadwiga Miszalska The poems of 15th century Tuscan poets in the manuscript ital. quart.16 . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 32

Roman Sosnowski A recovered copy of Cronaca Carrarese . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Piotr Tylus 16th century French book of proverbs in the Berlin collection (ms. gall. quart. 18)

.

. 51

Scribes in Romance-language manuscripts from the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow (Addendum to Bénédictins du Bouveret) . . . . . . . . . . .

58

Watermarks in Romance-language manuscripts from the Berlin Collection at the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

Index of watermarks

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

93


6


Magdalena Bartkowiak-Lerch,

Venetian books of heraldry in the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library

I

n the Berlin collection of Romance languages manuscripts, three Venetian books of heraldry from the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries are present. The earliest one, La Cronica de Venexia, is currently in the codex with the catalogue number ital. fol. 171. The codex nowadays is composed of two texts, both thematically related to the Republic of Venice. The second one is a parchment manuscript composed a century before the book of heraldry, and added most probably in the 18th century when the covers were made. The manuscript remained a long time without covers as the worn-out condition of the recto of the first page and the verso of the last page indicate. It was, however, carefully restored (fragments of another 13th century Latin manuscript were used to reinforce the leaves). The road from Venice to Berlin was long and the book of heraldry passed through many collections, not all of which we were able to identify. It is certain, however, that before being acquired by the Berlin Library it had belonged to the collection of Biblioteca Mandelliana. Not much can be said about that collection but in a few incunabula printed in places such as Vienna, there exist notes from the second half of the 18th century in which the ex-libris of the collection were preserved. The second of the studied manuscripts, Origine delle case nobili di Venezia, in the codex with the catalogue number ital. fol. 56, originates from the 16th century. Also in this codex we find a second text describing a conspiracy organized in the 14th century against the government of the Republic of Venice. The text itself was written (or copied) later than the history of the Venetian houses. It probably was composed at the turn of the 16th century. The two texts also were bound together when they were covered, but the covers are from much earlier than was the case with the previous codex (they are dated for the turn of the 16th century). This book of heraldry, as with the previous one, remained uncovered for a long time. This was not such a luxurious prod-


8 Magdalena Bartkowiak-Lerch, Venetian books of heraldry in the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library.

uct as La Cronica de Venexia. We can observe a lack of concern for decoration and that the manuscript is unfinished – many of the coats of arms remain as sketches or are completely missing. We also notice that during the covering of the manuscript no special attention was paid to the restoration of the text. The first gathering was simply cut down (probably with the intention to remove the worn-out parts of the leaves); in addition, the first leaf of the manuscript that had fallen out (f. 18) was re-inserted between f. 18 and f. 19, which shows that the manuscript was treated quite carelessly. In this case, we know little when it comes to the manuscript’s history. It is possible to suggest that it came to the Berlin collection directly from Italy. There are no annotations as to previous owners while all additional inscriptions are in Italian. The last one among the Venetian books of heraldry, Famiglie Venete, with the catalogue number ital. qu. 51 comes from the second half of the 17th century. It is a luxurious product, made in all probability for a noble whose coat of arms is visible on the f. 1vo (he also may have been one of the previous owners of the codex since the leaf with the arms was pasted on top of the manuscript’s page). It was not possible to identify that person; however, it is known that he was a descendant of the Venetian family of Contarini on his father’s side and also the Venetian family of Tajapiera (Tagliapiera) on his mother’s side. All the decorations in this manuscript were made with great care. It also has been covered from the very beginning, which helped preserve it in good condition. A marble paper pasted to the inside cover at the beginning of the 19th century may but does not necessarily signify that the manuscript remained in France before being purchased by the Berlin Library (it is a Stormont type of paper, produced in France in 1800-1815). All three of the books of heraldry are made on paper and have similar structure. Next to the information about the name of the house, its origin and its history, the family’s coat of arms is drawn in color. The present analysis of the houses’ descriptions and their coats of arms is based on a narrow set of comparative material. The author of the present article used mainly the rich Dictionary of the Italian noble families, accessible at the study room of the Jagiellonian Library: Dizionario storico-blasonico delle famiglie nobili e notabili italiane estinte e fiorenti1. Pages 65-96 are missing from 1 Giovanni Battista di Crollalanza, Dizionario storico-blasonico delle famiglie nobili


the Dictionary (between the names Arse and Baroni). Nevertheless, it is the only copy that the author had a possibility to use for this analysis. The list that follows, divided in four parts, has no pretension of being a comprehensive description of the Venetian houses and their coats of arms but is intended to be a contribution to further research by a specialist in heraldry. The idea for this article was born during the identification of the houses in the manuscript, when the author noticed that many descriptions of the coats of arms drawn in the manuscript were missing from the Dictionary. Perhaps a detailed list of these families, together with a selection of the scanned pages of the manuscript presenting the coats of arms missing from the Dictionary, will complement the knowledge that somehow faded from the history of Italian heraldry. To be precise, we will list as well the houses one does not find in Dizionario storico-blasonico and those (very numerous) that present differences between the description of the coat of arms in Dizionario and its form in the manuscript. The additional category is composed of the coats of arms described in the dictionary but waiting (for the execution of the drawings) in the manuscript. In the cases of the houses absent in the Dizionario we adopted the spelling of the manuscripts. In all other cases we give in parentheses the name of the house as written in Dizionario (if it differs from the manuscript) followed by the reference to the volume and page of the dictionary. To simplify, for Dizionario we will use the abbreviation Diz.

Ital. fol. 171 La Cronica de Venexia Houses missing in Dizionario storico-blasonico: Anastaxi (7ro), Achotanto (7r ), Anonal (8ro), Benato (8ro), Brustolan (9ro), Bracolane (9ro), Belon (9ro), Betani (9vo), Beli (9vo), Boncena (9vo), Borsolo (10ro), Baxei (10vo), Berdani (10vo), Chalaprini (11vo), Charoxi (11vo), Chornareli (12ro), Chachonigo (12ro), Chatachaneuo (12ro), Choldiera (12vo), Charixme (12vo), Charara (12vo), Chalbi (13ro), Chabrielli (13vo), Chauatorta (13vo), Celsi (13vo), Donolo (14ro), Diesolo (14vo), Damar (14vo), Delanpanil (15ro), Dalbore (15ro), Dalaxeuole (15ro), Deso

e notabili italiane estinte e fiorenti, compilato dal comendatore, Vol.I-III, Pisa, Presso la direzione del giornale araldico, 1886, 1888, 1890.


10 Magdalena Bartkowiak-Lerch, Venetian books of heraldry in the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library.

ouentin (15ro), Dalaschala (15ro), Dagnusdio (15ro), Delorxo (15vo), Deliaspinal (15vo), Dolfinigo (15vo), Dariua (16ro), Danadi (16ro), Enxenier (16vo), Fiabenigi (17ro), Fermo (17vo), Fexadonda (17vo), Galobroxini (18vo), Gatallo (19ro), Gexo (19vo), Hobelegiero (20ro), Haoldo (20vo), Iulio (20vo), Maxaman (22vo), Marstro Orso (22vo), Menegaro (22vo), Menegaro (23ro), Michieli (23ro), Morexini (23vo), Molexini (23vo), Morexini (23vo), Molini (24ro), Miegano (24ro), Migliani (24ro), Magnio (24vo), Narachoxo (25ro), Nani (25ro), Nani (25ro), Querini (28ro), Rebolin (28ro), Stenier (29ro), Schandoler (29vo), Sechogolo (29vo), Stopardo (29vo), Sardoni (29vo), Salonexi (29vo), Sabini (30ro), Sopranci (30vo), Tradomenegi (31ro), Tunesto (31ro), Terci (32ro), Verardo (32vo – coat of arms waiting), Villio (32vo), Viori (33ro), Xorbani (33vo), Xiani (32vo), Xanaxi (34ro), Xanpoani (34ro), Xustignani (34ro), Xorxi (34ro), Xiani (34vo), Xusti (34vo). Coats of arms missing in the descriptions of the houses in Dizionario storicoblasonico, but present in the manuscript: Churan (coat of arms waiting in the manuscript, in Diz. I, p.343 – da Curano or Coriano), Doro (14ro, cf. Diz., I, p.369), Longo (21vo, cf. Diz., II, p.31), Martini (23ro – uncertain, may be: Martini di Venezia, cf. Diz., II, p.93). Coats of arms waiting (for the execution of the drawings) in the manuscript, but described in Dizionario storico-blasonico: Beloxelo (8ro, Bellosello, cf. Diz., I, p.111), Barixane (11ro, Barisan o Barizani, cf. Diz., III, p.159), Chostantini (12ro, Costantini, cf. Diz. I, p.331), Chauali (13ro, Cavalli di Verona, cf. Diz. I, p. 268), Daporto (14vo, may be: Daporto, cf. Diz., I, p.350), Darpin (16ro, may be: Darpin, cf. Diz., I, p.350), Dono (16vo, cf. Diz., I, p.368), Emigliai (16vo, Emiliani, cf. Diz., I, p.376), Este (17ro, cf. Diz., I, p.379), Fornaxe (17ro, may be: Fornace, cf. Diz., I, p.423), Faraon (17vo, Faraoni, cf. Diz., I, p.391), Fauro (17vo, may be: Fauro, cf. Diz., I, p.393), Galina (19ro, Gallina, cf. Diz., I, p.450), Gonxaga (20ro, cf. Diz., I, p.491), Lodouici (21ro, may be: Lodovici, cf. Diz., II, p.28), Ogniben (25vo, cf. Diz., II, p.223), Padauin (26ro – sketch of the coat of arms, Padavij, cf. Diz., II, p.249), Polenta (27ro – coat of arms unfinished, cf. Diz., II, p.355), Sisola (29ro – sketch of the coat of arms, cf. Diz., II, p.537), Torelli (31ro, cf. Diz., III, p.30), Talenti (31ro – sketch of the coat of arms, cf. Diz., III, p.3), Vixamani (33vo, may be: Vizzamano, cf. Diz., III, p.109), Vermo (33vo, Verme, cf. Diz., III, p.82), Xancharello (34vo, may be: Zancarello, cf. Diz., III, p.117). Coats of arms, the descriptions of which in Dizionario storico-blasonico do not correspond to the arms in the manuscript, partly or entirely: Amadio (6vo,


11

Ital. fol. 171, 14ro (Doro)


12 Magdalena Bartkowiak-Lerch, Venetian books of heraldry in the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library.

may be: Amadio cf. Diz., I, p.37), Amigo (7ro, cf. Diz., I, p.40), Alberti (8ro, cf. Diz., I, p.21), Bonhomo (8ro, Bonomi, cf. Diz., I, p.154), Bochon (9ro, Boccon, cf. Diz., I, p.141), Buora (9ro, cf. Diz., I, p.184), Bonaldi (9vo, cf. Diz., I, p.147), Burichaldo (9vo, may be: Buricaldi, cf. Diz., I, p.185), Bedoloto (9vo, Bedolato, cf. Diz., I, p.107), Bonçil (10ro, Boncile, cf. Diz., I, p.149), Belegni (10ro, Belegno, cf. Diz., I, p.107), Chapoani (13ro, may be: Capoani di Venezia e di Trieste, cf. Diz., I, p.225), Chontarini (13ro, may be: Contarini, cf. Diz., I, p.316), Chapelli (13ro, Capello, cf. Diz., I, p.222), Chanale (13vo, may be: Canali o Canal, cf. Diz., I, p.212), Chalergi (13vo, Calergi, cf. Diz., I, p.200), Chocho (13vo, Cocco, cf. Diz., I, p.305), Dauli (14ro, cf. Diz., I, p.352), Dixenuoue (14vo, Diesenove o Diecinove, cf. Diz., I, p.360), Diodado (14vo, Diodalo, cf. Diz., I, p.364), Doto (14vo, Dotti, cf. Diz., I, p.370), Donxorxi (14vo, Donzorzi, cf. Diz., I, p.368), Deuerardo (15ro, cf. Diz., I, p.359), Dolfini (15vo, Dolfin di Venezia, cf. Diz., I, p.363), Dandoli (16ro, Dandolo, cf. Diz., I, p.349), Diedo (16ro, Dedo, cf. Diz., I, p.353), Echardo (16vo, Eccardo, cf. Diz., III, p.224), Eriçij (17ro, Erizzo, cf. Diz., I, p.378), Foscolo (18ro, cf. Diz., I, p.426), Grasoni (18vo, Grassoni, cf. Diz., I, p.497), Guberto (18vo, cf. Diz., I, p.511), Gatixelo (19ro, may be: Gattisello, cf. Diz., I, p.461), Lambresci (21ro, Lambreschi, cf. Diz., II, p.5), Lisiado (21ro, cf. Diz., II, p.26), Lonbardi (21ro, may be: Lombardi, cf. Diz., II, p.30), Lion (20vo, may be: Leoni, cf. Diz., II, p.20), Mosolin (22ro, Mossolini, cf. Diz., II, p.185), Marmora (22ro, Marmore, cf. Diz., II, p.85), Marioni (22ro, may be: Marioni, cf. Diz., II, p.84), Maistropiero (22vo, Maistro-Piero, cf. Diz., II, p.51), Malfacto (22vo, Malfatto, cf. Diz., II, p.55), Malaxa (23ro, may be: Malaza, cf. Diz., II, p.54), Michieli (23ro, may be: Michieli di Udine, cf. Diz., II, p.136), Mosti (23vo, may be: Mosto, cf. Diz., II, p.185), Manolesi (24ro, Manolesso, cf. Diz., II, p.66), Nichola (25ro, Nicola di Venezia, cf. Diz., II, p.208), Nauigroso (25ro, Navajosi, cf. Diz., II, p.200), Nani (25ro, may be: Nani, cf. Diz., II, p.194), Nadale (25vo, may be: Nadal or Naldale, cf. Diz., II, p.194), Obixo (25vo, Obizzo, cf. Diz., II, p.223), Orio (25vo, cf. Diz., II, p.237), Participaci (26ro, may be: Partecipazi, cf. Diz., II, p.284 – dictionary aditionnaly indicates the Badoer house, described on the missing pages), Pencini (26ro, may be: Penzini, cf. Diz., II, p.310), Proti (26ro, Proto, cf. Diz., II, p.381), Padauin (26ro, Padavij, cf. Diz., II, p.249), Pin (26vo, cf. Diz., II, p.340), Piero (26vo, may be: Piero, cf. Diz., II, p.335), Pasquaxi (26vo, Pasquasi, cf. Diz., II, p.291), Premarin (27ro, Premarino, cf. Diz., II, p.376), Quintaualle (27vo, Quintavalle di Venezia, cf. Diz., II, p.391), Ragoxo (28ro, may be: Ragusio, cf. Diz., II, p.394), Raua (28vo, Rava, cf. Diz., II, p.403), Rimondi (28vo, cf. Diz., II, p.422), Renier (28vo, cf. Diz., II, p.410),


Sercin (29ro, may be: Sercin, cf. Diz., II, p.521), Sabadin (29ro, Sabadini, cf. Diz., II, p.461), Sauoner (29ro, Savonieri, cf. Diz., II, p.498), Sexendolo (29ro, may be: Sesendoli, cf. Diz., II, p.526), Sauian (30ro, Saviani, cf. Diz., II, p.496), Spaçacanal (30ro, Spazzacanal, cf. Diz., II, p.551), Storladi (30ro, Stornadi, cf. Diz., II, p.565), Soranci (30vo, Soranzo, cf. Diz., II, p.545), Temodio (31ro, Temidio, cf. Diz., III, p.13), Trauaianti (31ro, Travanti o Travaianti, cf. Diz., III, p.40), Totulo (31vo, may be: Totulo, cf. Diz., III, p.38), Triuixani (32ro – the last of four coats of arms, Trevisani, cf. Diz., III, p.43), Taiapiera (32ro, Taiapiera o Tagliapiera, cf. Diz., III, p.3), Vieri (32vo, may be: Vieri, cf. Diz., III, p.91), Vendelin (32vo, Vendelini, cf. Diz., III, p.75), Vielmo (32vo, may be: Vielmo, cf. Diz., III, p.91), Vido (32vo, may be: Vido cf. Diz., III, p.91), Valpetro (33ro, cf. Diz., III, p.67), Vendramin (33vo, Vendramini, cf. Diz., III, p.75). Ruxier (28vo) – coat of arms waiting for the execution of the drawing. In the dictionary there is no description of the Ruggieri house corresponding to the family described in the manuscript. In the description of the Ruggieri family from Venice the dictionary does not give the depiction of its coat of arms.

