No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Any careful study of the history of erudition in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries will uncover the names of many remarkable scholars whose work has not thus far been sufficiently evaluated. We may recall the names of Scipione Maffei, Iacopo Facciolati, Egidio Forcellini, Cardinal Angelo Maria Querini, Gian Domenico Mansi, Angelo Maria Bandini, Girolamo Lagomarsini and many others. Some of these men may not have possessed the keenest philological perception nor the deepest historical insight; still, nearly all of them were imbued with the humanist's innate taste for the classical languages; and with incredible dedication and enthusiasm they undertook gigantic works which would often seem to defy the forces of an individual scholar. Some of them did attain their ultimate goals: the monumental works of Muratori, Bandini and Forcellini were all completed. Others, often for reasons beyond their control, were unable to finish their tasks. Among the latter there is especially the Jesuit, Girolamo Lagomarsini. Born at Porto S. Maria (Cadiz) in 1698 of Genoese parents, he was in Rome from 1713 until 1720; he taught Rhetoric first in Arezzo and Prato, later in Florence, spending there the longest period, 1733-1751. It was in Florence that he undertook his magnum opus, an edition of Cicero's works which was to be in thirty volumes. Before he completed the work he was called to the Collegio Romano in Rome, where he taught Greek until his death in 1773.
1 Laurand, L., ‘Les manuscrits de Cicéron dits “Lagomarsiniani”: Où sont les collations de Lagomarsini’? Revue des études latines 5 (1927) 257–61; idem, ‘Encore les “Lagomarsiniani,” ‘ Revue de philologie 59 (1933) 370-74. These two articles were reprinted in Cicéron: Volume complémentaire (Paris 1938) 230-235, 236-42. Cf. Castellani, G., ‘La mancata edizione delle opere Ciceroniane di Lagomarsini, G., S. I.’ Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu 8 (1939) 33-65; idem, ‘I manoscritti Ciceroniani di Lagomarsini, G.,’ Rendic. Accad. d’Italia 7, 1, Suppl. (Rome 1940) 85-7.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Sommervogel, C., Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus 5 (Bruxelles-Paris 1894) 981–2.Google Scholar
3 On his life and work, cf. Paschini, P., ‘Gabriele Faerno cremonese, favolista e critico del ‘500,’ Atti Accad. Arcadi 13 (1929) 63–93.Google Scholar
4 This library and its dispersal were studied by Pierre de Nolhac, ‘La bibliothèque d'un humaniste du XVIe siècle,’ Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire (École française de Rome) 3 (1883) 202–38; see also Tamalia, D., ‘Index codicum Graecorum qui Romae in Bibliotheca Nationali olim Collegii Romani adservantur,’ Studi italiani di filologia classica 10 (1902) 226, 227, 231, 232.Google Scholar
5 Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti iussu Iohannis XXIII Pontificis Maximi …; Codices Vaticani latini 11414-11709 schedis Henrici Carusi adhibitis recensuit José Ruysschaert, Bibliothecae Vaticanae scriptor (Romae: in Bibliotheca Vaticana 1959); pp. xxvi, 716.Google Scholar
6 In the series MSS 11699-11709, containing the correspondence of Lagomarsini, it would have been helpful if the incipit and desinit had been supplied with consistency.Google Scholar
7 ‘Paläographisches, Historisches und Kritisches zum Bembinus des Terenz,’ Wiener Studien 11 (1899) 268–87, see p. 272.Google Scholar
8 La bibliothèque de Fulvio Orsini (Paris 1887) 237.Google Scholar
9 Cf. Prete, S., Il codice Bembino di Terenzio (Studi e testi 153; Vatican City 1950) 10–15.Google Scholar
10 Bertalot, L., ‘Humanistisches in der Anthologia Latina,’ Rheinisches Museum für Philologie N.F. 66 (1911) 55–80: ‘Porcelius, den die Philologen als Besitzer des Bembinus Terentii und des Trivultianus von Dante de vulgari eloquentia kennen’ (p. 59).Google Scholar
11 The phrase was inaccurately read by Umpfenbach, who published it for the first time in his edition (1870) of Terence (p. viii), as ‘Mei Porceli Laurenti …’ It was correctly read by de Nolhac and Hauler (supra nn. 7 and 8), the first to publish the true reading. Recently, however, I had the opportunity to consult certain private notes of the primus custos of the Vatican Library at the time of Napoleon, Gaetano Marini (1740-1815), who was in charge of the Library 1800-1810. Here we find the correct reading of the inscription of Porcelio as reported above (Vat. lat. 9113, fol. 332r).Google Scholar
12 In my edition of Terence (Heidelberg 1954) pp. 11, 415, some of the foregoing observations are substantiated. On Porcelius, cf. also the recent article of Castiglioni, C., ‘L'umanista Porcellio ed il suo codice all’Ambrosiana,’ Studi storici in memoria di Mons. Angelo Mercati prefetto dell’ Archivio Vaticano (Milano 1956) 135–14. This reference was brought to my attention by Professor Kristeller.Google Scholar
13 See Jachmann, G., ‘Das Problem der Urvariante in der Antike und die Grundlagen der Ausoniuskritik,’ Concordia Decennali, Deutsche Italienforschungen: Festschrift der Universität Köln zum 10jährigen Bestehen des Deutsch-Italienischen Kulturinstituts Petrarcahaus (Köln 1941) 47–104, especially 47-9.Google Scholar
14 See the description in Schenkl p. xliv.Google Scholar
15 See Prete, S., ‘Problems, Hypotheses and Theories on the History of the Text of Ausonius,’ Festschrift für Günther Jachmann (Köln-Opladen 1959) 191–229, especially 191 n.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 In fact the basic evidence on which scholars have thus far founded the connections between Z and the Excepta are rather poor. Cf. note 15.Google Scholar
17 One of the greatest difficulties is that of finding in a printed edition a particular letter in the same form as in a given manuscript. It happens rather frequently that part of one letter will be mixed in with another letter. In the case of Barb. lat. 24 (N.A. 2753) some letters are entirely missing; of the others, many are in a very confused order; also, a part of Letter 81 (according to the numbering of Hercher) is missing, fol. 25v. The various editions of Francesco Griffolini Aretino show many divergencies. Ruysschaert cites Hain ∗12883 (n. d.); I have used the edition of 1475 (Hain *12894).Google Scholar