United by Their Divisions Fingerprinting PDF

United by Their Divisions:
Fingerprinting the Manuscripts of Livy’s Fourth Decade
Arthur J. Wylene
Identifying the manuscript sources used by ancient, medieval, and Renaissance writers
can have many benefits. It can help date the writer's work, where that is uncertain – or
conversely help date the manuscript and its family. It can demonstrate the spread of a
classical text, explain which versions of the text were read by which scholars, and illuminate
connections between scholars, cities, and regions. It can even prove the age and authority of
manuscript families that might otherwise be disregarded on stemmatic grounds.
Unfortunately, absent direct evidence – such as notes in a manuscript indicating that it

was possessed by a particular writer – such identification can be challenging. The stemmatic
"fingerprints" that connect manuscript families – errors, omissions, and variant wordings
shared by manuscripts deriving from a common source – often do not survive the process of
quotation, translation, or paraphrase. Obvious errors are typically corrected by the learned
writer, and minor variants that do not affect content, such as re-ordered words, may be
glossed over or disregarded. This paper concerns one underappreciated set of "fingerprints"
that could and did survive into secondary works on multiple occasions, and can yield fresh
information regarding the transmission and use of Livy's Fourth Decade.
The Fourth Decade of Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita (Books 31-40) is preserved in two
major manuscript families – “B”, consisting solely of the “Bambergensis” (Bamb. Bibl. Publ.
Class. 35), and “χ”, a large group of late medieval and Renaissance manuscripts that
commenced general circulation in the late 1200’s and early 1300’s.1 The Bambergensis lay
undiscovered in the Bamberg library until 1615, and consequently all of the pre-humanist and
humanist studies of this Decade in the 13th through 16th centuries were based entirely on χ
family manuscript sources.2
The χ family itself consists of several major subgroups, "φ" and "ψ", along with "α",
which was originally misidentified as a deteriorated descendant of φ (more on that later). One
notable feature of the χ manuscripts is the omission of Book 33, which must have been lost
1 There are three additional minor sources for portions of the Fourth Decade: The “Moguntinus” and
“Spirensis” – lost manuscripts collated, with varying degrees of detail and reliability, in two early 16th Century
printed editions – and the "Fragmenta Romana" (Vat. Lat. 10696), a fragment of a late antique uncial
manuscript containing portions of Book 34. As explained in greater detail below (fn. 16, infra), these are
irrelevant to the present discussion.
2 The basic details of the tradition – as they have have evolved over time – are laid out in the major
critical editions of the Fourth Decade: A. H. McDonald, Titi Livi ab urbe condita, Tomus V, Libri XXXI–XXXV
(Oxford 1965); P. G. Walsh, Titi Livi ab urbe condita, Tomus VI, Libri XXXVI–XL (Oxford 1999); and John
Briscoe, Titi Livi Ab urbe condita Libri XXXI–XL (Sttugart 1991). See also Marielle de Franchis, Livian
Manuscript Tradition, in Bernard Mineo (ed.), A Companion to Livy (Malden & Oxford 2014), pp. 14-18.
1 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

from their common progenitor at some point in the distant past.3 However, while all χ
manuscripts are missing this Book, each of the major subgroups compensates for that absence
in different ways. Careful study of these variances – and the consequent renumbering of the
remaining books in certain subgroups – can yield clues that assist in identifying the
manuscript sources used by later scholars who cite the Fourth Decade.
The first modern critical edition of the Fourth Decade, by A.H. McDonald, briefly
noted that the “deteriores” (i.e., Renaissance-era) manuscripts took varying approaches to the
absence of Book 33, with some dividing Book 31 into two separate books (thus resulting in a
full complement of ten), some simply ignoring the omission, and some later manuscripts
acknowledging that one book must be missing. However, McDonald dismissed the usefulness
of these variances in examining the text: “neque tamen hac ratione de textu disseri potest.”4
Critically, while McDonald noted that division of Book 31 occurred principally in the α
manuscripts, he believed that α was a descendant of φ, without independent authority, and
consequently had little reason to further investigate textual anomalies unique to that
subfamily.5
G. Billanovich explored more deeply in his pioneering articles on the Fourth Decade.6
He demonstrated that α was independent of φ, having circulated in the region of Padua
decades before φ emerged in Avignon in the late-1320’s.7 Billanovich further observed that
“la massima parte” of the α subfamily began a new Book at 31.27 (“Consul Sulpitius eo
tempore...”), thus dividing Book 31 in two. Petrarch’s manuscript of the Fourth Decade, MS
3 This would likely have occurred at some point between the early 10th century – when both B and the
progenitor of χ were copied from their common source (fragments of which survive today as Bamb. Bibl. Publ.
Class. 35a) – and the late 13th century, when the earliest references to what we now know as the χ family
emerge in the writings of Paduan scholar Lovato Lovati (discussed below).
4 McDonald 1965, p. xxiv.
5 Prominent editors of an earlier age simply ignored the fact that some MSS divided Book 31 (see, e.g.,
Arnold Drakenborch (ed.), Titi Liui historiarum ab urbe condita libri qui supersunt omnes, Tomus IV
(Amsterdam 1741), p. 551; Wilhelm Weissenborn (ed.), Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri, pars IV (Leipzig 1859),
pp. iv, 23) – even though the division was certainly apparent in some of the manuscripts available to them. (For
example, see below regarding MS Holkham Hall 344, Drakenborch's "Lov. I".)
6 Prof. Giuseppe Billanovich's contributions to this area are far too numerous to list here. Some of the
most important include Petrarch and the Textual Tradition of Livy, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes 14 (1951), pp. 137–208; La tradizione del testo di Livio e le origini dell’umanesimo (Padova 1981);
and the essays collected in Itinera: vicende di libri e di testi, ed. Mariarosa Cortesi (Rome 2004).
7 The Italian scholars Lovato Lovati, Benzo D'Alessandria, and Riccobaldo of Ferrara, writing in the late
13th and early 14th centuries, described their Livys as breaking off in the middle of an oration by the
Macedonian prince Demetrius. It just so happens that the leading manuscripts in the α family terminate at
40.12.15, right in the midst of Demetrius' speech against Perseus – thus identifying them as relatives of these
older exemplars. "Si tamen φ c.a. 1328 scriptus est et codices α textum iam multos annos ante a. 1328 cognitum
exhibent, haudquaquam ab illis fontibus exoriri possunt" ["If, however, φ was written around 1328, and it is
now shown that the text of the α manuscripts was known many years before 1328, they cannot possibly arise
from that source”]. (See Briscoe 1991, p. vii, citing Billanovich 1981.) See also the foundational researches of
R. Sabbadini, which first brought many of these once obscure citations to light. (Remigio Sabbadini, La
Scoperte Dei Codici Latini e Greci Ne'secoli 14 e 15, vol. 2 (Firenze 1914), pp. 130-131, 141-142.)