Ital. fol. 56 Origine delle case nobili di Venezia In this manuscript, only leaves containing the drawings of the coats of arms were studied. This book of heraldry shows the closest coherence between the description of the coats of arms in Dizionario storico-blasonico and the drawings in the manuscript. It also happens that parts of the coat of arms are left uncolored but it is obvious that this task was supposed to be completed. Taking into account the unusual precision with which the drawings were made and how closely they correspond to the description in the dictionary, the author of this article does not count such cases as divergence. As these missing items concern only elements, not the coats of arms on the whole, the author also does not count these cases to the category of “coat of arms waiting for the execution of the drawing.” On the remaining leaves from 19vo to 52vo, occasional pen sketches are made with an indication as to the colors to be used on particular fields. Houses missing in Dizionario storico-blasonico: Brizi (two houses – 14vo), Brustolani (15vo), Beloni (15vo), Betani (15vo), Bonaldi (16ro), Alpini (17ro), Anafesto (17ro), Alberti (17ro), Adriani (17vo), Apamo (17vo), Adoldo (17vo), Anastasi (two houses - 18ro), Acotanto (18ro), Ansimi (19ro), Amar (19ro).


14 Magdalena Bartkowiak-Lerch, Venetian books of heraldry in the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library.

Coats of arms missing in the description in Dizionario storico-blasonico, but present in the manuscript: Auogari (19ro, Avogadro, cf. Diz., III, p.153). Coats of arms waiting (for the execution of the drawing) in the manuscript, but described in Dizionario storico-blasonico: Agnusdio (13vo, may be Agnusdei, cf. Diz., I, p.12), Bocho (14ro, cf. Diz., I, p.141), Bochoni (15vo, may be: Bochon, cf. Diz., I, p.141), Borselli (15vo, may be: Borsello, cf. Diz., I, p.160), Berengo (15vo, may be: Berenghi, cf. Diz., I, p.119), Belli (16ro, may be: Belli, cf. Diz., I, p.109), Biancha (16ro, Bianca, cf. Diz., I, p.129), Bonzena (16ro, Bonzeno, cf. Diz., I, p.155), Bonaldi (16ro, cf. Diz., I, p.147), Boninsegna (16ro, cf. Diz., I, p.153), Buricaldo (16vo, Buricaldi, cf. Diz., I, p.185), Bedoloto (16vo, Bedolato, cf. Diz., I, p.107), Bonzil (16vo, Bonzili, cf. Diz., I, p.155), Boricaldo (16vo, Buricaldi, cf. Diz., I, p.185), Albani (19ro, cf. Diz., I, p.18). Coats of arms, the descriptions of which in Dizionario storico-blasonico do not correspond to the arms in the manuscript, partly or entirely: Bonhomo (14ro, may be: Bonomi, cf. Diz., I, p.154), Agrinali (17vo, cf. Diz., I, p.14), Aicardo (17vo, cf. Diz., I, p.14).

Ital. qu. 51 Famiglie Venete The author discovered very many small and large differences between the manuscript and the dictionary. This may testify to the evolution of the coats of arms of these families (the dictionary often gives an older version of the coat of arms as well as the modern one). These divergences are worth studying, and maybe an expert on the matter will discover some information useful to investigation on the evolution of and possible connections within the history of Venetian families. Houses missing in Dizionario storico-blasonico: Anafesto (9ro), Alduini (10vo), Agradi (10vo), Apemo (11ro), Alberti (11ro), Anastasij (12ro), Ariani (12ro), Acoitanto (12vo), Armani (12vo), Alampani (12vo), Angusuola (12vo), Bragolani (13vo), Bredani (14vo), Brestolini (14vo – two houses), Bechoni (15ro), Bianca (15ro), Blonzena (15vo), Bazenon (15vo), Bonbizzo (15vo), Baffo (16ro), Borsollo (16ro), Borsselli (16vo), Brizzi (17ro), Baroni (17ro), Bonzi (17vo), Bertoldi (18ro), Bordenighi (18ro), Borostaldo (18vo), Busonichi (19ro), Bodollo (19vo), Bensici (19vo), Bataioni (20ro), Berloci (21ro), Boche (21ro), Buso (21ro), Biugna (21ro), Bri-


avan (21vo), Benintendi (21vo), Brazo (22ro), Corbodici (22ro), Chiani (22vo), Cazzolo (22vo), Cornarelli (23vo), Coldumeri (23vo), Colonizi (24ro), Concarolli (24ro), Colonegi (24ro), Comabigo (24ro), Comodazi (24vo), Canali (25ro – the first one of them), Calbani (25vo), Cavara (26ro), Cauazzoni (26ro), Castriotto (27ro), Castoldi (27ro), Cormini (27vo), Coglioni (28ro), Comin (28ro), Carlo (28ro), Damar (30ro), Dondazani (30vo), Dalhonfranco (30vo), Dasacco (30vo), Dauri (31ro), Dangalia (31ro), Delminburgh (31ro), Darpon (31ro), Diesolli (31vo), Dale Seuolle (32ro), Demezo (32ro), Daspinal (32ro), Don da Dio (32vo), Di Crespi (33ro), Deriario (33ro), Disticò (33vo), Delizo (34vo), Delfianco (34vo), Dalla Scala (35ro), Da Mazan (35ro), Di Rossi (35vo), Dall’Agnella (35vo), Dolfinenghi (35vo), Da Lanfiasco (35vo), Frangipane (36vo), Fabiani (37ro), Fonte (37ro), Fermo (37vo), Fabricio (38ro), Fiolario (38ro), Florcan (38ro, waiting for the coat of arms), Franceschi (38vo), Foscadonda (38vo), Fondanici (38vo), Foscollo (39ro), Grandoligo (39vo), Grimio (39vo), Gassoni (40ro), Grisoli (40vo), Grattolle (40vo), Gallobrosini (40vo), Galopini (41ro), Grugno (41ro), Galarosi (41vo), Gorgani (41vo), Gantani (42ro), Gatalosi (42ro), Ghisi (42vo), Gratiani (43vo), Lusignan (45ro), Lombardi (46ro), L’Umbria (46ro), Luciani (47ro), Lorena (47ro), Malezze (48vo), Marzaman (49vo), Malatesta (49vo), Martini (49vo), Mistrorsso (50ro), Mistro Piero (50ro), Margni (50ro – waiting for the coat of arms), Mattoni (51vo), Moresini (two houses – 53ro), Miani (53vo – second and third house of this name), Marini (two houses - 54ro), Mastrinengo (54vo), Marcarolli (54vo), Mazadego (54vo), Nelata (54vo) Nicerio (waiting arms - 54vo), Nani (55vo), Nauarese (55vo), Niegana (56ro), Niceno (56ro), Obelinzieri (56ro), Orssiolli (56vo), Orssini (57ro), Paolini (57vo), Passamonte (58ro), Prianigo (58vo), Pipini (58vo), Paradisi (59ro), Paoni (61vo), Rebonin (63ro), Reggia (63vo), Ronodante (63vo), Rauagnan (64vo), Seltracini (64vo), Scandoler (65ro), Saoner (65ro), Sauolle (65vo), Stadio (66ro), Stiopardo (66ro), Salonesi (66ro), Sabadini (67ro), Sabini (67ro), Sforza (67vo), Soranzi (68vo), Semitiepolli (68vo), Sauergnani (69ro), Sorboli (69ro), Stanizi (69vo), Sauelli (69vo), Salarentani (69vo), Tancasia (70vo), Tradomenegi (70vo), Teodorii (71ro), Teneri (72ro), Turloni (72vo), Ventollo (73ro), Vitison (73vo), Verro (73vo), Vdonigi (74ro), Vmbria (74vo), Vieri (75ro), Vilio (75ro), Zubenigi (76vo), Zanossi (76vo), Zusti (77ro), Zancarioli/ Zancarelli (77vo), Zordani (77vo), Zordani (77vo), Zampoli (78ro), Zani (78vo), Zara (79ro), Zucuoli (79ro). Coats of arms missing in the descriptions of the houses in Dizionario storico-blasonico, but present in the manuscript: Cazanapri (24vo, Cazanapei, cf.


16 Magdalena Bartkowiak-Lerch, Venetian books of heraldry in the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library.

Diz., I, p.272), Cochi (27ro, Cocco, cf. Diz., III, p.212), Dalla Lionessa (30vo, cf. Diz., I, p.348), Drusco (31vo, cf. Diz., I, p.372), Ghezzo (42ro, cf. Diz., I, p.470), Largi (45vo, cf. Diz., II, p.11), Longo (46vo, cf. Diz., II, p.31), Muse (50ro, cf. Diz., II, p.190), Otanto (57ro, Ottanto, cf. Diz., II, p.245), Peraci (61vo, Perazzo, cf. Diz., II, p.312), Sauiani/Sauini (66vo, Savina, cf. Diz., II, p.496). Coats of arms waiting (for the execution of the drawing) in the manuscript, but described in Dizionario storico-blasonico: Cossazza (22ro, may be: Cosazza oppure Cossazza, cf. Diz., I, p.329), Este (36vo, may be: Este, cf. Diz., I, p.379), Lombria (45vo, cf. Diz., II, p.30), Stornello (67vo – arms missing, cf. Diz., II, p.565), Surian (69ro – arms missing, cf. Diz., II, p.569). In the case of this manuscript, the differences between the drawings and their descriptions in Dizionario storico-blasonico often concern the use of silver and gold colors. In the manuscript, the artist uses silver whereas the Dizionario uses gold, and vice-versa. Coats of arms, the descriptions of which in Dizionario storico-blasonico do not correspond to the arms in the manuscript, partly or entirely: Albanizzo (9ro, Albani, cf. Diz., I, p.18), Andreardi (9ro, may be: Andreardi, cf. Diz., I, p.43), Amigho (9ro, Amigo, cf. Diz., I, p.40), Ardison (9vo, Ardizzoni, cf. Diz., I, p.58), Arduin (10vo, Arduini, cf. Diz., I, p.58), Anzzo (10vo, may be: Angio, cf. Diz., I, p.46), Anselmi (11ro, cf. Diz., I, p.49), Aleardi (11vo, may be: Aleardi, cf. Diz., I, p.27), Antolini (12ro, cf. Diz., I, p.51), Agrinali (12ro, cf. Diz., I, p.14), Auogaro (12vo, Avogardo, cf. Diz., III, p.154), Bentiuoglio (13ro, cf. Diz., I, p.117), Bonhomo (14ro, Bonomi, cf. Diz., I, p.154), Bocco (14ro, Bocho, cf. Diz., I, p.141), Briani (14vo, may be: Briani, cf. Diz., I, p.172), Bolani (14vo, Boleni, Bollani, cf. Diz., I, p.143), Bonaldi (15ro, cf. Diz., I, p.147), Boninsegna (15vo, cf. Diz., I, p.153), Basadello (15vo, cf. Diz., I, p.100), Boldù (17ro, cf. Diz., I, p.142), Buricaldo (18ro, Buricaldi, cf. Diz., I, p.185), Bonzillo (18vo, Bonzili, cf. Diz., I, p.155), Benzon (20vo, Benzoni, cf. Diz., I, p.118), Contento (22ro, may be: Contenti, cf. Diz., I, p.317), Caualieri (22vo, may be: Cavalieri, cf. Diz., I, p.267 oppure: Cavalleri di Bergamo, cf. Diz., I, p.206), Caloprini (23vo, cf. Diz., I, p.202), Catanio (24ro, may be: Catanio, cf. Diz., I, p.262), Catacaneuo (24vo, may be: Cattacanevo, cf. Diz., I, p.263), Cornicola (24vo, may be: Cornicola, cf. Diz., I, p.323), Capoani (25vo, cf. Diz., I, p.225), Capelli (25vo, Capello, cf. Diz., I, p.222), Coregi (27ro, Coreggi, cf. Diz., III, p.216), Cibo (27vo, cf. Diz., I, p.291), Carmignola (27vo, cf. Diz., I, p.240), Candiani (28ro, Candiano, cf. Diz., I, p.214), Cati (28ro, Catta o Catti, cf. Diz., I, p.263), Dandoli (28vo, Dandolo, cf. Diz., I, p.349),


17

Ital. fol. 56, 19ro (Auogari)


18

Ital. qu. 51, 24vo (Cazanapri)


Dolfini (29vo, Dolfin, cf. Diz., I, p.363), Dondollo (29vo, Dondono, cf. Diz., I, p.366), Damian (30ro, cf. Diz., I, p.348), Da Fon (31vo, Dafan, cf. Diz., I, p.347), Disnoue (31vo, Diesenove, Diecinove, cf. Diz., I, p.360), Donzani (31vo, may be: Donziani, cf. Diz., I, p.368), Delorzo (32vo, may be: Orzo dall’, cf. Diz., II, p.243), Dal Vermo (32vo, Verme, dal, cf. Diz., III, p.82), Di Lorenzi (32vo, cf. Diz., I, p.360), Da Rouere (33ro, Rovere, della, cf. Diz., II, p.453), Da Muggia (33ro, may be: Muggia, da, cf. Diz., II, p.186), Da San Seuerino (33vo, the successors of the house: San Severino, cf. Diz., II, p.528), Dolce (33vo, cf. Diz., I, p.363), Dobizo (33vo, cf. Diz., I, p.362), Donadi (34ro, Donà o Donato, cf. Diz., I, p.364 or: Donati, cf. Diz., I, p.366), Donno (34ro, Dono, cf. Diz., I, p.368), Dotti (34vo, cf. Diz., I, p.370), Deuerardo (34vo, may be: Deverardo, cf. Diz., I, p.359), Dalbore (34vo, Albore, cf. Diz., I, p.24), Diconto (34vo, Diconti, cf. Diz., I, p.360), Equillio (36ro, cf. Diz., I, p.377), Frugapan (37ro, Frugapane, cf. Diz., I, p.438), Fabritij (37ro, Fabrizio, cf. Diz., I, p.383), Feriuolo (37ro, Feriuolo, cf. Diz., I, p.398), Foscari (37vo, cf. Diz., I, p.426), Fontana (38ro, cf. Diz., I, p.420), Fondù (38vo, cf. Diz., I, p.419), Gradenigi (39vo, Gradenigo, cf. Diz., I, p.494), Gransoni (39vo, cf. Diz., III, p.245), Galissa (40ro, Gallisa, cf. Diz., I, p.450), Gaulli (40vo, Gavilli, cf. Diz., I, p.462), Gatesello (40vo, Gattisello, cf. Diz., I, p.461), Gambarin (41vo, Gambari o Gambaro, cf. Diz., I, p.453), Grandolon (41vo, may be: Grandolini, cf. Diz., I, p.495), Gezo (42vo, from Gezzo, cf. Diz., I, p.469), Girardo (43ro, Girardo e Girardo o Gerardo, cf. Diz., I, p.483), Gonzaga (43vo, the successors of the house Gonzaga, cf. Diz., I, p.491), Ipatto (44ro, Ipati, cf. Diz., I, p.525), Iscolini (44ro, may be: Iscoli, cf. Diz., I, p.526), Julio (44vo, cf. Diz., I, p.529), Inzegnier (44vo, Ingegneri, cf. Diz., I, p.524), Lolin (45ro, Lolini, cf. Diz., II, p.29), Lanzuoli (45vo, Lanzuoli o Lanzudi, cf. Diz., II, p.10), Lando/i (45vo, Landi o Lando, cf. Diz., II, p.7), Lipamano (46vo, Lipamano o Lippomani, cf. Diz., II, p.25), Ludouici (47ro, maybe: Lodovici, cf. Diz., II, p.28), Michiel/Michielli (47vo, the successors of the house Michieli, cf. Diz., II, p.136), Marono (48ro, cf. Diz., II, p.85), Mortadello (48vo, cf. Diz., II, p.183), Muranesi (48vo, may be: Muraneschi, cf. Diz., II, p.189), Menegato (49ro, the arms of the house of Monegario, cf. Diz., II, p.128), Mosolini (49ro, Mossolini, cf. Diz., II, p.185), Magadesi (50ro, Maganesi, cf. Diz., II, p.45), Menegati (50vo, Menegato, cf. Diz., II, p.128), Malfatto (50vo, cf. Diz., II, p.55), Marzoal (50vo, Marzoal o Marzolo, cf. Diz., II, p.98), Martinazi (51ro, Martinazzi, cf. Diz., II, p.90), Marmore (51ro, cf. Diz., II, p.85), Martinelli (51ro, cf. Diz., II, p.91), Mocenigo (52ro, cf. Diz., II, p.147), Marziamano (52ro, Marzimano, cf. Diz., II, p.97), Mugaro (52vo, cf. Diz., II, p.186), Nicolla (55ro, Nicola, cf. Diz., II,


20 Magdalena Bartkowiak-Lerch, Venetian books of heraldry in the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library.

p.208), Nadal (55ro, Nadal o Nadale, cf. Diz., II, p.194), Obizzo (56vo, cf. Diz., II, p.223), Pantani (58ro, may be: Pantani, cf. Diz., II, p.273), Pasquasi (58ro, may be: Pasquasi, cf. Diz., II, p.291), Polenta (58vo, Polenta, cf. Diz., II, p.355), Prelli (58vo, Preli, cf. Diz., II, p.376), Pentollo (58vo, Pentolo, cf. Diz., II, p.310), Premarin (59vo, Premarino, cf. Diz., II, p.376), Piero (60ro, cf. Diz., II, p.335), Proti (60vo, may be: Proto, cf. Diz., II, p.381), Pollo (69vo, Polo, cf. Diz., II, p.357), Paruta (61vo, cf. Diz., II, p.285), Quintaualle (62vo, Quintavalle, cf. Diz., II, p.391), Romani (63ro, may be: Romani, cf. Diz., II, p.436), Rosso (63ro, may be: Rosso, cf. Diz., II, p.449), Ranosi (63vo, Ranosa, cf. Diz., II, p.400), Ruzieri (64ro, cf. Diz., II, p.461), Senier (64vo, cf. Diz., II, p.410), Souertin (64vo, maybe the successors of the house of Sovertino, cf. Diz., II, p.548), Scogolo (65ro, Scogollo, cf. Diz., II, p.511), Sardon (65vo, may be: Sardoni, cf. Diz., II, p.492), Sisolla (65vo, may be: Sisola or Sizola, cf. Diz., II, p.537), Soueri (65vo, Soveri, cf. Diz., II, p.548), Susenello (66ro, may be: Susenoli, cf. Diz., II, p.570), Sosegolli (66ro, may be: Sosegolli, cf. Diz., II, p.548), Scaffole/Scafole (66vo, may be: Scaffolle, cf. Diz., II, p.499), Sauiani (67ro, cf. Diz., II, p.496), Spazacanal (67vo, Spazzacanal, cf. Diz., II, p.551), Spatafora (67vo, Spadafori o Spatafori, cf. Diz., II, p.549), Stornadi (68ro, cf. Diz., II, p.565), Storladi (68ro, cf. Diz., II, p.564), Semitecolo (68vo, cf. Diz., II, p.519), Tasca (70ro, cf. Diz., III, p.9), Torelli (70vo, cf. Diz., III, p.30), Temidio (70vo, cf. Diz., III, p.13), Talenti (71vo, cf. Diz., III, p.3), Tinto (72ro, may be: Tinto, cf. Diz., III, p.21), Tronzani (72ro, cf. Diz., III, p.47), Triuisani (72vo, may be: Trevisani, cf. Diz., III, p.43), Vidmani (74ro, Vidman o Vidmani, cf. Diz., III, p.90), Verardo (74vo, Verardi, cf. Diz., III, p.80), Vardadio (75ro, Varda da Dio, cf. Diz., III, p.70), Vidal (75ro, Vidale, cf. Diz., III, p.90), Vido (75vo, cf. Diz., III, p.91), Vizamano (75vo, Vizzamano, cf. Diz., III, p.109), Ziurani (76ro, Ziuriani, cf. Diz., III, p.124), Zaguri (76ro, cf. Diz., III, p.115), Zernouichi (76vo, may be: Cernovichio, cf. Diz., I, p.280), Ziani (77ro, Ziani, cf. Diz., III, p.123), Zancarioli (78ro, Zancariol, Zancarioli, cf. Diz., III, p.117), Zuliani (78vo, may be: Zulian o Zulian, cf. Diz., III, p.129), Zentranigi (79ro, maybe: Centranigo, cf. Diz., I, p.277). As the above comparison shows, there are many differences visible when comparing the manuscripts of the Venetian books of heraldry to the only contemporary source. Perhaps some of the differences testify to the evolution of the coats of arms of certain Venetian families. A deep examination supported by a large knowledge of heraldry may also uncover more than one interesting family history. At the same time, the above excerpt intends to draw the attention of researchers of the history of Venetian families to the precious, yet forgotten, manuscript kept at present at Jagiellonian Library.


Lorenzo De Santis

A new witness to ser Alberto della Piagentina’s volgarizzamento of the De consolatione philosophiae by Boethius

U

nder the call number ital. fol. 156, the Berlin manuscripts collection kept at Jagiellonian Library in Cracow preserves a witness to Alberto della Piagentina’s volgarizzamento of De consolatione philosophiae by Boethius, limited to the metres.1

Manuscript description Ms. ital. fol. 156  Membrane. The ms. is not well preserved. When observing the ms. upright there are some blemishes on f.1, which imply that it has been exposed to a source of heat (ff. 1-9). The minimal trim definitely has compromised part of the gloss of f.1r. Excessive wear of the membrane produced holes on many of the folios and its effects are also visible near the writing lines (ff. 2, 4, 6, 11, 17, 18, 27); sometimes these holes are closed by means of membrane patches. There are signs of the presence of wax (f. 19r) and humidity (f. 30). There is also an old ink stain (f. 11). The ink has faded on ff. 1-6. The ms., ff. i (pap.) + 30 + i (pap.), is composed of three quires of five. It is dated 12th September 1461, as in colophon (f. 30v): “. Laus deo . | Finiti son(n)o tucti li metri de Boetio . | scripti p(er) me Gaugello nella citta | de Vrbino . i(n) M°ccc°clxj . 12ª . Sept(embris) .”. The references are collocated on the down margin of the verso in the last folio of each quire, close to the centre of the frame-text, a bit shifted toward the inner margin. The ff. measure 280 x 210. The text is written in one column and it is 164x95 mm wide. The number of lines is constant: 24. The method of lining (colour) was executed by drawing three vertical lines and a horizontal row.

1 Alessandra Favero, La tradizione manoscritta del volgarizzamento di Alberto della Piagentina del de consolatione Philosophiae di Boezio, in: Studi e problemi di critica testuale, 73 (2006), pp. 61-115. The study does not include the ms. here described.


22 Lorenzo De Santis A new witness to ser Alberto della Piagentina’s volgarizzamento of the De consolatione philosophiae by Boethius.

The copy can be attributed to a single copyist, Gaugello, who didn’t leave any other manuscripts copied except for this one. He uses a gothic writing with humanistic influences. The ductus is moderately contrasted and the writing module is irregular. Particularly, we can notice some examples of the letter g made by two round eyelets united in the middle by a hyphen; other than dominant presence of a g in a crushed form with the eyelet open. The f and the s strokes are remarkable because they are retouched with a basic element at the curved treat; they are also inclined to the right. They reveal a graphic manner typically used in northern Italy. The cedilla is particularly developed and prolonged under the basic line of writing filling all the interline space. It is composed of a treat attached to the c base, which goes down and obliquely to the left; and by another treat, seven-shaped, sometimes drawn angularly and somewhat roundly. Meyer’s rule – about the alternation in the use of the straight r and the two-shaped r – is not always observed. The punctuation system consists of points and transversal treats placed between one word and another, or at the end of the line. The incipit is preceded by the following rubric (f. 1r): “Començano li metri exposti del | Latino in uulgare in terça rima | detucto el libro de Annicio Mal- | lio torquato Seuerino Boetio | Exconsolo Ordinario Patritio | de consolatione elquale come(n) ça | Carmina qui quo(n)dam studio flore(n)- | te peregi 7c(eteras) Metro primo.”. Every metre is announced by a rubric written by the hand of the copyist, in red ink and in an elegant and steady way. At the left margin of every rubric is written an ordinal number concerning the metre and indicating its order in every book. The initials, with their visible small guide letters, are simple and written in red ink. Their height goes from 23 to 27 mm and they are collocated at the beginning of every metre. The tercets are scanned by initial capital letters, which are drawn with the same ink as the text. They are set away from the text and slightly retouched in red ink. The binding is composed of paper boards, covered by a common membrane, decorated with a gold leaf frame, based on a simple and elegant phytomorpheus motif. It is dated to 1775-1799, during the papacy of Pius VI (born Giovanni Angelo Braschi). In fact, his coat of arms is impressed in gold leaf on the manuscript’s plates: a lily bent to the right by Zephyr, which appears on the left side. Above the lily there are three six-pointed stars. The spine has five nerves. The label on the back is coloured in the red part of the membrane in which it can be read, impressed in gold leaf: “BOEZ | DE | CONS | VOLG | MS.”. Among the lower nerves,


there is a paper label in which is written: “1914”. On the superior left margin of the front plate, there is a tag of the current signature in red leather, impressed in gold. On the superior margin of the front plate, on the inner side, there is an inscription in black ink by a modern hand: «acc. 11391 | Ms. ital. fol. 156». On the superior margin of the back plate, on the inner side, the following is written in pencil by a modern hand: “30 beschr(iebene) Bl(ätter)”. In f. 1r the text is glossed in vernacular. The same gloss is written in ms. 1523 preserved in the Biblioteca Riccardiana in Florence, where it is attributed to Giovanni di Beninato. The gloss occupies only the first folio. It is written in a cursive of semi-gothic base writing with humanistic influences. The ductus is regular and the letters are well separated from each other. Particularly of note is the sinuous course of the l. The superior part of the stroke is slightly bent to the left, as much as the inferior one is curved to the right, toward the writing line. The h widens the second treat, which puts the belly of the letter under the ruling. There is an alternation of straight r letters and two-shaped ones. I consider that the copyist is the same as the main text, since the ink is the same and the c with the cedilla has identical shape. The same copyist glosses two lines in f. 14r. There are no owners’ notes. Incipit (f. 1r): “I Che composi gia uersi et cantai | Con studio fiorito son costrecto | Descriuer canti detristitia etguai […]”. Explicit (f. 30v): “Ne che agrauata i(n)basso stia uilme(n)te | elcorpo essendo p(er) propria natura | inuerso elcielo alçato relucente | Ançi lasleghi dogni mortalcura.”. Bibliography: Kurzes Verzeichnis der romanischen Handschriften, heraus. Siegfried Lemm, Berlin, Weidmann, 1918 [Mitteilungen aus der Königlichen Bibliothek, 4] ; Paul Oskar Kristeller, Iter italicum, London – Leiden, New York, København, Köln, The Warburg Institute – E. J. Brill, 1992, III, VI..

● Codicological unity and mise en texte The described ms., which I will call K, hands down exclusively the metres of the volgarizzamento of De consolatione philosophiae, a phenomenon rather unique. Because of this, I think it is important to place this ms. into the manu-


24 Lorenzo De Santis A new witness to ser Alberto della Piagentina’s volgarizzamento of the De consolatione philosophiae by Boethius.

script tradition of the volgarizzamento, recomposed by Alessandra Favero. Inside the volgarizzamento’s manuscript tradition can be counted 36 mss. completed, 4 mss. “nei quali i metri sono stai inseriti nel corpo di altri volgarizzamenti della Consolatio interamente in prosa”, 4 mss. “miscellanei nei quali il prologo» and «alcune terzine sono stati copiati accanto ad opere di genere diverso”, and lastly “anche un codice contenente solo le parti metriche”. K follows the scheme of the 4 mss. listed by Mrs. Favero. They are: Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Capponi 262 (= Vc); Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Urbinate latino 676 (= Vu); Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Ital. 2024 (= P³); Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, N. i. 33 (= T). K cannot be compared to the contents of the four manuscripts. First, in Vu, P³ and T, the separation between the poetic and the prose parts is only apparent. In fact, in these witnesses, the metres are included to the volgarizzamento written in prose. In the case of Vu the metres translated by Alberto della Piagentina are incorporated into the volgarizzamento of the Consolatio by Grazia di Meo. In the two other cases (P³ and T) the poems translated by Alberto della Piagentina are integrated into the volgarizzamento by frate Giovanni. In this way we can refer these manuscripts to an ordinary mise en texte, similar to the one of the completed witnesses, in which the textual unity of the Consolatio volgarizzata is protected. Instead, Vc proposes the volgarizzati metres be strictly separated from the proses, by subsequently quoting a Feo Belcari’s laud, Dante’s Vita nova and several abstracts from canzone of his own. K is radically different in this regard. The structure of its mise en texte is opposite to the one presented in the four manuscripts above. Actually, K is the only codex prepared to contain only the volgarizzati metres, protecting the codicological unity by dedicating the copy to the sole Boethius’ prosimetrum. After stating the particular and unique mise en text of the manuscript K, one should actually inquire about the identity and motives of the person who apparently acted not as a sheer copyist but rather as an editor. First of all, we should remark that in the preparation of the manuscript K, the copyist’s personal interest in poetry played the most important part. That is why poetry acquires autonomy with regard to the rest of the text. This may seem astonishing, maybe even scandalous, given the philosophical nature of the Consolatio as well as its originally undivided connection between poetry and prose.