London B.L. Harley 2493 (“A”), one of the archetypes of φ, also contains the suggestion
(albeit subtle) of a possible new book at 31.27 (consisting of a large blank space before
“__onsul Sulpitius”, apparently for a rubricated letter similar to those at the beginnings of the
other Books).8 This lead Billanovich to posit that the text of A is the result of Petrarch’s own
conflation of α (the Paduan tradition) with another χ tradition deriving from a manuscript
found at Chartres – a neat reversal of McDonald’s belief that α derived from φ.9
While Billanovich’s historical methods were innovative, many of his textual

conclusions have not withstood the test of time. In 1993, J. Briscoe pointed out that the other
principal representatives of φ do not contain any trace of this ersatz book division – and that
A does not otherwise contain evidence of borrowing from α that is not also present in those
other manuscripts. None of this is consistent with the theory that A was somehow the product
of unique conflation with “la lezione affine dei padovani”. Briscoe also contradicted
Billanovich’s assertion that the majority of α manuscripts contained this book division,
stating that “of those manuscripts about which I have information” only five (discussed
below) display any trace of this phenomenon. He did not delve deeper into the relationships
between the identified manuscripts and the remainder of the α family, speculating simply that
“the possibility of a new book beginning at XXXI, 27, 1 appeared as a suggestion in the
source of φα, to be taken up by some scribes and neglected by others.”10
For reasons that will appear, this easy answer is also unsatisfying. The phantom
division of Book 31 appears nowhere else in φ (aside from some late contamination) and only
within certain subgroups of α, but fairly consistently within those subgroups (see below) –
hardly the distribution one would expect if the suggestion of a new book appeared as early in
the stemma as the source of φα. (Were Briscoe correct, one would expect at see least some
other examples in φ, and broader distribution throughout α.) It is much more likely that the
division was an innovation within the deeper reaches of the α family, to which the scribe of A
was exposed.
One need not, however, go as far as Billanovich and posit that A incorporated
wholesale conflation with α; a scribe’s mere access to multiple manuscripts, and even
8 MS London B.L. Harley 2493, f. 229v.
9 Giuseppe Billanovich, Il Livio di Pomposa e I Primi Umanisti Padovani, in Itinera 2004, pp. 196-197.
The other χ tradition from which A (and thus φ) ostensibly derived has been conclusively demonstrated not to
have been the chimerical manuscript from Chartres by Michael D. Reeve, The Vetus Carnotensis of Livy
Unmasked, in J. Diggle, J. B. Hall, and H. D. Jocelyn (eds.), Studies in Latin Literature and Its Tradition in
Honour of C. O. Brink (Cambridge 1989), pp. 97–112.
10 John Briscoe, The Renaissance Manuscripts of Livy’s Fourth Decade, in Clive E. J. Griffiths and R. A.
Hastings (eds.), The Cultural Heritage of the Italian Renaissance: Essays in Honour of Thomas G. Griffith
(New York 1993), pp. 69-70.

awareness of variants, does not inevitably lead to pervasive contamination.11 Indeed, A
displays nothing so much as uncertainty on this point. Balanced against the blank space
(tentatively) suggesting a book division at 31.27, the true (fully rubricated) book division at
the end of Book 31 (i.e, the beginning of what we now know as Book 32) was clearly marked
by the original scribe as “lib. xxxi explicit. incipit lib. xxxii feliciter.”12 At some point later,
another hand lightly added an “i” after each number, resulting in xxxii and xxxiii. Also,
someone other than the original scribe added what appears to be book numbers in the top
margin of each page in the early part of the Decade, writing “41”[sic] up until 31.27 and “42”
thereafter.13
Additionally, Billanovich identifies several instances in Petrarch’s other writings

where he contradicts himself or expresses uncertainty regarding the correct numbering of the
books of the Fourth Decade:
"Later, too, Petrarch shows himself uncertain in enunciating his quotations from
Book XXXII and the following books. In fact, referring to XXXII XVII 11, he
made this note in the Ambrosiana Virgil [MS Milan Ambros. SP 10/27, formerly
A 49 inf.]: 'Cuneum Macedonum phalangem ipsi vocant. Livius libro rerum
romanarum 33°' (f. 78r: SERVIO, Ad Aen., II 254). On the other hand, referring
from Aeneid, III, 335 to Ab Urbe condita, XXXII V 9, he wrote in the same
codex: 'Hoc meminit Livius 2° belli macedonici, non procul a principio, idest
'principioque veris' (f. 94v). In the Paris Livy [MS Paris BNF Lat. 5690], he
referred thus to Ab Urbe condita, XXXV LI 2: 'Sancta templa asila greci vocant,
11 This is particularly true in an age when books were often borrowed, rather than owned, and thus
contact with representatives of alternative traditions might be fleeting, and not allow for full collation. Reeve
makes a similar point regarding "the uncertainty of Petrarch's scribe in A over whether a new book began at 31,
27," albeit for a different reason: "I do not understand why that should betoken conflation, because there is no
evidence that ‘la lezione di Chartres’ carried on past 31, 27 without a break." (Michael D. Reeve, The Third
Decade of Livy in Italy: The Family of the Puteaneus, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 115 (1987), p.
131.) The "lezione di Chartres" has since been discredited, but the underlying doubts regarding the source of the
31.27 book division, and the meaning of the "uncertainty" in A, remain valid.
12 MS London B.L. Harley 2493, f. 235v.
13 Billanovich attributes these “corrections” to Petrarch, and connects them with several other marginalia
expressing uncertainty regarding whether the Fourth Decade might actually be the Fifth. While the lengthy note
on f. 222v asserting that what we know as Book 31 might actually be “quadragesimus primus” is clearly in
Petrarch’s hand, the assumption that Petrarch was also responsible for “penciling in” the other conjectures
regarding book numbering rests on too slender a foundation. Those critical to our inquiry are too brief to allow
handwriting comparison – and to paraphrase Briscoe’s criticism of another similar assumption by Billanovich,
“it may equally well be that a person who had acquired the manuscript after [Petrarch had read Petrarch’s notes]
and added in the manuscript the alternative suggestions he found there" along with "his own ideas." (See John
Briscoe, Notes on the Manuscripts of Livy’s Fourth Decade, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 62
(1980), p. 314.) Regardless of attribution, however – and even assuming these notes are roughly
contemporaneous with the original drafting of A – they further tend to demonstrate confusion, rather than
consistent use of an α source. Interestingly, the much later margin note acknowledging that Book 33 must be
missing (f. 247r) – which Billanovich attributes to Valla, and Briscoe to “a learned reader later than Valla” –
itself acknowledges the uncertainty regarding how the first two books are to be correctly divided: “Ideoque
quem librum in primum et secundum quidam dividunt ego primum et unum tantum dicerem, vel, ut aliis
numerari placent ratione totius operis, trigesimum primum, precedentemque secundum, vel, si vis, trigesimum
secundum eadem ration”.