According to Claudio Moreschini – the last editor and commentator on the prosimetrum in its Latin version – the “vari componimenti poetici […] hanno un rapporto solo esterno, e talora definibile con una certa difficoltà, con la parte dialogica precedente”. Anyhow, Moreschini comes to the conclusion: “I carmi che Boezio inserisce nel corso della sua trattazione hanno […] una funzione essenziale e sono connessi alla parte in prosa e alle argomentazioni ivi contenute per una esigenza interna allo svolgimento stesso dei pensieri. Boezio afferma (iv, 6, 57) che i carmi sono cantati dalla Filosofia con l’intento di fornire al suo interlocutore – e quindi anche al lettore, che, bisognoso di apprendere, non può non identificarsi con Boezio – una pausa, un gradito sollievo che lo ristori dalle difficoltà insite negli ardui argomenti trattati. La poesia ha, infatti, come sempre per l’antichità classica, una funzione che è essenzialmente quella del delectare”.2 I would add to the well-written words of Moreschini, that the verses become a repertory of universal and doctrinal themes, and that is why it addresses a larger public. This was possible because parts of the prose containing biographical elements were expunged. The interest in poetry seems highly prevalent, and it results from the work done by someone who puts aside the moralistic-didascalic and consolatory aspects of the Consolatio. Consequently, only someone who has this kind of interest can operate freely in the mise en page of the work he is copying; or, in other words, he who copies is not simply interested in poetry but is a real expert on the matter. In support of this hypothesis comes the gloss in f. 1r, which I transcribe here: “Et e da sapere che larte del uersificare ha diuersi modi | come …………………………… | che altri de septe sillabe, altri de undice altri de docece … | altri de dicion breui altri lungho compo(n)gono le lor ri | me, cosi i uersificatori usano ilor uersi de piu e men pie | -di et desillabe abondanti 7 manche secondo che la materi[a] | rechiede 7 questa cotal discreptione ebbe Boetio so(m)am[e(n)te] | che doue egli hauea aparlare de materia trista vso uersi | manchi desillabe 7 i(n) cio figuraua derictame(n)te uoce dela(n)im(m)[a] | 7 de tristitia laqual ma(n)ca 7 i(n)

2 Severino Boezio, La consolazione della Filosofia, edited by Claudio Moreschini, Torino, UTET, 2006 [Classici del pensiero 28], pp. 22-24.


26 Lorenzo De Santis A new witness to ser Alberto della Piagentina’s volgarizzamento of the De consolatione philosophiae by Boethius.

p(er)fecta et di questa maniera | fo questo primo canto. Or el uolgariçatore p(re)se i(n) tucti | uno stile cioe quello nelquale piu copiosamente 7 con p[iu] | largheça sepuote exprimere ogni i(n)tentione si de miseria | et di difecto co(m)mo de alegreça 7 dabondança . questo e | quello el quale prese el poeta fiore(n)tino nella sua comed[ia] | cioe de vndice sillabe In questo primo libro sendoce | la persona [che] se lamenta bisognosa de consolatione cioe | boetio e la p(er)sona consolante cioe la phylosophya nella prosa | prima . Lame(n)tasi prima lautore dice(n)do che nello studio | fiorito cioe alegro che come dice salamone nei prouerbij | cap.° 2 . Lanimo alegro fa letade fiorita . egliera vsato com | po(r)re 7 fare uersi quali seco(n)ueniua a quel tempo chiaro [ed] | hora costrecto dala i(n)costança delle cose te(r)rene a co(m)porre | uersi de tristitia . Compose questo autore nel prosp… | canti molto belli 7 ornati, de quelli adi doggi ancor susa | nella chiesa quello che dice . O amor deus deitas 7 c(eteras) | “. The references to the volgarizzatore, to the kind of versification adopted and to the choice of the hendecasyllable in the textura of the Commedìa, are very interesting. They are meant for the literary professionals. Moreover, it seems that the author of the copy is personally interested in what he is copying, which means that he is far more than just a simple scribe. It is certain that the compiler was close to the milieu of the poets and writers in volgare. We can make that statement based on a manuscript preserved in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: Urbinate latino 692.3 This ms. contains works in vernacular attributed to Gaugello, known also as Gaugellum, ser Gaugelli, ser Gaugellum de Pergula, who we can identify as the copyist of K. To sum, the manuscript contains: a report of a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela; three poetic works about Pergola, Gaugello’s native place; a funeral oration for Battista Sforza, countess of Urbin; two poetic works about the poet Paolo Godi; and a political composition. The copyist of K, Gaugello, is the poet known in the court of Urbin in the time of Federico da Montefeltro.

3 A good description of this ms. can be read in: Codices Urbinates Latini, recensuit Cosimus Stornajolo, Bibliothecae Vaticanae scriptor ad honorem, tomus ii, codices 501-1000, Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, MCMXII, pp. 195-197 [Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti iussu Pii X Pontificis Maximi, preside card. Alfonso Capecelatro Archiep. Capuano S.R.E. Bibliothecario].


The copyist poet and his text. After establishing that the copyist is an affirmed, well-known poet, it may be interesting to have a closer look at the kind of copy such a master of the pen had prepared. I will list here several lectiones singulares and errors to make this search possible. I have chosen them precisely from among many examples, preferring especially the passages in which the text reveals prosodic and rhyming problems. I exclude the cases in which lectiones adiaphorae are possible (in parenthesis, in this order: folio, book, metre and verse). 1. identical rhyme: profondo : profondo (c. 2r, ii 2); 2. hypermetric vv. (with probable juxtaposition of innovations and erroneous readings): Et certificata ancor auea ciascuna (c. 2v, ii 16) gouerni 7 solo deglialtri acti humani (c. 4v, v 35) desiri ripigliar con dericto passo (c. 6r, vii 15); 3. hypometric vv.: surga p(er) ricader staua atento (ii 24) dalla tua legge eterna ma sciolta (v 32) di gloria coroni nulla tucto (c. 7r, ii ii 17); 4. with lacunae: uerberi di tracia mandato (c. 3r, iii 14) Poi dal nubiloso ostro ferito (c. 7v, ii iii 10); 5. inarticulate: talli in the place of calli (c. 2v, ii 10); Ma no(n) fenno qualunque uol misura (c. 4r, iv 22), piene di fiam(m)e alfratello aposta (c. 4v, v 8) alora e segno decopia ubertosa (c. 5r, vi 3) de cerere de cerere schernito (c. 5r, vi 5) soppone al suo viaggio far no(n) osa (c. 6r, vii 12) Costui uolgiluero onde se casso (c. 6r, vii 13) suoi uanitade orsu or giu cor(r)e(n)do (c. 6v, ii i 2) ouer quando nel ciel muover appare (c. 6v, ii ii 3) del tepido çafiro defiorito (c. 7v, ii iii 8); 6. rhyme not observed: onde : fede : responde (c. 7v, ii iii 13-18). Because of the fact that Gaugello is personally involved in the mise en texte of poems in vernacular, we would expect his copy to be particularly meticulous, especially since attributing so much importance to the poems he has decided to expunge all parts of prose. It becomes evident instead, by means of a short exposed list (halted in the second book), that in the act of copying Gaugello’s attention doesn’t go above the standard parameter of the other copyists at all. For instance, in the case of the lacunae, he does not leave any blanks to complete the missing lessons with the help of other manuscript witnesses. Moreover, he does not eliminate repetitions or in-


28 Lorenzo De Santis A new witness to ser Alberto della Piagentina’s volgarizzamento of the De consolatione philosophiae by Boethius.

consistencies. He is not able to fill hypometric verses, neither does he solve the hypermetric ones. The seventh metre of the first book is unfinished as seven lines are missing, according to the Battaglia edition.4 Actually, Gaugello tries his best here. He attempts to complete in the manuscript K the verb missing from the antigraph. Despite this attempt, the copy results as rushed and produced at a low textual level. Clearly, the act of copying has not been treated in any special way, and it shows that Gaugello has made no later revisions to the copy.

● The analysis of the gloss reveals other clues as to the manner in which the manuscript was completed. That it occupies just the first folio must require a good explanation. At first sight we can explain this exclusive presence, and its relative systematic absence in the rest of the ms., by the traditional importance assigned to the beginning of every literary work: the exordium. According to a well-known rhetorical tradition, the beginning of the literary work should be enriched by an exegetical guide in order to capture the reader’s attention. But as we can observe in the manuscript, this explanation is nullified by what is written in the first rubric: «Començano li metri exposti…». From the first line of text, it is evident to the copyist, and to the reader, that this work, copied in the described manuscript, is a collection of the metres by Boethius accompanied by commentaries. Therefore, the rubric is coherent as far as the first folio is concerned.  However, turning the page, the reader is surprised by the blank space around the text and that the esposizione has suddenly stopped. Anyway, the very dignified aspect of the ms., the wide marginal blanks on each folio and the constant number of  lines of text, seem to me evident signs of the incompleteness of the manufactured text. At this point it can be said that K has been based on an initial project as explained in the rubric of f.1r: organizing the mise en page through a continuous dialogue between the text and the marginal gloss. For this purpose, the compiler had to calculate 4 Il Boezio e l’Arrighetto nelle versioni del Trecento, introduzioni e note di Salvatore Battaglia, Torino, UTET, 1929 [«Collezione di classici italiani con note. Seconda serie» 14].

Ital. fol. 156, 1ro


the number of lines of the text (it was easy because they are verses only) and count the marginal space reserved for the gloss, with an evident constriction of the frame-text. Is it necessary to maintain the same frame-text in the first folio and in all the rest of the codex? Why didn’t the compiler widen the frame-text if his initial project would not have been to gloss the whole work? He would have enlarged the frame-text without the necessity to leave so wide a blank on every folio and he would have saved the membrane by making the quires smaller. It is highly probable that the present status of the ms. is the result of an abandoned project. Gaugello’s passing (after 1472) demonstrates that this abandonment is not caused by the scribe’s death. Actually, eleven years pass between the date expressed in the colophon and Gaugello’s death.5 Anyway, at this point of the research I am not able to explain the incompleteness of K.

● It is clear that all above considerations about the codicological unity, the mise en texte and the mise en page, about the choices taken by a particular copyist such as a poet, concern only partly the manuscript tradition of ser Alberto della Piagentina’s volgarizzamento. Furthermore, it can be objected that K is a valuable witness. Nevertheless, these considerations may testify to how Boethius was read in the late 15th century. Finally, the goal of historians is also to reconstruct the various receptions of the text, even the most unusual and heterogeneous. As to the literature in volgare in the 15th century, outside of Tuscany, a search like this enables us to open a new chapter about the Feltrian poetry, starting from the reconstruction of the library possessed by one of his pale promoters.

5 About Gaugello it can be read: P. Lanzalaco, sv ‘GAUGELLI’ in: Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 52, pp. 689b-690b.

Ital. fol. 156, 1vo


Jadwiga Miszalska

32

The poems of 15th century Tuscan poets in the manuscript ital. quart.16 The manuscript ital. quart. 16, accessible at Jagiellonian Library in Krakow, is interesting not only because it contains 15th century copies of Filostrato and Filocolo of Boccaccio, but also for the poems on folios 172ro – 191vo. The manuscript is not well preserved. A few pages are missing (although the integrity of the text remains intact) and there are traces of fungus and the effects of humidity. The manuscript is written by one hand. Based on watermarks similar but not identical to those in use in the second half of the 15th century in middle and northern Italy, as well as on the handwriting type (humanistic cursive), we put the manuscript in the last quarter of the 15th century. The language characteristics do not indicate that the manuscript, which contains poems by Tuscan authors, was executed outside the region of Tuscany. The presence of the symbol of a lily pressed on the spine and on the covers, which date probably to the 17th or 18th century, suggests that even then the manuscript may have still belonged to a person related to the city of Florence. It became part of the Berlin Library collection in the second half of the 19th century according to the accession number: 844. Lemm’s1 catalogue identifies the poems accompanying Boccaccio’s works as the famous frottola, Venite in danza o gente amorosa by Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472) and six poems by Antoni degli Alberti (ca.1360-1425). The identification of the first poem is correct. The poem of L.B.Alberti, written probably at the end of the second and beginning of the third decades of the 15th century2, survived in two versions. Only one copy of the maior version (595vv.) is pre-

1 Siegfried Lemm, Mitteilungen aus der Königlichen Bibliothek, Harausberg von der Generalverwaltung, vol. IV: Kurzes Verzeichnis der romanischen Handschriften, Berlin, Wiedmannsche Buchhandlung 1918, p. 79. 2 About the difficulty in dating Alberti’s heritage, see: Lucia Bertolini, Leon Battista Alberti, in: Nuova Informazione Bibliografica, 2 (2004), pp. 251-52.


served – the ms. in the Casanatense Library in Rome, catalogue number 601. The minor version (341vv.) has more manuscript witnesses, but the history of their discovery is complex. This version first was published in Poesie italiane inedite di dugento autori: dall’origine della lingua infino al secolo decimosettimo, raccolte e illustrate da Francesco Trucchi, R. Guasti, Prato 1846; followed by G. Mancini’s edition, Opera inedita et pauca separatim impressa Leon Battista Alberti; Hieronymo Mancini curante Sansoni, Firenze 1890; and, then by Grayson’s, Opere volgari / Leon Battista Alberti; a cura di Cecil Grayson, v. II, Gius. Laterza & Figli, Bari 19663. The critical edition of the text was made by Guglielmo Gorni in 19754. In the critical note accompanying the edition of the frottola, quoted both in its shorter, previously published, version and in the longer version, the editor briefly presents the tradition of this poem. He mentions seven manuscripts containing the minor version he had at his disposal: three manuscripts from the National Library in Florence (catalogue number F.N.II.IV.250 [F14], catalogue number F.N.II.VIII.23 [F15] and catalogue number Magliabechino VII.1084 [F16]), one from Biblioteca Riccardiana in Florence (catalogue number 2815 [FR5]), two from Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence (catalogue number Pluteo.XC.inf.35.1 [L4] and Pluteo.XC.sup.63 [L5]) and one from the Vatican Library (catalogue number Ottoboniano lat.2151 [O1])5. Based on these manuscripts, Gorni sets the tradition of Alberti’s frottola. Almost 30 years later, this tradition is completed by Gorni himself, with two more witnesses6. Thanks to a note by O.Kristeller7, Gorni found the frottola kept in Württembergische Landesbibliothek in Stuttgart (catalogue number Poet. et Phil. 4o 10 [St]). He mentions as well another

3 Cf. Leon Battista Alberti, Rime e versioni poetiche, critical edition by Guglielmo Gorni, Milano-Napoli 1975, Nota ai testi, p. 140. 4 Cf. footnote 3. A corrected and amplified edition with translation to French: «Rime”/ «Poèmes” suivis de la «Protesta”/”Protestation”, éd. critique, introduction et notes par Guglielmo Gorni, trad. de l’italien par Marco Sabbatini, Paris, Les Belles Lettres 2002. 5 For precise codicological descriptions of the above manuscripts, with the exception of the one from the Vatican Library, see: Lucia Bertolini (ed.), Leon Battista Alberti. Censimento dei manoscritti, Firenze, Polistampa, 2004, pp. 87-100; 110-35; 294-394; 413-34; 533-44; 1114-129. 6 Guglielmo Gorni, Un nuovo testimone della frottola dell’Alberti, in: Albertiana, VI (2003), pp. 251-57. 7 Oskar Kristeller, vol. III (Alia Itineria I) Australia to Germany, London, The Warburg Institut and Leiden, Brill 1983, p. 702b.


34 Jadwiga Miszalska The poems of 15th century Tuscan poets in the manuscript ital. quart.16.

copy of the frottola in what he says was the lost manuscript ital. quart. 16 from Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, belonging previously to the collection of Hamilton8. This statement contains two inaccuracies: One, the manuscript in question is not lost; and, two, it didn’t belong to the Hamilton collection bought by the Prussian Library in 1882. As noted above, the manuscript’s accession number proves that its acquisition took place long before the purchase of the Hamilton collection. Leandro Biadene already made it clear in 1887, when after looking up the Hamilton collection, he describes its Italian part concluding: “Prima che vi entrassero i codici Hamilton, la R. Biblioteca di Berlino non doveva certo la sua rinomanza ai manoscritti italiani. Di questi crederei anzi poter dire che due soli sieno noti alla generalità degli studiosi: il codice messo a profitto dal Witte per la sua edizione critica della Divina Commedia [...] e il codice delle poesie di Bonvesin della Riva pubblicato tutto intero dal Bekker”.9 For this reason, Biadene decides to mention the other five oldest manuscripts even though he considers them to be non molto importanti. Among them there also is ital. quart. 16. In the description of its content, he evidently lists works of Boccaccio and L.B. Alberti, but also mentions six poems of Anto da Firenze, “nel catalogo della biblioteca [...] attribuite di Antonio degli Alberti”10. This identification, found also in Lemm’s catalog, is completely erroneous but corresponds to the state of knowledge at the time the catalog was published. A lack of a more recent examination of the manuscripts sets the catalog as the main source of information for now.

8 These two manuscripts, together with Ottoboniano lat.2151, still are waiting for their precise codicological descriptions to be published within the research project: “Progetto Alberti”, accompanying the Italian national edition of L. B. Alberti’s works. 9 “Before the acquisition of the Hamilton codices, the fame of the Berlin Library was not due to the Italian manuscripts. Speaking of them, I may state, I believe, that only two of them were generally known by the researchers: the codex used by Witte for his critical edition of the Divine Comedy [...] and the codex containing the poems by Benvesin della Riva published by Bekker.” (Leandro Biadene, I manoscritti italiani della collezione Hamilton nel R.Museo e nella R. Biblioteca di Berlino, in: Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, X (1887), p. 352.) 10 “attributed by the library catalog to Antonio degli Alberti”, ibidem, p. 354.


The work of Antoni degli Alberti, the alleged author of the six final poems of the manuscript ital. quart. 16, has been waiting for years for deep, serious study11. The greatest literary man of the Alberti family, Leon Battista in his I libri della famiglia, depicts Antonio degli Alberti as a great erudite and poet. In reality, of all his literary works mentioned by his contemporaries only a handful of poems was preserved. This is because the attribution to him of many of these works is dubious or erroneous. G. Borriero, whose ambition was to purify the falsifications concerning the poet’s work, could only attribute with certainty 22 poems12. The rest of the literary work alleged to him in various sources indeed has other authors. This also concerns the four canzoni and two capitoli placed in ital. quart. 16. Thanks to the scrupulous research of G. Borriero these poems can be identified as: Nel verde tempo della nostra età, Lasso che farò io poiché, Ben è felice questa nostra etade and O gloriosa et triumfante diva by Antonio di Guido (died in 1486), Le città magne floride by Mariotto Davanzati (~1410 – after 1470) and Perché opere mie mostran già il fiore written by Simone Serdini (1360 - 1420). Two of these poets lived in the times of Leon Battista, Antonio Alberti’s younger relative, and being both attached to the Florence milieu they stayed in personal and epistolary contact. The task of identifying Antonio’s works is complicated by the rich manuscript tradition. Borriero counted as many as 76 manuscripts containing works by A.Alberti or alleged to him. Many of them are actually written by literary men with whom Alberti corresponded. In 46 manuscripts from this group, including ital. quart. 16, there appear poems wrongly attributed. It is impossible to enumerate all of the manuscripts, but they belong mostly to the Florence libraries (Nazionale, Marucelliana, Laurenziana, Riccardiana), as well as to libraries in other Tuscan cities, such as Siena and Lucca, to the Vatican Library in Rome, to the libraries in Venice (Marciana), in Foligno, in Mantua, in Parma, in Bologna and in Genoa. They also can be found abroad – in Paris, in London, in Oxford, in Berlin (Ham.500). The tradition of publishing Antonio Alberti’s poetry began in 1661, when Leone Allacci published one of Alberti’s sonnets in his collection Poeti antichi raccolti da codici m.ss. della Biblioteca Vaticana, e Barberina, Napoli 166113. In

11 The task undertaken by Giovanni Borriero, La tradizione delle rime di Antonio degli Alberti (I) i (II), in: Medioevo letterario d’Italia, 1 (2004), pp. 141-170; 3 (2006), pp. 89-136. 12 Ibidem, n.1, 2004, pp. 147-148. 13 Ibidem, p. 152.


36 Jadwiga Miszalska The poems of 15th century Tuscan poets in the manuscript ital. quart.16.

1863, Anicio Bonucci published a corpus of his texts, among which there are two poems by Antonio di Guido attributed to Alberti: Lasso... and Nel verde tempo14. The following edition was made by Silvio Andreis in 186515. In the foreword, Andreis states that six poems of the collection come from ital. quart. 16 belonging by then to the Berlin Library. The editor was aware of the uncertain attribution of these poems. He didn’t recognize the frottola of Leon Battista, describing it as d’ignoto autore. In addition, he interpreted the note made by a different hand on 178vo di m.o Ant.o da Frnze as Antonio da Firenze, that is Antonio degli Alberti. In reality it’s Antonio di Guido, author of Nel verde tempo, also a Florentine, poet and improviser, and a favorite of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Andreis realized the risk in attributing the poems to Alberti but his reference point was a recent edition, by Bonucci, in which under the name of Alberti two poems that are also present in ital. quart. 16 are enumerated: “Questa nota dell’ammanuense; il trovar delle due prime da me pubblicate, fra le Rime di M. Antonio degli Alberti, date fuori per cura del Signor Anicio Bonucci; ed oltre di questo il modo di poetare e la forma di dire ch’è simile nelle une e nelle altre danno probabilità se non certezza alla congettura che appartengano tutte all’Alberti”. 16 The most largely represented poet in ital. quart.  16 is Antonio di Guido. His twenty poems finally were published in Lirici del Quattrocento, edited by Antonio Lanza, Bulzoni, Roma 1973. Canzone, O gloriosa… is missing from this edition. The transcription of the poems Nel verde tempo… and Ben è felice... was based on the manuscripts of Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence (catalogue number II.II.40); Riccardiana in Florence (catalogue number 2729) and Biblioteca Universitaria in Bologna (catalogue number 1739). The capitolo Lasso!… derives from the Andreis edition which was based on our manuscript. All three manuscripts were enumerated

14 Sonetti et canzone del clarissimo M. Antonio delli Alberti, Firenze, Giacomo Molini, 1863. 15 Canzoni inedite di M. Antonio degli Alberti, Poeta fiorentino del secolo XIV, edited by Silvio Andreis, Rovereto, A. Caumo, 1865. 16 “The copyist’s note; the fact that I found two of the poems among poems of M. Antonio degli Alberti published by Anicio Bonucci, together with the versifying style and the form which is similar in both groups of poems, make the hypothesis about Alberti’s authorship plausible if not certain.”, ibidem, pp. 3-4.


also by Borriero as Alberti’s apocrypha. The same anthology contains as well a capitolo Le città magne... by Mariotto Davanzati. Its transcription was based on the manuscripts from: Biblioteca Nazionale (catalogue number II.II.40 and II.IX.137), Vatican Library (catalogue number Vat.lat.3212), and on a manuscript from the library of counts Ginori Lisci (Venturi Ginori Lisci, 3)17 unquoted by Borriero. A critical edition of the poems by Simone Serdini called Saviozzo, the manuscript’s third poet, was published in 196518. According to the editor, canzone Perché opere mie... has 21 manuscript witnesses, one of which – ital. quart. 16 – was acknowledged as missing. In this case, as in previous cases, with the exception of the 15th century manuscript on paper from the Biblioteca Laurenziana (catalogue number1489, acc.86), all the manuscripts are enumerated by Borriero among poems wrongly attributed to Alberti19. The initial comparison shows that the poems from ital. quart. 16, the transcriptions of which are scattered in many codices mostly found on the territory of Tuscany, never appear together. Other poems of the quoted poets20 happen to present themselves together with the frottola of Alberti, which is not surprising given that all the authors belonged to one cultural circle. Therefore, works from ital. quart. 16 were not copied from another document but selected consciously by the copyist. The existence of the manuscript was so far known only to a few more perspicacious researchers while others considered it to be lost. For this reason, in critical editions, this particular witness was not taken into account. Although Andreis’s edition is entirely based on the manuscript ital. quart. 16, it could not become a reference because of the corrections that modernized the transcription. Placing the manuscript witnesses from ital.  quart.  16 into the tradition of particular poems may be a subject for separate articles and impossible to discuss here. We can nevertheless refer shortly to the scheme of the Alberti frottola made by G. Gorni, in which the author placed all the manuscripts, with the exception of the Berlin/Krakow manuscript, being convinced of its non-existence.

17 Le canzoni di Mariotto Davanzati nel codice Vat. lat. 3212, edited and commented by Alessio Decaria, in: Studi di filologia italiana, LXVI (2008), pp. 75-180. 18 Simone Serdini detto il Saviozzo, Rime, critical edition (by Emilio Pasquini), Bologna, Commissione per i testi di lingua, 1965. Cf. Amore e povertà. Poesie medioevali in redazioni inedite di Simone Serdini, detto il Saviozzo, e altri, Firenze, Firenzelibri, 2006. 19 For the tradition of publishing Serdini, see: Dennis E. Rhodes, Le antiche edizioni a stampa delle poesie di Simone Serdini, in: Bibliofilia, 2-3 (1998), pp. 253-66. 20 Le città floride by Davanzati is present only in the manuscript F16.


Here follows the scheme proposed by Gorni21

ω w

38 Jadwiga Miszalska The poems of 15th century Tuscan poets in the manuscript ital. quart.16.

St

y x

z FR5

F14

L5 O1

F16 L4

F15

In order to be able to place the Berlin/Krakow manuscript into the tradition presented here, the confrontation of all the manuscript witnesses would be necessary. However, by using the descriptions of different families and by quoting certain lessons as distinct traits, ital. quart. 16 may be excluded from family w (its representatives are deprived of v.342 esser si voglia) to be situated in family y – lesson of the v.289 usciame proves it (in ital. quart. 16 it is versus 287). Within this family, the manuscript is closer to the O1 and repeats some of its erroneous variants (v.37 honorato instead of ornato; v.50 disciaghure instead of le sciaghure). Nevertheless, in other places, where O1 presents the wrong lesson, our manuscript is correct (v.8 isnervato – not: ismemorato; v.63 destro – not: desto). As mentioned before, it is not the ambition of the present publication to precisely place the Alberti frottola and other poems from ital. quart. 16 into their traditions. Our intention is to bring this manuscript back to the consciousness of researchers of Tuscan literature of the 14th and 15th centuries as many of them were convinced it had vanished22.

21 Guglielmo Gorni, op.cit., p. 255. 22 Vittore Branca, while preparing his bibliography of Boccaccio’s manuscripts, disclosed the information about ital. quart. 16 in Jagiellonian Library but he did not have a complete knowledge about its content: he quotes the manuscript speaking of Filocolo, but misses it speaking of Filostrato. Cf. Vittore Branca, Tradizione delle opere di Giovanni Boccaccio. Un secondo elenco di manoscritti e studi sul testo del Decameron, con due appendici, Roma, Ed. di Storia edi Letteratura, 1991.


Roman Sosnowski

A recovered copy of Cronaca Carrarese

C

ronaca Carrarese is one of the most interesting sources of the history of Padua and Northern Italy of the 14th century and early 15th century. It contains also interesting pieces of information with regard to Europe, including Poland. The chronicle, written by a few family members according to the old custom, in this case by father and sons, constitutes a curious example of a highly detailed account containing descriptions of events taking place over a period of more than 100 years1. The main storyline of the chronicle is the history of the family da Carrara. Among allies of the family we count Galeazzo, Bartolomeo as well as Andrea Gatari, therefore the apologetical intentions of the authors2 are obvious despite some criticism present in the chronicle of the family governing Padua in the 14th century. Galeazzo and Bartolomeo also were heroes of the events described in the chronicle because in times of the signoria of Francesco il Vecchio, Galeazzo played an important role as a representative of the city3. The public role of the da Carrara family began in 1318 when Giacomo da Carrara was chosen to be signore of Padua. Nevertheless, until mid-century the family’s role was shadowed by the family della Scala, which reigned in the town. In later times, the government of the Carrara family is independent, though frequently interrupted by times of expulsions, compromises, many wars and unstable alliances. The reign of the Carrara family ends definitively with the execution of Francesco Novello and his sons, Francesco III and Giacomo, at the end of the war with Venice in 1405.

1 The chronicle in the version by Bartolomeo ends in 1407. 2 Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, Cronaca Carrarese, confrontata con la redazione di Andrea Gatari (1318-1407), edited by A. Medin and G. Tolomei, Lapi, CittĂ di Castello, 1909-1912, p. 24. 3 In 1372-73, Galeazzo was an ambassador to Genoa, Pisa, Florence and Ferrara; in 1378, he was a treasurer of Francesco il Vecchio; later, he participated in public life as a representative of, or counselor to the Comune di Padova. In 1404, as a member of Consiglio generale, Galeazzo encouraged peace and an alliance with Venice, but his views were not accepted.


40 Roman Sosnowski A recovered copy of Cronaca Carrarese.

The chronicle was twice published: First L. Muratori included a version of the Galeazzo4 chronicle in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, then Medin and Tolomei published within the same series Bartolomeo’s version of the chronicle collating it with Andrea’s version. The manuscripts of the chronicle may be divided into three groups: a) manuscripts in Galeazzo’s version (numerous), b) manuscripts in Bartolomeo’s version, c) manuscripts in Andrea’s version (also quite numerous). Thus, the manuscripts in Bartolomeo’s version are the most precious, not only because of their rarity but also because of their quality. To be precise, only one manuscript in this version for just the Parisian codex (italien 262 from Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris5) was known and was the basis for the edition by Antonio Medin and Guido Tolomei. The present article is written in order to declare that the manuscript of the chronicle that was to have completed the edition, and which after an exhaustive search had been established as missing, has been found, identified and is available at Jagiellonian Library in Cracow. I would like to underline that this article is a typical “work in progress” – some information still needs to be confirmed, certain stages in the manuscript’s history have not yet been reconstructed, and a philological study will be necessary in order to compare the manuscript from the Berlin collection and the Parisian manuscript and possibly with other manuscripts of the chronicles. Initial analyses let us conclude that the redaction of the chronicle from ital.  qu.  72 varies considerably from the redaction of the chronicle from the Parisian codex. This fact does not change anything in the history and identification of the manuscript; however, it may have important philological consequences: the initial hypothesis about both redactions (from Paris and 4 The edition of 1730, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XVII, titled Chronicom Patavinum Italica lingua conscriptum ab anno 1311 usque ad annum 1406 auctore Andrea de Gataris... Adnectitur eadem historia qualis scripta fuit a Galeatio Andreae patre was based on the manuscript Est.Iital.1144 at present F.3.18, in Biblioteca Estense in Modena and on Est. Ital. 1134, at present S.I.7, from the same library. Cf. the entry Gatari in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, sv. 5 The old catalogue number was: Regius 10142, in the BnF catalog description the chronicle has the following title: Chronica di Padoa compilata da Bertolamio nato di Galiazo Gatari da Padoa e scripta di mia propia mano ne gli anni del nostro Signore Ihesu Christo. mille quatrociento septe ad ultimo del mexe di dicienbre : dal 1318 al 1407. However, in the Marsand catalog; Antonio Marsand, I manoscritti italiani della Regia Biblioteca parigina, Parigi, 1835-1838, p. 412-414, the title is: Storia della città di Padova, scritta da Bartolommeo di Gatàro.