infra de bello macedonico libro 4° prope finem' (f. 45r). And there, alongside the
words 'Cynoscephales ubi debellatum erat cum Philippo', XXXVI VIII 3, he
wrote: 'Sed quando hoc fuerat deficit sine dubio, et ut puto unus liber' (f.
317r)."14
All of this uncertainty plainly suggests some awareness of disagreement in his sources, but
does not demonstrate consistent use of an α manuscript by Petrarch, whether in the
construction and annotation of A or elsewhere.
More recent researches may help provide some valuable clarity. M.D. Reeve peered
further into the recesses of the α family, and was able to discern four distinct classes therein:
"(a)" consisting of those codices actually breaking off at 40.12.15 and their close associates;
"(b)" a largely Milanese group supplemented from the β subfamily of φ; "(c)" a group
exemplified by MS Escorial g I 8, which is "considerably less corrupt than the other α
manuscripts" (and which Briscoe speculated to represent a conflation of α and φ); and "(d)"
exemplified by MS Leid. Voss. Lat. F 66, which, as Reeve noted, shares errors with α(a)
absent from α(c).15
Overlaying these four α classes, and φ and ψ, upon the book divisions observed in the
manuscripts yields some very interesting results:16
14 Petrarch and the Textual Tradition of Livy, in Itinera 2004, p. 44. The “Paris Livy” also contains
several margin notes (not solidly attributable to Petrarch) touching this point, including the statement at 31.27
“consul sulpitius hic debet esse principio libri” (MS Paris BNF Lat. 5690, f. 281v) and (correctly) “LIB. IV
DEC. IV” at the beginning of Book 34 (f. 295v).
15 Michael D. Reeve, The Transmission of Livy 26–40, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 114
(1986), pp. 129–172. See also Briscoe 1993, p. 71.
16 The three other manuscript sources for the Fourth Decade (fn. 1, supra) are demonstrably irrelevant for
present purposes. The Fragmenta Romana contains only small portions of Book 34, with no surviving evidence
of book divisions or numbering – and in any event is generally agreed to represent a tradition entirely
independent from χ (or B). (Briscoe 1991, p. xix.) What can be discerned of the Moguntinus is likewise believed
to have been independent from χ (or B). (Briscoe 1991, p. xviii-xix.) That manuscript appears to have been
missing the first two books, commencing in the middle of Book 33 (at 33.17.6). Neither the original collation of
this MS by N. Carbachius (Titus Livius Patavinus historicus duobus libris auctus cum Flori Epitome (Mainz
1518)) nor the second collation by S. Gelenius (T. Livii Patavini Latinae Historiae Principis Decades Tres
(Basel 1535)) reports any book division anomalies (i.e., the reported portion of Book 33 is correctly identified
as “tertius”, and so on for the remainder of the decade). This is perhaps unsurprising given the actual presence
of Book 33 therein – and the fact that the prior printed edition from which Carbachius originally started, T. Liuij
Patauini historici clarissimi quae extant Decades ad decem diuersa exempla acri iudicio repositae (Paris 1513),
itself contained no book division at 31.27, and correctly noted the absence of Book 33. The Spirensis was
collated by Gelenius only, and that manuscript does actually appear to have been descended from a common
ancestor of χ. (Briscoe 1991. p. ix.) A. Luchs concluded, on good evidence, that the Spirensis was likewise
missing Book 33 (August Luchs, De Sigismundi Gelenii codice Liviano Spirensi commentatio (Erlangen 1890),
pp. 3-4); however, neither Gelenius' text nor his annotationes reports any trace of a book division at 31.27, nor
other book numbering anomalies. Gelenius did not always clearly identify the source for his textual choices
(i.e., the prior printed editions he relied upon, or the Moguntinus or Spirensis he collated), so the specific
features of the Spirensis cannot be ascertained with certainty. That MS could, potentially, have contained variant
book divisions or numbering that Gelenius simply ignored as erroneous, due to the obvious existence of a Book
33 (which was well-established by that time, and obvious from the Moguntinus). For our purposes, it is
sufficient to note that there is simply no useful evidence of such book divisions available for us to analyze.

Family/Class Manuscripts Consulted Book Divisions and
Observations17
α(a) • Paris BNF Lat. 5740 The α(a) manuscripts universally reflect a
(f. 174r, 213r) book division at 31.27. I have directly
• Lips. Bibl. Univ. Rep. 1.1 observed this in the three cited MSS, and
(f. 153r, 187v, 193v) T.A. Dorey reports that in "Holkham
• Vat. Arch. Cap. S. Pietro C.132 344...Book XXXII is labelled XXXIII,
(f. 111v, 150r, 161v, 174v) and Book XXXI, 27-end is labelled
XXXII."18 Moreover, Reeve and Briscoe
• Holkham Hall 344 have noted that "nihil attinet librarium A
de nouo libro ad 31.27 incipiendo
cogitauisse, quod faciunt codices ad
40.12.15 desinentes"19 – although they do
not follow this latter observation any
farther.
As further noted by Briscoe and Reeve,

the archetype α(a) MSS are missing
37.59.2 through 38.17.15,20 which affects
the division of Books 37 and 38. Lips. 1.1
has no division between these two books,
but correctly labels the beginning of Book
39 as "nonus". Paris 5740 has a division at
this point, but like most of the book
divisions in the MS, it is unlabeled. (Only
the incipits of Books 34 and 35 are
labeled, as “liber quartus” and “liber
quintus” respectively.)21 Arch. Cap. S.
Pietro C.132 actually includes the omitted
text (and the book division), but identifies
both Books 37 and 38 as “septimus”,
while correctly labeling Book 39 as
“nonus”.
One may plausibly posit that some lost

members of this class could have
17 I assign more weight to visible book divisions (or absence thereof), rather than to written book
numbering, as the former is certainly original to the text, whereas the latter may have been added later – perhaps
much later – based on sources other than the manuscript from which the original text was copied. (Numbering
clearly added by the rubricator, set forth in the margin, or otherwise in a different hand than the main scribe are
particularly likely to mislead if not treated carefully.) However, book numbering may still be probative in
appropriate cases, and will be noted as relevant herein.
18 T. A. Dorey, The Alatri Fragment and the Holkham Manuscripts, Philologus: Zeitschrift für das
Klassische Alterum 103 (1959), p. 149.
19 Briscoe 1991, p. viii, fn. 34.
20 Reeve 1986, p. 140, fn. 2; Briscoe 1993, p. 76, fn. 15.
21 The Paris MS also has a division (complete with space for rubrication) at 34.32 labeled “Responsiva
oratio. titi quintii ad orationem nabidis” (f. 187r), but this appears to have been intended to demarcate merely a
speech of interest to the scribe, rather than a book division – and does not seem to have been picked up by other
MSS of this class.