Berlin) being a Bartolomeo version actually collapses6. Even though textual and philological analyses are absolutely necessary, we would like to draw the attention of the philologists and historians to this important manuscript of Cronaca Carrarese and encourage them to examine it further.

A few remarks about the authors and the text. Speaking about the Gataris, the chronicle’s authors, it is worth reminding that they were a rich spice merchant family (speziali) and, as mentioned above, took an active part in public life without being its principal participants. They did not show any particular personal political ambitions, therefore their chronicle is missing a deeper political analysis and its dominant point of view is the well-being of Padua (often identified as the well-being of the Da Carrara family), which allows them to, at times, criticize the choices of Francesco il Vecchio or Francesco Novello leading to exhausting wars against more powerful enemies. Colorful and anecdotal side stories, equal to most interesting novels, improve the artistic value of the chronicle. As mentioned before, there are three versions of the chronicle, the most important of which (while the least represented) is Bartolomeo’s version. What are the differences between them? The Galeazzo version is almost entirely included into the later redactions of his sons, but the chronicle in this version goes only as far as 1389. Galeazzo lived until 1405. Bartolomeo completes his father’s chronicle to 1407. Andrea, in turn, modifies his father’s and brother’s texts and considers himself to be the sole author, only mentioning his father’s part but completely excluding his brother’s. Taking over the authorship of a work written by someone else, only re-edited and corrected by removing or adding small fragments and by polishing the style of

6 This hypothesis was strongly based: in the manuscript ital. qu. 72 we found a very detailed, interesting and unique introduction by Bartolomeo, besides, Medin (Gatari, op. cit., passim), based on various indications, considered this as certain. After close examination of a few events, however, it turns out that the descriptions of those events (such as construction of the castle of Pieve in 1380, column 358 in Muratori, correspond to the description on f. 48vo in manuscript ital. qu. 72, and not to the description in Medin’s edition of Bartolomeo’s version, t. I, p.189) correspond to Andrea’s version (according to the Muratori’s edition) and not to Bartolomeo’s.


some passages, was a largely applied practice in times when the notion of authorship itself had a completely different character. One must, however, say that Andrea’s version varies a lot from the versions by Bartolomeo and Galeazzo, not only in style but also in the order of content7. As Cecchinato8,

42 Roman Sosnowski A recovered copy of Cronaca Carrarese.

7 Only partly can one agree with Coggiola who says (following Medin’s opinion), that “coincidenza stranissima tra [la cronaca di Bartolomeo] e la cronaca di Andrea per il periodo 1390 al 1407, cioè per tutto il periodo successivo all’opera di Galeazzo; coincidenza, la quale per gli anni 1401-1407 diventa addirittura corrispondenza perfetta.” Such a correspondence exists, but only from the point of view of an historian; from the point of view of a philologist, these definitely are different texts, and our manuscript transmits a version that is closer to the text known as a version by Andrea even though clearly the introduction is that of Bartolomeo. G. Coggiola, Diaro del concilio di Basilea di Andrea Gatari (14331435), Basel 1904, p. VII. As confirmation, we quote a corresponding fragment from Medin’s edition (MD), a fragment from the version by Andrea in Muratori’s edition (MR) and a fragment from our manuscript (72). All these passages concern the 30th of March 1397. (MD): QUANDO EL DUCHA DE MILLAN MANDÒ EL CANPO SO INTORNO MANTOA E VENE-LLÌ MISSER UGOLOTO A DÌ XXX DE MARZO 1397. De giorno in giorno multiplichava l’odio e ‘l male volere del duca de Millan contra il signore de Mantoa; e parendolli el tenpo vinudo, fu con suo grande consiglio, e prexe parte di cominciare la guerra contro il signore de Mantoa; e, dato più ordeny ale cose oportune ala guerra per terra e per aqua e di tuto essendo in punto, scrise a misser Ugoloto Biancardo, ch’era capitano di Verona, che con quelle brigate che avea e con altre che li fu mandate, e con quelle fantarie da piè che podesse fare dil Veronexe e del Vexentino, coresse sul tereno dil signore de Mantoa e quello danegiasse secondo usanza di bona guerra e lì fermasse suo canpo, ma prima el mandasse a desfidare: e così fu fato per misser Ugoloto Biancardo: dopo la desfidasone corsse sul mantoano, quello danegiando e pigliando prixoni secondo bona guerra; che fu adì de marzo 1397. (MR): Messe le cose necessarie ad ordine per la sopradetta guerra, comandò il Duca di Milano al prudente capitano Messer Ugolotto Biancardo, che era Locotenente suo in Verona, che con le genti scritte, e quelle mandate di Lombardia, e molta fanteria da piè cavalcasse sul Mantovano a i danni di quel paese; e così cavalcò in Mantovana Messer Ugolotto, e affirmato il campo fece di gran bottini di prigioni, e bestiame. (72) COME MESSER UGOLOTO BIANCARDO CAVALCÒ SUL MANTOAN ADÌ XXX DE MARZO 1397 CON LE BANDIERE DUCHESCHE DI VISCONTI Messo le cosse in ordene per lo ducha de Millan per suo comandamento valorosso chapitano messer Ugoloto Biancardo, ch’era luochotenente per lo duca in Verona, con quelle giente d’arme cha lui era mandato di Lombardia e ancora per lui scrite e con molta fanteria de pe chavalchò sul mantoano a i danezando il paexe de pigliar prexoni e bestiame (...) 8 According to Cecchinato “nella Cronaca dei Gatari, addirittura, non si ha la minima percezione di contrasto neppure nel passaggio dalla parte in cui Bartolomeo usa a piene mani (per non dire ‘plagia’) la Cronaca di suo padre Galeazzo a quella in cui egli scrive di prima mano.”, Andrea Cecchinato, La lingua delle cronache volgari dell’età carrarese, Dipartimento di Romanistica, Facoltà di Let-


in his work about the language of the Padua chronicles of the times, indicates, the versions by Bartolomeo and Galeazzo were in turn more unified linguistically and stylistically. The language of the chronicle may be defined as a north Italian koiné, in which various influences meet: a local dialect of Padua, an already prestigious Tuscan dialect; a local hegemony’s language (Venitian); and various influences of Medieval Latin, mostly legal and ecclesiastical. Obviously, the language of the text shows many characteristics pointing at the Padua region as its background, at the same time one can observe that most local traits have been “cleaned out.” Particular phenomena of phonetics, graphics, morphology and syntax have been quite precisely examined in Cecchinato’s analysis (2008). Doubtless, the codex that was the basis for the edition was written by Bartolomeo’s hand (after 1409, however) as Medin confirmed by comparing italien 267 from BnF with an autograph of Bartolomeo from Seville9. At the moment, there is no basis to state the identity of the person who copied ital. qu. 72, that is the copy from the Berlin collection being held in Cracow10. The actual edition of the chronicle, based on the Parisian codex, was published within the series Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, XVII, I, Città di Castello 1909-1912, titled “Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari confrontata con la redazione di Andrea Gatari” and prepared by Antonio Medin and Guido Tolomei11 mentioned above.

tere e Filosofia. Padova, Università di Padova. Dottorato di ricerca in Romanistica 2008, p. 22-23. 9 This autograph is a copy of the text Pietosa fante of Zenone di Pistoia, held at present at the Bibl. capitulary y Colombina in Seville, call number AA.144 n° 129. 10 We know with certainty that it is not Bartolomeo Gatari (who made the codex from italien 262). Many thanks to Piotr Tylus who verified this information in Paris. 11 The importance that the manuscript ital. qu. 72 seemed to have to establish the text of the chronicle, is best expressed in Medin’s words about the codex: “sarebbe stato molto importante per noi conoscere questo manoscritto che probabilmente conservava la prima stesura della redazione di Bartolomeo che probabilmente conservava la prima stesura della redazione di Bartolomeo, la quale del resto non poteva non essere identica a quella del codice parigino, da noi riprodotto e di cui ora parleremo, ma che molto ci avrebbe giovato per colmare le pochissime lacune e per correggere gli errori che questo presenta”. Gatari-Medin, op. cit., p. XXXIV. Our present conclusions upon discovering that the descriptions correspond to Andrea’s version, decisively weaken this importance, but one must remember that these conclusions are not final and further analyses may bring considerable changes.


Codex ital. qu. 72 from Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, now in Cracow.

44 Roman Sosnowski A recovered copy of Cronaca Carrarese.

The manuscript ital. qu. 72 is composed of 209 parchments plus one protective leaf in the front and two in the back. One can notice traces that another protective leaf on the front has been removed – probably in order to eliminate signs of previous appartenance of the manuscript (the history of this manuscript may almost be good material for a crime story). Dimensions of the manuscript are 26,5 x 20,5. Handwriting and decoration style permit the manuscript to be dated to around the mid-15th century. Such a date corresponds to Mittarelli’s proposition12 and to information deduced from the text itself13. The first analysis indicates that handwriting and decoration style may belong to the 1430s as well as to the 1450s. As language traits suggest, the manuscript was made in the region of Veneto, probably in Padua14. Presently, the manuscript is in rather a bad condition. There are visible effects of humidity, traces of fungus and bark beetles, and in some places it is quite worn-out (f.63, 209). Certain pages carry signs of repairs – amended pieces of parchment (f. 84, 92). Gatherings are almost regular and present themselves as follows: I+20V200+1V(-1)209+II. In the last gathering, the last leaf is missing, while at the end there are two protective leaves and one of them is a parchment with a partial index. In addition, f.209 actually is preserved only partially as a large, irregular piece of parchment was cut out of it. We may observe three layers of foliation: a) the oldest, in ink, with gaps, for the folios were cut to the present

12 Giovanni Benedetto Mittarelli, Bibliotheca codicum manuscriptorum monasterii S. Michaelis Venetiarum prope Murianum una cum appendice librorum impressorum seculi XV, Venezia, 1779. Mittarelli suggests first half of 16th century. 13 Considering the version of the chronicle contained here, the terminus post quem would be 1454, the year in which Andrea supposedly wrote his version. Nevertheless, this question needs closer examination, important surprises are not to be excluded, especially that the codex possesses so many anomalies – introduction by Bartolomeo, descriptions from Andrea’s version, and mostly the chronicle is incomplete. 14 The language of Cronaca is generally speaking, mixed. According to Rajna (in his remarques about a diffrent text of that period) quoted by Medin (Gatari, op.cit., p. XXIX): “il toscano piegato in misura assai considerevole alle abitudini fonetiche e altresì morfologiche dialettali e scritto lasciandosi alquanto guidare la mano dalla tradizione latina” adding that in Cronaca the dialect element “abbonda”.


dimension; b) later one, in ink, clearly visible on f. 175-rubricated, 176, 177, 180, 181, 186, 187, 188-rubricated; c) modern foliation, in pencil, completing the gaps in the original foliation caused by the cutting of the leaves because of the covering that followed. Gatherings are numbered in pencil. The ruling was made with a plummet: 20x14 cm. Justification is 18-18,7x14-14,5cm. There are 29-32 lines on the page. As far as the handwriting is concerned, we identify it as littera textualis written by one hand. We find rare corrections and annotations by the hand of the copyist. The decoration is composed of: (1r, the beginning of the text) the illuminated white vine-stem initial ‘A’ in gold (on blue background, 5 lines); (134r, the beginning of an important speech in the text) the illuminated white vine-stem initial ‘H’ in gold (on blue background, 6 lines); flourished initials in red and blue (2-3 lines); catchwords, missing on 120v and 190v. Rubrics and running titles (years of the chronicle). It features half-binding with corners, sides covered with marbled paper (XVIII/XIX century) and has dimensions 28x22cm. The spine is of leather, with false bands, blind-tooled with golden letters, and is in poor condition. In the second compartment the title is placed: GATTARI / STORIA / DE CARRARESI, in the forth compartment is C.M. XV. (codice manoscritto, quindicesimo secolo), in the fifth, the old call-number (B.M.889) can be found. There are headbands and pastedowns in white paper. On the front pastedown is the accession number: acc. 1899, 114, a note in pencil: 210 ff(?), while on the rear pastedown, in pencil: 209 Bll. (1ro) on the top, written by a later hand is the title: Historia delli Carraresi Signori di Padoa / scritta da Bartolameo Catarij auttore di / quelli sempi. Below, in ink, is the present catalogue number: ital. qu. 72. (1ro, 209vo) stamps of the Berlin Königliche Bibliothek (IIro) counting, written later (17th century?) (IIvo) partial index, in a later hand As the above description shows, the codex is an interesting example of a th 15 century parchment codex, the history of which was quite complicated. First of all, there is an incompleteness of double nature: an incomplete character as a result of the author’s intention (the chronicle in our manuscript begins in 1367), as well as a notable material element lacking (a missing leaf ). Another interesting element is the index made by a later hand and the later calculations on IIr, which prove that at least directly after being written the manuscript was


quite intensely read and used. Nevertheless, despite all of these signs remaining in the manuscript, not much can be said about it. Even the identification of the owners in the early period (15th to 18th century) of the history of the manuscript would be very difficult if not for the indications found in old catalogs.

46

Manuscript ital. qu. 72 in earlier catalogs. Roman Sosnowski A recovered copy of Cronaca Carrarese.