contained no division between Books 37
and 38 (like Lips. 1.1), and also no
subsequent Book numbering (like Paris
5740), thereby misleading readers to
identify Book 38 as part of Book 37, and
misnumbering subsequent books
accordingly.
α(b) • Vat. Urb. Lat 426 This class has not commended itself to
(ff. 12v, 19r-v, 131v) scholars, due to the late dates of the
manuscripts and their heavy degree of (oft
• Berlin Staatsb., lat. fol. 370 inconsistent) contamination. (Reeve did
(ff. 28r, 84r) not recommend collation of α(b), and
neither Briscoe nor Walsh did so for their
critical editions.) The small sample that I
have examined indeed displays such
stemmatically useless “noise” and fully
justifies this treatment.
Urb. Lat. 426 proceeds entirely like an φ

manuscript, containing nine books with
the correct divisions, each labeled
sequentially 1-9. At the end is a note
declaring “. . . liber nonus et ultimus
tercie decadis explicit”. This is entirely
unsurprising given the copiose φ
contamination in this class noted by both
McDonald and Reeve. By contrast, Berlin
370 contains the same nine book divisions
– but labels Book 34 as “tertius” and
Book 35 as “quintus”, skipping “quartus”
in the numbering. As indicated below, this
particular error is characteristic of ψ
descendants. Reeve identifies Berlin 370
as deriving from MS Holkham Hall 356,
which he describes as “altogether the most
heavily annotated manuscript of the fourth
decade I have seen” – and consequently
such heterogeneous contamination should
perhaps not be entirely surprising.
α(c) • Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 19 sin. 7 Of the MSS identified by Reeve as
(ff. 242v, 251r, 253v) belonging to this class, three are reported
by Briscoe to contain a book division (or
• Escorial, g.1.8 clear evidence thereof) at 31.27: Bologna,
(ff. 161v, 207r) Bibl. Univ. 2289,22 Paris BNF Lat. 5738,
and Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 19 sin. 7. (I
• Milan, Bibl. Ambros. D 542 have examined only the latter, which does
(f. 182v) indeed such a division – but also has
spurious divisions at 32.21.12 and 32.34
(shortly before the text breaks off),
22 Reeve suggests that Bologna 2289 may have been the exemplar of Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 63.15, but
examination does not bear this out. Not only does Plut. 63.15 lack a book division at 31.27 (f. 9v) (it contains
only the conventional φ divisions into nine books), but it also does not share one of Reeve's key identifiers for
α(c) (Livy 31.6.2, operiant for obtigit; f. 2r). Assuming that Reeve is correct that this MS "derives
fundamentally from α", its class placement must remain undetermined at this point.

thereby reducing its probative value.) On
the other hand, Escorial g.1.8 contains
only the eight true book divisions, and
Ambros. D 542 (of which I have
examined only a partial copy) appears
similar – identifying the incipit of Book
39 as "Octauus liber".
Briscoe has identified "conflation of φ and

α" within this class,23 and the disparity
above may be the results of that
contamination, deriving from α(a) and φ
respectively. For our purposes, it suffices
to note that a 31.27 book division could
indicate an α(c) source, as well as an an
α(a).
α(d) • Leiden, Voss. Lat. F66 This class generally does not display any
(ff. 8v, 110v, 115v, 120v)24 division at 31.27 (except for certain
• Vat. Lat. 1857 instances of apparent contamination
(ff. 9v, 121r-v, 128v, 135r) discussed below) – but its most striking
• Fermo Com. 81 feature occurs later in the text. A
(unfolliated) considerable portion of these manuscripts
• Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 63.18 omit the true division at the beginning of
(ff. 6r, 82r, 87r, 91v) Book 39, and instead display spurious
• Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 63.9 divisions at 38.42 (commencing Book "8"
(ff. 9v, 122r, 129v, 137r) with "exitu propre anni") and 39.23
• Vat. Lat. 1851 (commencing book "9" with "cum iam in
(ff. 12r, 150r, 159r, 168r) exitu"). Voss. F66, Fermo 81, and Vat. Lat.
1857 all display this clearly, and the
limited portion of Edili 183 that I have
examined shows consistent signs (there is
a marked book division at 38.42).25
23 John Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy Books 38-40 (Oxford 2008), p. 13, fn. 37.
24 Voss. F66 has several features leading one to suspect that it may be the source of many of the
characteristic features of this class. The chapter break at 31.27 is somewhat more pronounced than the others
surrounding it (four lines indented, rather than two), but is not as prominent as the actual book divisions (i.e.,
there is no space between the lines of text for rubricated book numbering). Later in the MS is an apparent
change in hand, and the second scribe provided no clear break in the text at either 38.42, 39.1, or 39.23. The
spurious divisions at 38.42 and 39.23 are labeled "8" and "9" respectively in the margins. It may be that the
source of Voss. F66 displayed uncertainty at 31.27 (similar to the source of A), and had no clear breaks
anywhere in Books 38-39, leaving some subsequent scholar to make educated guesses about the divisions
therein in order to bring the number of books up to ten. (Both of the spurious divisions are at logical points in
the text, consistent with Livy's other book divisions.)
25 Billanovich associates Vat. Lat. 1859 and 5825 and Naples, Bib. Naz. IV C 20 with the foregoing
manuscripts on historical grounds. (G. Billanovich, Il testo di Livio: da Roma a Padova, a Avignone, a Oxford,
Italia medioevale e umanistica, XXXII (1989) in Itinera 2004, p. 352; Tra i codici degli Ab Urbe condita, Italia
medioevale e umanistica XXXV (1992), in Itinera 2004, p. 374.) I have not examined these MSS, but it would
therefore be unsurprising to find a similar re-division of Books 38 and 39 in them as well (and in Modena, Est.
Lat. 599 (α J 3 1), which Reeve identifies as a copy of the Naples MS) – although the Nineteenth Century
catalog for the Naples MS suggests instead that it was divided and numbered similar to a φ manuscript.
("Animadvertendum vero duco primum quidem et secundum librum in Codice respondere primo et secundo in
Editis, sed tertium respondere quarto, quartum quinto, et ita porro ad nonum usque. Decimi initium congruit."
Cataldo Iannelli, Catalogus bibliothecae latinae veteris et classicae manuscriptae quae in regio Neapolitano
museo Borbonico adservatur (Naples 1827), p. 88.)