The only catalog that lists our manuscript under the present catalogue number is Lemm’s catalog15 from 1918. A short description of the chronicle, mostly correct, says: Catarii, Bartolomeo, Historia delli Carraresi signori di Padoa. Chronik von Padua 1368-1397. Der Schluss fehlt. Perg. 209 Bll. XV. Jh. This brief mention, by itself insufficient as identification, was published after the edition of the chronicle of Gatari, therefore Medin and Tolomei had no chance of discovering the manuscript, which according to their knowledge had vanished in 1870 in Rome. In two following editions we find more specific pieces of information, but in order to apply them to our codex, a few minor questions must be answered. The Mittarelli’s description is the most exact and final: “GATTARI Bartolomeo di missier Galeazzo. Historia delli Carraresi Signori di Padova. Cod. membran. in fol. Sec. XV. num. 889. Visuntur ad oram insignia Abbatiae S. Mariae de Carceribus. Scriptor se progenitores habuisse in urbe Bononia asserit his verbis, quae leguntur in praefatione. Causa efficiente della presente opera, cioè l’autore di questa opera, cioè me Bartolomeo Cattarii, che fu della bona memoria missier Galiazzo, già anticamente discese da la valorosa citade di Bologna, invidiosa del suo riposo, & de soi cittadini, de la quale testimonia la presente opera. Et postea: Vogliando adunche seguire gli antichi & buoni costumi de miei antichi avoli, per dar continuamento a mia opera, cioè Chronica ecc. Anno 1263 reperitur Jacobus Cattarius judex in urbe Patavina in

15 Mitteilungen aus der Königlichen Bibliothek, Harausberg von der Generalverwaltung, vol. IV: Kurzes Verzeichnis der romanischen Handschriften, Berlin, Wiedmannsche Buchhandlung 1918.


rotulis archivi nostri S. Michaelis de Murano. Anno 1404 quo adhuc in vivis erat Galeatius pater Bartholomaei, quinque erant ipsi filii, & fratres Bartholomaei, inter quos Andreas. Haec Bartholomaei historia alia est ab illa Galeatii, & ab altera Andreae. Comprehendit paucos annos, nimirum ab anno 1367 usque ad finem eius seculi, excepto primo capitulo, quod in compendio narrat res multorum annorum. Scripta fuit haec historia a Bartholomaeo post obitum Galeatii patris, qui contigit anno 1405 nam in supradicta praefatione nominat se Bartholomaeum filium bonae memoriae Galeatii, quae verba defunctum patrem indicant. Muratorius Tomo XVII. Script. Rer. Italic. in medium profert ambas historias Galeatii patris, & Andreae filii, ac lectorem admonet in praefatione, reperiri tres codices harum historiarum in Bibliotheca Estensi, quorum duos publici iuris facit, unus scilicet antiquiorem magis authenticum, quia foetus Galeatii patris, alterum minus antiquum, sed copiosiorem & dilucidius scriptum, quia correctum & auctum a filio Andrea. Asserit se praetermisisse edere in lucem tertium, quem facile arbitratus est non necessarium. Verum historiam a Bartholomaeo concinnatam in ipso codice Estensi non contineri ex eo deducimus, quod Muratorius de hac mentionem nullam faciat, quam profecto fecisset, ratione nominis alterius filii Galeatii & fratris Andreae. Idem propterea Muratorius de tertio Codice sive de chronico Carrariense existente in eadem Bibliotheca Estensi ait: Tertium exemplar ipsum a praesentibus dissimile, quis confecerit, divinare nescio; quae verba profecto confirmant codicem tertium Estensem non continere historiam Bartholomaei, qui se manifestat statim in primis verbis suae praefationis. Chronicon Galeatii incipit ab anno 1308 ad 1390. Chronicon Andreae ab anno 1311 ad 1406. Chronicon demum Bartholomaei ab anno 1367 ad initia seculi sequentis. Philippus Tomasinus in Bibliotheca Veneta parte III enuntiat Chronicon Bartholomaei Gattarii reperiri in Bibliotheca Vincentii Grimani ex Calergiis Veneti patritii, sed codex noster spectabat, ut diximus, ad Abbatiam S. Mariae de Carceribus, exaratus fuit ante dimidium Secli XV. desideratur in eo postrema pagina, & pars paginae antecedentis. Reperitur etiam in Bibl. Reg. Parisiensi sub num. 10142 ap. Montafauc. T. II pag. 893 ubi errore Bartholomaeus dicitur filius Saliatii.�


48 Roman Sosnowski A recovered copy of Cronaca Carrarese.

Mittarelli, in his description included information about a particular sign – insignia Abbatiae S. Mariae de Carceribus – which is impossible to find in today’s manuscript. This disparity, however, may be easily explained. Mittarelli says that insigna were placed ad oram, that is at the edge, and the manuscript was at that time still uncovered (covers were made in Murano after 1779). In the process of covering, the leaves were cut off (proof of which exists) and which explains the lack of this particular sign. Valentinelli16 gives the following information: “Historia delli Carraresi, signori di Padova, scritta da Bartolommeo Catarii (Gatari) auctore di quello tempo. Codice membr. di c. 209 in 8°, ben conservato, inscritto sotto lo scudo de’ Camaldolesi D. Fulg. The. ab. Can. Mauro Capellari annotò di sua mano: `Questa serie pare sia di Andrea Gatari, quantunque porti il nome di Bartolomeo nella prefazione, forse dell’isbaglio dell’amanuense che lo scrisse verso il 1500, se non dopo’”.17 No heraldic arms of Cameldolites (two pigeons drinking from one chalice and the motto: Ego vobis, ego mihi), nor inscription and note of Capellari18 mentioned above are present – most probably they existed on the protective folio that was torn out. Medin19 largely commented on the correctness of this information – on one hand he clearly identified this manuscript with the one described by Mittarelli, while on the other hand, he pointed at errors made by Valentinelli. A comparison of these three manuscripts – the modern one and Lemm’s on one side, and Mittarelli and Valentinelli’s on the other side, reveals deep similarities but also room for doubts. The confrontation and final detection of the identities of the manuscripts seen by Mittarelli and Valentinelli might be

16 Giuseppe Valentinelli, Biblioteca di San Gregorio al Monte Celio in Roma, in Archivio Veneto, III (1872), p. 155. 17 Valentinelli, in spite of his erroneous datation, remarks correctly that the description of events agrees with the description from Andrea’s version, edited by Muratori. 18 Mauro Capellari, a Cameldolite monk in the monastery of San Michele di Murano, abbot in the monastery of San Gregorio, praised theologian and then pope Gregory XVI. Cf. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, sv. By the time Capellari was writing his notes (in Murano or in Rome), the codex already had the same covers as it has today (made in Murano). 19 Gatari, op. cit., p. XXXIV.


a particular problem but thanks to the work of Medin20, these questions were fully solved. Our research into the history of ital. qu. 72 and ital. fol. 149 only confirm Medin’s conclusions that take aim at the erroneous datation made by Valentinelli in his description. The lack of certain traits, which at first seems essential, is logically explained upon a closer examination. The missing sign of appartenance to the S. Maria Carceribus monastery is easily justified by the new covers, while the lack of Capellari’s notes is due to the tearing out of the protective leaf, motivated by the intention to make the identification of the manuscript impossible, which is not surprising if we consider that it doubtlessly emerged outside of the S. Gregorio in Monte Celio illegally.

Identification and road to Berlin. Elements that made the identification21 possible are the catalogue number from the Library of Murano, and Mittarelli and Medina’s description mentioning the period covered by the manuscript (1367-1397). The identification is confirmed by the missing elements described above such as the damaged secondto-last page and the missing final page. Additionally, in the same Berlin collection there is a codex ital. fol. 149, which previously also belonged to the Library of Murano under the catalogue number B.M.56. We also know that this manuscript stayed in San Gregorio al Monte Celio (a note by German librarians attests to this fact). This information, together with the catalogue number indicating clearly the Library of Murano help us to decide upon the correctness of this identification. In addition to these codicological and historical factors, we dispose of the extremely characteristic introduction to the chronicle, unlike that which any other codex possesses. A question arises about the way our manuscript came to Berlin, and previously to the Library of Murano. The last question is answered by Mittarelli who says that the manuscript came to the library of San Michele of Murano from the monastery of Santa Maria delle Carceri. The manuscript itself does not give any indication to that claim. We know, though, that in 1690, after the dissolution of the monastery of Santa Maria delle Carceri by the bull of the

20 Ibidem, p. XXXIII-XXXIV. 21 There are a few inconsistencies in the Mittarelli and Valentinelli descriptions, but they are already partly solved by Medin (question of format and datation).


50 Roman Sosnowski A recovered copy of Cronaca Carrarese.

Pope Alexander VIII, all valuable objects, including books, were transported to Venice. There, inadequately maintained and poorly guarded codices partly disappeared or were destroyed. Luckily, the Government of the Republic of Venice entrusted those that had avoided this sad fate to the monastery of San Michele di Murano22. Among them there also was Cronaca Carrarese. As far as the route from Venice to Berlin is concerned, we know that the manuscript was transferred from Murano by Cardinal Zurla23 and remained in the monastery of San Gregorio al Monte Celio in Roma24, where the monk Valentinelli saw it. It was then supposed to be transferred to the Biblioteca Nazionale25 in 1870 but it never has. The manuscript became lost. As the manuscript of Frontinus, it was stolen and became an object of commerce26. It was only in 1889, as the accession number indicates, that the manuscript was bought by Königliche Bibliothek. It stayed in Berlin until 1941, when it was hidden, together with other manuscripts, on the territory of East Reich (Fürstenstein, today Książ, then Grüssau, today Krzeszów), which became Poland after the war. Manuscripts discovered by the Polish authorities were then relocated to Cracow and left in deposit at the Jagiellonian Library where they remain waiting for the renewed interest of researchers, philologists and historians.

22 Giuseppe Zattin, Il monastero di S. Maria delle Carceri, Tipografia Antoniana, Padova 1973, p. 135 and further. Zattin describes the transfer in great detail using the relation from the letter of a monk, Gregorio Sguario, to a famous writer and historian, Antonio Magliabecchi. Sguario writes with regret about the destruction of books in the collection because of the transfer to Venice. He also writes about a library “certo che era una buona biblioteca, la migliore de’ Camaldolesi.” Ibidem, p. 139. 23 Placido Maria Zurla (1768-1834), al secolo Giacinto Francesco, monaco camaldolese, cardinale dal 1823, cf. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, sv. 24 Gatari, op. cit., p. XXXIII. This transfer probably was related to the dissolution of the monastery of Murano in 1810. The entire collection of books was captured by Regno Lombardo-Veneto, then sent to the Biblioteca Marciana, then to the Museo Correr, then to Archivio di Stato di Venezia, then to Biblioteca Vaticana, then to S. Gregorio al Celio. Cf. Zattin, op. cit., footnotes, p. 139. 25 Gatari, op. cit., p. XXXIV. 26 The Frontinus’s manuscript (ital. fol. 149) was once in the hands of a Roman antiquarian , G.B. Rossi (who sold it to Berlin in 1883). It is indeed astonishing that illegality of this procedure rose no interest. There is a note in the manuscript attesting its provenience from the monastery of San Gregorio. The hypothesis of the manuscript having been stolen aside, one may as well consider a possibility for the monastery to sell some of the manuscripts, although it would have been an illegal action.


Piotr Tylus

16th century French book of proverbs in the Berlin collection (ms. gall. quart. 18) Among the numerous French manuscripts of the Berlin collection kept at Jagiellonian Library, we find a small manuscript from the 16th century containing a selection of proverbs/sayings. On f. 8ro a title is written by the same hand as the text of the compilation: Dictons moraulx en grand usage en la langue françoyse, the date by which the book was completed, or rather offered to its addressee; and the place of creation: ce dixiesme de septembre, l’an 1568, à Volgast1. On f. 9ro,2 we found the title repeated in a slightly different version: Communs dictons moraulx, tant en rithme qu’aultrement. Proverbs/sayings follow accompanied by commentary. The dedication that opens the manuscript (7ro-vo), written by the same hand and signed (denoting an original), is worth quoting here: “A treshault seigneur et prince, monseigneur Ernest Loÿs, duc de Pomeranie, etc. Mon treshonoré seigneur, pendant que vous avez esté dehors, je vous ay yci cueuilli une partie des dictons moraulx françoys, la plus part en rithme et fort cours, qui est bon moyen de s’en pouvoyr servyr plus aysement quant il vient à propos, ce qui arrive souvent, lesquelz ne servent seulement à plus grande connoyssance de ceste langue, mays apportent un grand lustre, grace et enrichissement au parler de celuy qui s’en sçait bien ayder en temps et en lieu oultre ce. Ilz sont accompagnez d’un merveilleux moyen et soulagement de se pouvoyr dispenser3 de grands affaires esquelz l’on se trouve ordinairement empestré, voyre où, quelque foys, le conseil et advis de plusieurs grands personnages et sages est lors fort requis. Ce qu’il playra à vostre haul-

1 West Pomerania, Wołogoszcz in Polish. 2 According to the actual foliation; according to the old foliation, it’s folio 1ro. 3 ms. dispensrer.


tesse prendre en gré pour le present, comme yssu de la part de celuy qui tasche voulentiers de controuver chose où vous trouviez quelque contentement après vostre heureux retour. Vostre treshumble et tresobeÿssant serviteur Claude Dupuys, parisien”

52 Piotr Tylus 16th century French book of proverbs in the Berlin collection (ms. gall. quart. 18).

This dedication informs us as to the addressee of the selection: Ernest Louis, Duke of Pomerania (1545-1592), about the circumstances of the execution of the book (during the absence of the Duke) and about the utility of the proverbs/sayings. The name of the author of the compilation also is revealed: Claude Dupuys, a Parisian. The manner in which the selection is made, its simplicity and the very poor handwriting are astonishing. It wasn’t the author’s intention to make a luxurious copy to be offered to the Duke in order to obtain his favors (as was the custom). The idea was to make a handbook, as the title underlines – en grand usage – serving among other purpose to teach French – lesquelz ne servent seulement à plus grande connoyssance de ceste langue. Who was Claude Dupuys, the author of the compilation and of the commentaries? What was his role on the court of the Duke of Pomerania? He calls himself treshumble et tresobeÿssant serviteur – a humble and obedient servant. It is highly possible that he was the Duke’s teacher of French language, which by then was becoming an international language. What may prove this is the dedication, which points out the utility of the proverbs in the process of language learning. Claude Dupuys is not the author of these proverbs/sayings, their origins are varied, but he is the author of the compilation and of the commentaries. The composition is unique, preserved probably only in this one copy, which is the original manuscript written by Claude Dupuys. The manuscript itself is in good condition. It is composed of 143 leaves (196 x 159), plus seven leaves, which we must now consider as protective. The structure of the gatherings suggests that the manuscript is complete, and only the very last folio in the last gathering is missing (the one after 143, probably initially empty of writing). The covers are without a doubt original. The folio that today bears nr I, being the first protective leaf, in the final part of the manuscript (final flyleaf) makes one bifolium with the final pastedown, while the folios that today bear nr II-VII make one ternion, stitched in between f.I (final flyleaf) and


the final pastedown, were probably planned as an additional gathering (the watermark in this gathering is the same as in the rest of the text4. What is more, the structure of the gatherins makes alternate ternions and quinions – as the one preceding is a quinion, logically a ternion follows. The covers are made of pigskin leather (206 x 165 mm) and are impressed, on the initial cover, with many decoration patterns typical to the 16th century, as well as figures of saints and King David. We may consider this cover as a bibliophilic one. The manuscript has many empty pages. Proverbs/sayings are put into alphabetical order, and virgin leaves are situated after every group formed by the proverbs/sayings starting with the same letter of the alphabet. The largest group of empty leaves follows the last part, titled Aulcuns aultres dicto[n]s …, which contains the proverbs/sayings in no precise order. This free space left for later input shows the intention of the author to produce a living book. However, no later notes or commentaries by the Duke Ernest Louis or subsequent owners are present. Claude Dupuys’ handwriting seems to be particularly unfriendly to a reader and that may be the reason why the manuscript was not often used. Not all of the proverbs have commentaries. Some of the commentaries are in French, some in Latin, which shouldn’t be surprising if we consider the destination of the compilation. As the book was supposed to serve the Duke in his language studies, the explanations were written in a language he probably knew better. In the margins we can notice a few special marks, occasional corrections and references (to the Bible, antiquity authors, etc.) made by the same hand as the text. Proverbs/sayings appear in larger characters, commentaries in smaller characters. Certain parts of the commentaries are underlined in black ink. What is the story of the manuscript? There is no accession number therefore it must have been acquired for the Königliche Bibliothek in Berlin before 1828 (the date of the beginning of the accession register). Did it come to the Berlin library directly from the collection of the Dukes of Pomerania after the region was incorporated into the kingdom of Prussia by the decision of the Vienna Congress of 1815? There is an old catalogue number on the initial pastedown: 7 : 46. It is not 16th century handwriting. In the top part of the spine we found two, almost illegible, inscriptions. The first of them that can be read under ultraviolet is the old catalogue number, written probably by the very hand that 4 A stag’s head.


54 Piotr Tylus 16th century French book of proverbs in the Berlin collection (ms. gall. quart. 18).

put the catalogue number on the initial pastedown, together with the name of the author: 7. 146 / Cl. Du Puy. One of the catalogue numbers must be then erroneous: 7. 146 or 7. 46. The second inscription presents a different handwriting and was probably made by a person with no knowledge of French: Dictons mo / roux [sic !]. The catalogue number is relevant here – so, should we relate it to the collection of the Dukes of Pomerania? A similar catalogue numbering system, marked also by the same hand, is to be found in two other French manuscripts of the Berlin collection, gall. oct. 4 (7 : 181), 17th century and gall. oct. 11 (7 : 46)5, the beginning of the 17th century, as well as in one Italian manuscript, ital. oct. 1 (7: 10), dated circa 16156. We could then suggest that all four manuscripts were admitted to the Königliche Bibliothek in Berlin directly from the Pomerania princes’ collection. However, the manuscript gall. oct. 4 complicates the situation. The initial inside cover of this manuscript contains the following note: Maximilian-Auguste Gans Baron de Pouttlitz. The complete name of this person is Maximilian August Gans Edler, Sir of Putlitz, born in 1605. On one hand, the old catalogue numbers on the manuscripts mentioned above may be those of the Dukes of Pomerania collection. On the other hand, all four manuscripts may have been in the collection of the baron of Putlitz. In the manuscript itself (gall. quart. 18), however, there is no sign of such an attachment. This modest book, which has not as yet been the object of a deep academic analysis, is a fact of culture reflecting a certain French mentality of a few centuries ago, a mentality strongly rooted in a medieval tradition as most of the proverbs/sayings have a medieval origin. This small selection was created in the 16th century and testifies to more connections between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages than is generally believed. Here follows a transcription of selected proverbs/sayings from the compilation. We hope this transcription will encourage someone to pay the attention to this little book it doubtlessly deserves.

5 The catalogue number identical to the one in the manuscript gall. quart. 18. Both manuscripts mentioned (gall. oct.  4 and 11) are being studied by Krzysztof Kotuła. 6 Manuscript is being studied by Jadwiga Miszalska.


A

A coulons saoulz cerises sont ameres (12vo); A rude asne, rude asnier (13vo); A gros larron, grosse corde (14ro); A petite fontaine boit on à son ayse (19vo); A trompeur, trompeur et demy (20vo)

B

Bon sang ne peult mentir (27ro); Bons nageurs sont souvent noyez (28ro); Bon marché atyre argent hors de la bourse (28ro)

C

Charité oint et peché point (31vo); Ce que nature engendre, ce n’est pas honte de nourrir (34vo); C’est trop aymer quant on en meurt (36vo)

D

De fol juge breve sentence (42ro); De la panse vient la danse (43vo); De peu de chose vient on à grand noyse (48ro)

E

En petit ventre gros cueur7 (52ro); En peu d’heure Dieu labeure (52ro); En petite mayson Dieu a quelque foys grand part (53ro); Endurer pour durer (53ro)

F

Femme qui prent elle se vent (55ro); Fol et8 qui gete à ses piedz ce qu’il a à sa teste (55vo); Folie et d’acheter chat en poche (56ro); Fort qui abat et plus fort qui se releve (56vo)

G

Grand bien ne vient pas en peu d’heure (58ro)

7 It was a medieval conviction that the heart was in the stomach: see an old French expression le cuer del ventre. 8 Read est.


I/J Jamays à un bon chien ne tombe un bon os (60ro); Il ne fault metre son doit entre l’arbre et l’escorse (61vo); Il parle latin devant les cordeliers (63ro) Il n’et si riche qui n’ait besoing d’amys (67vo); Il ne pert rien qui ne pert Dieu (67vo);

56 Piotr Tylus 16th century French book of proverbs in the Berlin collection (ms. gall. quart. 18).

L

La bonne amour ne va jamays sans crainte (74vo); Les choses ne valent que ce qu’on les faict valoyr (76ro); Les plus sages faillent souvent en beau chemin (76ro)

M Mal pense qui ne repense (80ro); Myeus vault couard que trop hardi (80vo); Mieus vault amy en voye qu’argent en couroye (81ro) N

Nul bien sans peinne (83ro); Necessité n’a point de loy (83ro); Nul ne sçait qu’à l’euil luy pent (83vo)

O

On a plus de mal à rien fayre qu’à bien fayre (85vo); On faict tousjours le loup plus grand qu’il n’et (85vo); Onques amour et seigneurie ne se tindrent compagnie (86ro)

P

Q

Petite pluye abat grand vent (91ro); Par faulte d’un sage le fol monte en chaire (91ro); Plus penser que dyre (92ro) Qui trop embrasse, mal estraint (93ro); Qui ne peult mouldre à un moulin, sy voyse à l’aultre (93ro); Qui du sien donne Dieu luy redonne (105ro)


R

Remede contre peste par art fuyr tost, loing, retourner tard (107ro); Robe d’aultruy faict honneur à nully (107ro)

S

Sage et le juge qui escoutant tard juge (108ro); Soyt tost9 ou tard ou près ou loing le riche a du povre besoing (108vo)

T

Tel consent qui se repent (110ro); Tard medecine et apprestée a maladie enracinée (111ro); Toutes choses ont leur sayson (112vo)

V/U Vin respandu ne vault pas eau (115ro); Un dormir atyre l’aultre (115ro); Vertu plait et peché nuit (115vo).

9 ms. tosh.


Scribes in Romance-language manuscripts from the Berlin collection at the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow (Addendum to Bénédictins du Bouveret) 58

1 Adam de Fabris, 1573 (28 vo) Adam de Fabris de Mareno Vallis Mareni ad usum suum, suorumque amicorum opusculum hoc ex suo manuscripto originali exemplavit Follinae, die Veneris XV, mensis Maij, Anno Domini MDLXXIII, 1573 Ital. qu.42 2 Aloysius Honofri de Melanensibus de Prato, 1455 (106vo) Finis per me Aloisium honofrj de melanensibus de prato die vero viogesima quarta ottubris 1455. Rome Laus deo Ital. qu. 77 3 AN, third quarter of the 15th century AN Gall. fol. 209 4 Antonio da Pistoia, 1415 (103vo) finito libro referamus gratias Christo Amen in questa parte al libro fine è dato Christo ne sia ringratiato Ello scriptore vuol essere pagato Iste liber Est mey Gerardi de Gambacurtis de Pisis quem feci fieri in Civitate Pistorij per Prudentem et discretum virum Ser Anthonium de Pistorio. In anno Incarnationis domini nostri yhesu christi Mccccxv de mense Januarij Ital. qu. 65


5 Francesco Di Meo, 1492 (84ro) Io Franciescho Di meo scripsi 1492 30 Settenbrio Ital. fol. 134 6 Gallus de Gallis, 1381 (92vo) Laus tibi sit criste quoniam liber explicit iste. Millo iiio (trecento) octuagessimo primo. Indic(tione) iiiia die xio decembris. Expletus fuit iste liber per me presbyterum Gallum de Gallis de Bononia. Ital.fol. 149 (Cfr. Bénédictins du Bouveret, II, 4762) 7 Gaugello Gaugelli, 1461 (30vo) Finiti sonno tucti li metri de Boetio scripti per me Gaugello nella citta de Urbino. In Moccccolxj.12a.Septembris Ital. fol. 156 8 Jehan alias Je-ne-sçay-comment, last third of the 15th century (54ro) Pactractus (!) a grant haste le vendredi devant Pasques. Pour noble damoiselle Jehanne Berruyere, femme de noble homme Estienne Benard, escuier, maistre d’ostel du roy, seigneurs d’Estueille, d’Avon et de Taffonneau, est ce livre escript par les mains de Jehan alias Je-ne-sçay-comment. Gall. fol. 130 9 Rainaldo Barbiero, 1460 (107ro) Questo libro fo scrito e compiedo per man de Rainaldo barbiero i(n) la venerabel cita de venexia nel tempo de 1460. Adi 15 del mexe de otubrio Ital. fol. 158


60

Watermarks in Romance-language manuscripts from the Berlin Collection at the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow Watermarks that we reproduce on the following pages come from Romance-language manuscripts from the Berlin collection presently held at the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow. This collection is not an archive. The cases in which we can precisely determine the date and the place of a manuscript’s execution, thus also about the paper on which the manuscript is made, are not numerous. Among the oldest paper manuscripts, there are a dozen or so in which the watermarks are identical to the reproductions available in the Briquet and Piccard repertories. We were also able to find some of the later watermarks in other repertories (Nostitz Papers, Churchill, Austro-Hungarian Watermarks, Heawood). We do not reproduce here those watermarks that already have been identified and dated in other collections. The references will be listed in the final version of the particular manuscript descriptions on which we are currently working. As we lack comparative tools, especially when it comes to the papers dated after the 16th century, we decided to progressively publish in Fibula examples of Italian, Spanish and French watermarks that we were able to date. If the collection were an archive, it would make it possible to prepare a precious repertory of papers. However, the watermarks we dated are not numerous, although we believe that they may be helpful in work with other manuscripts. The collection still is being studied and many of the reproduced watermarks are only a sample of the watermarks from the Berlin collection. We start with Italian manuscripts, move to French ones and then to Spanish. The reproductions will be listed according to their catalogue number; first ital. fol. (in folio format), then ital. qu. (in quarto format) and finally ital. oct. (in octavo format). To make searching easier, an index of motifs appearing in the watermarks will be provided, with references to the relevant catalogue numbers.


WATERMARKS Call number Ital. fol. 52 Ital. fol. 135 Ital. fol. 139 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 146 Ital. fol. 155 Ital. fol. 155 Ital. fol. 168 Ital. fol. 168-169 Ital. fol. 168-169 Ital. qu. 17 Ital. qu. 18 Ital. qu. 19 Ital. qu. 19 Ital. qu. 19 Ital. qu. 29 Ital. qu. 42 Ital. qu. 75 Ital. oct. 1 Ital. oct. 1 Ital. oct. 1

Year 1720 1819 1597 1757 1770-1772 1765-1773 1760 1767 1762-1766 1765 1765-1766 1778 1768 1771 1765 1770-1771 1770 1761-1764 1748 1770 1790 1774 1457 1457 1734 1734 1734 1731 1772 1839 1835-1840 1838 1746 1573 1754 1615 1615 1615

Place Roma Padova (?)

Roma Roma Roma Roma Roma Roma Ferrara Roma Bologna Roma Roma Roma Brescia Roma Roma Siena Siena Bologna Bologna Bologna Cesena Napoli Venezia Venezia Venezia Roma


62

Ital. fol. 52, 1720, Roma


Ital. fol. 135, 1819, Padova (?)


64

Ital. fol. 139, 1597

Ital. fol. 146, 1757


Ital. fol. 146, 1770-1772, Roma

Ital. fol. 146, 1765-1773, Roma


66

Ital. fol. 146, 1760, Roma


Ital. fol. 146, 1767, Roma


68

Ital. fol. 146, 1762-1766, Roma

Ital. fol. 146, 1765


Ital. fol. 146, 1765-1766, Roma


70

Ital. fol. 146, 1778, Ferrara


Ital. fol. 146, 1768, Roma


72

Ital. fol. 146, 1771, Bologna


Ital. fol. 146, 1765


74

Ital. fol. 146, 1770-1771, Roma

Ital. fol. 146, 1770, Roma


Ital. fol. 146, 1761-1764, Roma


76

Ital. fol. 146, 1748, Brescia

Ital. fol. 146, 1770, Roma


Ital. fol. 146, 1790, Roma


78

Ital. fol. 146, 1774


Ital. fol. 155, 1457, Siena

Ital. fol. 155, 1457, Siena


80

Ital. fol. 168, 1734, Bologna


Ital. fol. 168-169, 1734, Bologna


82

Ital. fol. 168-169, 1734, Bologna


Ital. qu. 17, 1731, Cesena


84

Ital. qu.18, 1772, Napoli


Ital. qu.19, 1839, Venezia

Ital. qu. 19, 1835-1840, Venezia


86

Ital. qu. 19, 1838, Venezia


Ital. qu. 29, 1746, Roma


88

Ital. qu. 42, 1573


Ital. qu. 75, 1754


90

Ital. oct. 1, 1615


Ital. oct. 1, 1615


92

Ital. oct. 1, 1615


Index of watermarks AA: Ital. fol. 139 AMG SERAFINI FABRIANO: Ital. fol. 146 anchor: Ital. fol. 146, Ital. fol. 168-169, Ital. qu. 17, Ital. qu. 29 animal: Ital. oct. 1 B: Ital. fol. 146 bird (bird in circle) BV: Ital. fol. 146 cardinal’s hat: Ital. fol. 168-169 C I HONIG: Ital.qu.18 circle: Ital. fol. 139, Ital. qu. 42 coat of arms: Ital. fol. 146, Ital. qu. 18 cross: Ital. qu. 42 crown: Ital. fol. 146 eagle: Ital. fol. 146 F: Ital. fol. 146, Ital. qu. 17 FABRIANO (AMG SERAFINI): Ital. fol. 146 FF: Ital. fol. 146 FGN: Ital. fol. 146 FGS: Ital. fol. 146 FV: Ital. fol. 146 flower: Ital. fol. 155, Ital. fol. 168 GBG LIMON: Ital. fol. 146 GF: Ital. fol. 146, Ital. fol. 168-169 hat: Ital. fol. 146, Ital. qu. 19, Ital. fol. 168-169 keys: Ital. fol. 168-169 ladder: Ital. fol. 155 lilly: Ital. fol. 52, Ital. fol. 146 lion: Ital. fol. 146, Ital. qu. 19 M: Ital. fol. 146 moon: Ital. fol. 135, Ital. qu. 19, Ital. qu. 75 name: Ital. fol. 146 PA: Ital. oct. 1 PM: Ital. fol. 168 SERAFINI FABRIANO (AMG): Ital. fol. 146 shield: Ital. qu. 19 SS: Ital. qu. 75 star: Ital. fol. 135, Ital. fol. 146, Ital. fol. 168-169, Ital. qu. 17, Ital. qu. 29, Ital. oct. 1 trifoliate: Ital. qu. 75, Ital. oct. 1 triple mount: Ital. fol. 146 V: Ital. fol. 52 VFC: Ital. fol. 135 ZV: Ital. fol. 146


References AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN WATERMARKS = Eineder G., The Ancient Paper Mills of the Former Austro-Hungarian Empire and Their Watermarks. Hilversum 1960. BRIQUET = Briquet Ch. M., Les Filigranes. 4 vols. Geneva 1907.

94

HEAWOOD = Heawood, E., Watermarks, mainly of the 17th and 18th centuries. Hilversum 1950. CHURCHILL = Churchill W.A., Watermarks in Paper in Holland. England, France etc. in the 17th and 18th centuries and their interconnection. Amsterdam 1935. NOSTITZ = The Nostitz papers. Hilversum 1956. PICCARD = Piccard, G., Wasserzeichen. 25 vols. Stuttgart 1961-1997. PICCARD ON LINE = Landesarchiv Baden-W端rttemberg, Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, (http://www.piccard-online.de).


info.filg.uj.edu.pl/fibula

Fibula 3  

Newsletter Fibula 3

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you