This innovation is not, however, universal
• Flor. Med. Laur. Edili 183 within this class. The spurious divisions
(ff. 9v, 121r) are entirely absent from Flor. 63.18 (and
• Vat. Lat. 1853 its copy, Flor. 63.9) and Vat. Lat. 1851,26
(ff. 11r, 138r, 146r, 174v) all of which display only the eight true
• Editio Princeps (Rome 1469) book divisions. (These latter are all
(unpaginated) relatively late MSS, which contain
• Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 63.33 apparently integral acknowledgments of
(ff. 320r, 474v) the absence of Book 33 – suggesting some
level of contamination from outside the α
family.)
Some confusion creeps into one group of

later representatives, all apparently
derived from Edili 183. Briscoe reports
that this MS displays a book division at
31.27 – and it does, but only as a margin
note "T. livii ab urbe condita liber xxxi
explicit incipit xxxii"; the text itself
contains no division here. This
"correction" was picked up in a small
number of otherwise α(d) manuscripts that
Reeve has identified as associated with the
Edili (including Vat. Lat. 1853 and the
1469 editio princeps and its copies).27 The
inter-class contamination is most evident
in Vat. Lat. 1853, which displays the eight
true book divisions, the α(a)/(c) division at
31.27, and the two α(d) divisions at 38.42
and 39.23, yielding twelve books in all.28
φ • London, B.L. Harley 2493 ("A") As noted above, "A" displays considerable
(ff. 229v, 235v, 247r, 263r, 276v) confusion, including a phantom book
• Paris, BNF Lat. 5690 ("P") division at 31.27; then labeling Books 32
(ff. 281v, 287v, 295v) and 34 as "xxxii" and "xxxiii",
respectively; then labeling Books 36 and
• Escorial R.1.4 ("E") following correctly (as "xxxvi" and so
(ff. 153v, 159r) forth). (Book 35 is entirely unmarked.)
However, the other two principal
representatives of φ display no such
anomalies. "P" contains only the eight true
26 The divisions in Vat. Lat. 1851 may be the result of correction, rather than survival of genuine α(d)
text. Reeve identifies this MS as a descendant of Edili 183, the other descendants of which display
contamination not seen here.
27 Reeve argues convincingly that Plut. 63.33 was copied from one of the early printed editions of Livy
(“the ed. Tarvis or a later edition”).
28 The Nineteenth Century catalog entry for Rome, Vitt. Emm. 448 reports that it too is divided into
twelve books – but indicates that the spurious divisions occur in Books 37, 38, and 39 (as opposed to 31, 38,
and 39 in Vat. Lat. 1853). (Biblioteca nazionale centrale, Catalogo dei manoscritti Vittorio Emanuele, vol. I, pp.
329-330 (1875).) I have not examined this manuscript to determine if any of its false divisions otherwise match
up with any branch of α – although Reeve associates this MS with both Edili 183 (and the editio princeps) and
with Ambros. D 542 (an α(c) MS), positing a change in exemplar somewhere within the first two books, so
inter-class confusion of the book divisions similar to Vat. Lat. 1853 would not be surprising.

book divisions, with no numbering
whatsoever (except of a variety of much
later – and inconsistent – margin notes),
and "E" likewise displays only the correct
divisions, with no trace of a break at 31.27
– and with Books 34 and following
consistently numbered one-off.29
Basic stemmatics thus counsels against

Billanovich's belief that the 31.27 division
derives from the φ archetype, and instead
suggests that the unmarked tentative
division in "A" was introduced by the
scribe from another source (especially
given the evident uncertainty and
contradictions within "A" itself). As will
appear, this conclusion is strengthened by
examination of the later descendants of φ,
the β and γ subfamilies, which likewise
show strong signs that their common
source contained only the nine true book
divisions.
β Reeve subdivides β30 into the principal

• London, BL Burney 198 MSS (represented here by Burney 198,
(f. 210v) Paris BNF Lat. 5741, Malatest. 13.3, and
• Paris BNF Lat. 5741 Plimpton 106) and three later subsidiary
(ff. 186r, 189v, 195v) groups in which "contamination...betrays
• Cesena, Malatest. 13.3 itself."31 The most striking feature of β is
(ff. 10v, 20r, 36r) that all of the principal manuscripts and
• New York, Columbia Plimpton 106 most of the subsidiaries "Librum 33
(f. 23) deesse agnouerunt" expressly through
β(a) integral notes at the beginning of Book
• Wroclaw, Rehdig 96 3432 – and there is accordingly no trace of
(ff. 361v, 374r, 395r) any book division at 31.27 anywhere in
β(b) the family. If, as Billanovich, Reeve, and
• Krakow, Bibl. Jagell. 523 Briscoe all believe, β is derived from a
(ff. 7r, 13v, 23v, 99v, 106r, 111r) lost third manuscript of Petrarch,33 that
29 I have not had the opportunity to examine "E" directly; however, the book divisions in that MS and
associated subscriptiones are reported in detail by Briscoe 1991, and in both the printed Escorial catalog
(Guillermo Antolín, Catálogo de los códices latinos de la Real biblioteca del Escorial (Madrid 1910), p. 450)
and the Escorial's online catalog <http://rbme.patrimonionacional.es/Busqueda-en-Catalogo.aspx?>. Moreover,
as noted, Briscoe 1986, p. 69 specifically attests that there is no trace of a 31.27 book division in "E".
30 Some of the leading Fourth Decade β MSS also carry a text of the Third Decade denominated to as Θ,
and the literature thus sometimes refers to β as Θ. (See, e.g., Reeve 1989, p. 98, fn. 4; Giuseppe Billanovich, Il
Boccaccio, il Petrarca e le più antiche traduzioni in italiano delle decadi di Tito Livio, Giornale Storico della
Letteratura Italiana 130 (1953), pp. 311–377, reprinted in Giuseppe Billanovich, Lezioni di filologia
petrarchesca (Venice 2008), pp. 3-24.)
31 Reeve 1986, p. 136.
32 McDonald 1965, p. xxiv. The only exception is the β(c) group, which lacks any book numbering (or
clear divisions) in the early part of the decade.
33 See Reeve 1986, p. 134; Briscoe 1991, p. XVI.

• Wroclaw Akc. 1948 KN 797 text must have been put together
β(c) sometime after he became aware that
• Paris BNF Lat. 5739 Book 33 was missing. The β(b) group,
(ff. 8v, 16r, 28v) consisting of late-Fifteenth century MSS,
• Vat. Lat. 1854 displays one additional interesting feature:
(10r, 16r, 26v) The replacement of the true book division
at 39.1 with spurious divisions at 38.42
and 39.23 characteristic of the α(d) family,
indicating contamination of β(b) from
such a source.34
γ The γ manuscripts are Fifteenth century

• Besancon, Bib. Pub. 839 copies, most of them quite late, and
(ff. 12r, 24r, 43v) almost all Florentine.35 Reeve expresses
•Vat. Pal. Lat. 880 some doubt about the integrity of this
(ff. 9r, 17r, 31r) subfamily, which may share more
historical identity than textual
•Vat. Pal. Lat. 877 consistency.36 Most indicate no awareness
(ff. 10r, 19v, 35r) of the missing book 33, which is
consistent with Reeve's observation that
•Vat. Lat. 1855 these MSS are "closer to φ than β." Three
(ff. 9r-v, 18r-v) have no division at 31.27, and typically
•Vat. Lat. 1856 use the conventional φ one-off book
(ff. 11r, 22v, 40v) numbering for the remainder of the
•Vat. Lat. 3332 decade. (Besancon 839 and Pal. Lat. 880.
(ff. 11r, 21r, 37v) The one exception, Pal. Lat. 877, correctly
identifies Book 34 as "Liber XXX
Quartus," and labels the remaining books
accordingly.) The other three do display a
Book division at 31.27 (Vat. Lat. 1855,
1856, and 3332); however, given the
comparatively late dates of these
manuscripts,37 and the heterogeneous
34 I have observed this in Krakow 523 directly, and H. Kraffert's study of Wroclaw Akc. 1948 KN 797
(formerly Liegnitz, Bibl. Petro-Paul. A. 47) explicitly notes that "die hs. beginnt dieses buch [39] mit c. 23, 1
cum iam in exitu". (Hermann Kraffert, Der Liegnitrer Liviuscodex in Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 17
(Leipzig 1871), p. 71.) On the other hand, Reeve associates Drakenborch's "Gaetnerianus" (Desden, Dc. 128)
with this group (Reeve 1986, p. 136) – but it apparently does not display these features. Drakenborch
specifically notes the book division anomaly in Voss. F66 ("Ceterum fini huius libri adnectebatur initium
sequentis in cod. Voss. qui librum xxxix. demum incipiebat a cap. xxiii"), but says nothing of such a reading in
"Geartn." (Arnold Drakenborch (ed.), Titi Liui historiarum ab urbe condita libri qui supersunt omnes, Tomus
Quintus (Amsterdam 1743), p. 287.)
35 The one apparent exception is MS Holkham Hall 354 (Drakenborch’s “Lov. 4”), which was produced
by one "Gerardus magistri Lanfranchi de Bononia" in 1409, presumably at Bologna – although this cannot be
certain, as learned magisters were often wont to travel. (See Arnold Drakenborch (ed.), Titi Liui historiarum ab
urbe condita libri qui supersunt omnes, Tomus Septimus (Amsterdam 1746), p. 327.)
36 The principal examinations of this subfamily are McDonald 1965, pp. xxix-xxx; Reeve 1986, pp. 137
and 171; and Albinia De La Mare, Florentine Manuscripts of Livy in the Fifteenth Century, in Livy, ed. T. A.
Dorey (London 1971), pp. 177-199.
37 Vat. Lat. 1855 bears the date 1409 (although this is not entirely certain); Vat. Lat. 1856 and 3332 were
both produced after 1450.

sources used by Florentine scribes,38 this
seems more likely the result of
contamination from outside the φ tradition
than genuine survival within it (from
Petrarch's A or otherwise).39
ψ • Vat. Lat. 3331 ("V") The ψ manuscripts universally display

(ff. 10v, 38r, 62v) only the eight true book divisions;
• Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 63.6 ("C") however, there are some interesting
(ff. 7r, 24r, 38v) patterns in the book numbering. Vat. 3331
• Oxford, New College 279 (“N”) and New College 27940 – both "pure" ψ
MSS – number Book 34 as "[xxx]iii," but
• Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 89.inf.3.3 ("L") then label the end of that same book as
(ff. 11r, 38r, 60r, 161v) “liber [xxx]iiii explicit,” and proceed to
• Munich, BSB Lat. (CLM) 15733 number Book 35 as "[xxx]v." Similarly,
(unfolliated) Plut. 63.6 – a "codex incertus" deriving
• Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 63.12 from ψ through the middle of Book 34,
(ff. 9v, 163r) but emended from φ – identifies Book 34
as "III" and Book 35 as "V," likewise
• Vat. Ferr. 562 effectively skipping 34 in the book
(ff. 7v, 12v-13r, 24r, 102v-103r, numbering.
119r)
On the other hand, Plut. 89.inf.3.3 –
another mixed MS – and its descendants
continue the one-off book numbering
through Book 39 (labeled as "XXXVIII"),
then appear to skip 39, numbering the last
book as (picked up as X or decem in
the copies).41 Ferr. 562, which Reeve and
Briscoe identify as a ψ derivative of
similar authority to Plut. 63.6 (it is
considered a deteriore by McDonald, and
largely ignored by Walsh), is missing
some of the folios containing critical book
divisions (31.48 through 32.1 and 38.59
through 39.3 are both absent) – but
appears to correctly number all of the
books, skipping 33.
The non-conjecturable correspondence

between Vat. Lat. 3331, New College 279,
and Plut. 63.6 (which McDonald
38 Although many of the γ manuscripts can be shown to derive from closely associated scribes, De La
Mare notes that even individual copyists in Fifteenth century Florence had "recourse to different exemplars at
different times," so textual variation and contamination are not unsurprising.
39 "Correction" of nine books to ten by some scribes producing γ copies seems much more likely than
intentional reduction of ten books to nine.
40 The book numbering and subscriptiones in “N” are reported in detail by Briscoe 1991 (see especially
vol. 1, p. 274).
41 This is clearly visible in Munich BSB 15733. Plut. 63.12 generally omits book numbers entirely, but at
the end of the text contains the note “explicit liber decimus.” For the descent of these MSS from Plut. 89.3.3,
see Reeve 1986, p. 164.

considers to be independent descendants
of ψ) is telling – and would appear to
signify that such book numbering (i.e.,
skipping 34) stood in the ψ archetype.
The utility and value of the foregoing classification is immediately apparent upon
examination of one particular work, the “Verona florilegium” of 1329. Entitled “Flores
Moralium A[uc]toritaum” by its anonymous author,42 this thematic compilation of quotations
from classical, medieval, and religious sources appears to have been composed in Verona, and
its sole surviving copy remains in the library there, MS Verona, Bib. Cap. CLXVIII (155).43 It
is a work of extreme erudition and research effort, incorporating “flores” from a dazzling
array of works – many of them extremely rare, and some now lost44 – and represents a
42 G. Billanovich, C. Villa, and G. Bottari have all posited that the author was likely Guglielmo da
Pastrengo (1290-1362), albeit for very different reasons. (G. Billanovich, Petrarca e i libri della cattedrale di
Verona in Petrarca, Verona e l’Europa. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Verona, 19-23 sett. 1991, a
cura di G. Billanovich (Padova 2004), pp. 127-135; C. Villa, Scheda per un anonimo, in Studi latini in ricordo
di Rita Cappelletto (Urbino 1996), pp. 169-173; G. Bottari, Fili della cultura veronese del Trecento (Verona
2010), pp. 45-102.) Most notably, Bottari explored the apparent relationship between the Flores and another
anonymous florilegium (MS Verona, Bib. Cap. CCXXXI (394)), connecting both with Pastrengo on the basis of
similarities with his De viris illustribus et de originibus (printed in 1547 as Guglielmo Pastregico Veronese, De
originibus rerum libellum (Venice 1547)). Although this attribution has come to be accepted without question in
some quarters, it remains conjecture, not established fact. (See L. Fabiani, Un nuovo tassello per la fortuna e la
tradizione dei Flores moralium auctoritatum, in Italia medioevale e umanistica LV (Padova 2014), pp. 33-70.)
In any event, while examination of Pastrenego’s De originibus is interesting in its own right, it yields nothing
conclusive for our present purposes. Sabbadini and Avena have speculated that Pastrenego “probabilmente” had
access to Livy’s fourth decade (R. Sabbadini, Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV, vol. 1
(Firenze 1905), p. 12; see also A. Avena, Guglielmo da Pastrengo e gli inizii dell'Umanesimo in Verona, in Atti
e momorie dell'Accademia d'agricoltura, scienze, lettere, arte e commercia di Verona, ser. 4, 7 (1907), p. 260),
and there are indeed traces of this. While many of Pastrengo’s references to “Livi” actually derive from the
Periochae (see M. Reeve, The Transmission of Florus and the Periochae Again, Classical Quarterly 41 (1991),
p. 462), a few are attributable directly to the Fourth Decade. (For example, "Marcus Fulvius Ludis quos
Aetholico bello noverat, ut tradit Livius Athletarum instituit certamina" (f. 128v) can only come from Livy
39.22.) Most remarkably, at least one of these is taken from the latter portion of Book 40, famously missing
from the archetype α(a) manuscripts. (“Marcus Atilius [sic: Manius Acilius] Glabrio inauratam statuam
equestrem patri in aede pietatis Romae pri. apposuit. Liv. et Val.” (f. 128v) is a clear reference to Livy 40.34.)
Unfortunately for our purposes, however, Pastrengo does not provide specific book citations. Both Billanovich
and H. Kitamura similarly associate the Flores with yet another anonymous florilegium preserved in Vat. Lat.
5114 (the former asserting strongly that both were the work of Pastrengo). Whatever merit this association
might have, it does not aid us here, as the Vatican florilegium contains no quotes from Livy. (H. Kitamura, Due
florilegi e il pre-umanesimo veronese tra il 14. e il 15. secolo, Thesis (Firenze 2013) and Il Senso Delle Scelte E
Dell’organizzazione Dei Testi Nei Flores Moralium Auctoritatum Del 1329, Camenulae 11 (2014).)
43 For purposes of this paper, I have principally utilized the critical edition of the Flores prepared by C.
Gross. (Charles C. Gross Jr., The Verona Florilegium of 1329, Diss. (Chapel Hill 1959). The explicit for the
work includes the rather idiosyncratic dating "anno Christi imperantis millesimo bis centum inctum centumque
triginta minus uno" (i.e., 1329). Turrini has demonstrated that the Verona MS is actually a copy of the original
work, made sometime after 1334. (The MS is a palimpsest of administrative records from the Verona region
terminating around that time. G. Turrini, L’origine veronese del cod. CLXVIII (155), in Atti e momorie
dell'Accademia d'agricoltura, scienze, lettere, arte e commercia di Verona, ser. 6, 11 (1961), pp. 49-65.) L.
Fabiani suggests that the Flores derives from an “original nucleus” compiled no later than the 1290’s (Fabiani
2014, p. 69), which if accurate would be very important for tracing the early transmission of the Fourth Decade,
but unfortunately remains speculative.
44 See Sabbadini 1914, pp. 90-97.

remarkable demonstration of the resources available to a determined pre-humanist scholar in
Northern Italy.
The Flores quotes Livy’s Fourth Decade extensively, critically – for our purposes –
including specific book citations for each quote. These citations demonstrate conclusively
that the Livian manuscript used by the florilegist contained a book division somewhere
between 31.2445 and 31.32,46 i.e., almost certainly at 31.27. This points unmistakably toward
an α(a) or α(c) source. The nine other quotations of the Fourth Decade (from Books 31, 34,
35, 36, 37, 38, and 40) are cited exactly as one would expect from such a source: The
quotation from earlier in Book 31 is cited as “Titus Livius libro XXXI°,” and those from
Books 34 and thereafter are generally cited in accordance with their correct book numbering
(i.e., 34 is “Titus Livius libro XXXIIII” and so forth).47
The use of an α manuscript in northern Italy during this time period is not unexpected,
but nonetheless provides important confirmation. The independence of α from φ, and its
consequent utility in textual criticism – i.e., recovering Livy’s original text – has heretofore
depended largely on a single piece of evidence.48 The foregoing demonstrates that the
manuscripts circulating in Italy prior to the advent of φ shared a second distinctive α(a)
characteristic, thus independently confirming the age and authority of the α family beyond
reasonable doubt.49
In his examination of the transmission of Livy’s First Decade, Billanovich suggested

that the 1329 florilegist did not use any of the direct Latin manuscripts of Livy, but instead
45 “Titus Livius libro 31: ‘Quamquam serum auxilium perdicis erat, tamen que proxima est ultionem
petens’” (Flores, as printed in Gross, p. 243 = Livy 31.24.1.)
46 “Titus Livius libro 32: ‘Rem magni discriminis consiliis nullam esse tam inimicam quam celeritatem
dixit; celerem enim penitentiam sed tandem seram atque inutilem sequi, cum precipitata raptim consilia neque
revocari neque in integrum restitui possunt’” (Flores, as printed in Gross, p. 175 = Livy 31.32.2.)
47 Flores, as printed in Gross, pp. 120 (36.29), 138 (34.9), 174 (35.32), 176 (35.34), 176 (37.14), 213
(37.54), 223 (37.51), 243 (40.4), 256 (31.18). The one apparent exception is the extract from Livy 37.14, which
is incongruously labeled “Idem [i.e., Titus Livius] libro XXXVI: ‘Nemo fidelius dare consilium potest quam is
qui id alteri suadet quod ipse si in eodem loco esset facturus fuerit.’” In addition to mis-citing the source, this
quotation also alters the grammatical tense and case of the original and re-orders some of the words. (Livy
37.14 reads “neminem fidelius posse dare consilium dixit quam eum, qui id alteri suaderet, quod ipse, si in
eodem loco esset, facturus fuerit” - and this is consistent across the χ manuscript families.) Taken together, this
level of corruption could signal use of an intermediate source for this particular quote, but this remains
conjecture. Regardless, this single deviation does not alter my conclusions regarding the book divisions in the
florilegist’s copy of the Fourth Decade.
48 See fn. 7, supra, regarding the identification of α through reports of manuscripts terminating in the
early part of Book 40.
49 Brief examination reveals other traces of α readings in the Flores, e.g., “Consilia callida et audatia
prima spe leta, tractu dura, eventu tristia esse” (Flores, as printed in Gross, p. 174 = Livy 35.32.13.) This
matches α (Paris BNF Lat. 5740, f. 195r; Vat.Arch,Cap.S.Pietro 132, f. 139r) contra φ (London B.L. Harley
2493, f. 271v).

utilized the “vulgata italiana.”50 Whatever merit this suggestion may have for the First
Decade, it seems facially unlikely for the Fourth. The vast majority of the quotations from the
Fourth Decade are almost verbatim from Livy’s Latin, which is deeply improbable if the
relevant text had been translated into Italian, and then back into Latin by the florilegist.
However, the “Volgarizzamento” of Livy is itself worthy of our examination, as it too
contains a book division at 31.27.51
At some point in the early Fourteenth Century, one or more anonymous scholars
translated all three extant decades of Livy into Italian (specifically, the Tuscan dialect).52 The
decades were each transmitted separately in the manuscript tradition, but were united in the
printed editions, beginning with the editio princeps of 1476. “[F]or historical and stylistic
reasons, the name of Giovanni Boccaccio was soon proposed” as the author of the
Volgarizzamento.53 While this was accepted almost without question for centuries, it is now
widely acknowledged that the First Decade, at least, had a separate author (and was translated
from a French intermediary, rather than directly from Livy’s Latin). There remains, however,
considerable debate over whether the other two Decades were both translated by the same
person, and whether Boccaccio was responsible for either (or both).54
50 Giuseppe Billanovich, Dal Livio di Raterio al Livio del Petrarca, Italia medioevale e umanistica 2
(1959), in Itinera 2004, pp. 145-146, fn. 131.
51 This may be contrasted with the early French translation of Pierre Bersuire, completed around 1358,
which contained only the eight true book divisions (as I observed directly in Genève, Bibl. Publ. et Univ., fr. 77,
f. 336v). "Il Bersuire mantenne in nove libri, però numerati dal XXXI al XXXIX: e dunque non aveva imparato
che lì manca il libro XXXIII; e rozzamente numerò le Decadi I, II, III." (Giuseppe Billanovich, La biblioteca
papale salvò le Storie di Livio, in Itinera 2004, p. 276. See also Billanovich 1953, in Lezioni 2008, p. 24, fn.
66.) For background on Bersuire's translation see Frederic Duval and Francoise Vielliard, Miroir des classiques:
Ab Urbe condita libri CXLII, T. Livius <http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/miroir_des_classiques/xml/
classiques_latins/ab_urbe_condita_cxlii_titus-livius.xml#bersuire>.
52 The exact dating of any portion of this work is unknown; however, the terminus ante quem for the
Fourth Decade is likely 1346, as the prologue for that Decade dedicates the translation to the “nobile Cavalieri”
Ostagio da Polenta of Ravenna, who died that year.
53 Lorenzo Dell'Oso, Reopening a Question of Attribution: Programmatic Notes on Boccaccio and the
Translation of Livy, Heliotropia 10:1 (2013), p. 1. The association with Boccaccio has ensured a robust corpus
of literature on the Volgarizzamento. Dell'Oso 2013 and Alison Cornish, Vernacularization in Context
(Volgarizzamenti of Livy, Valerius Maximus and Ovid), in Victoria Kirkham, et al, eds, Boccaccio: A Critical
Guide to the Complete Works (Chicago 2013) 255-64 provide good general overviews. The foundational
modern studies of this work include Billanovich 1953; Emilio Lippi, Per l’edizione critica del volgarizzamento
liviano, Studi sul Boccaccio 11 (1979), pp. 125–97; Maria Teresa Casella, Tra Boccaccio e Petrarca: I
volgarizzamenti di Tito Livio e di Valerio Massimo (Padua 1982); Emilio Lippi, Rev. of Casella, Tra Boccaccio
e Petrarca, Studi sul Boccaccio 14 (1983–1984), pp. 357–72; and Giuliano Tanturli, Volgarizzamenti e
ricostruzione dell’antico: I casi della terza e quarta Deca di Livio e di Valerio Massimo, la parte del Boccaccio
(a proposito di un’attribuzione), Studi Medievali 27 (1986), pp. 811–88.
54 Evaluation of the Volgarizzamento is complicated by the rampant confusion amongst the various
printed editions. The 1476 editio princeps faithfully reproduces the text of the three Fourth Decade manuscripts
that I have examined (Valencia, Biblioteca de la Universidad BH Ms. 0386 (olim 757); Paris BNF Ital. 119; and
Vat. Lat. 4808), and Reeve 1986, p. 135, fn. 3 reports similar agreement with Holkham 543. However, the long
series of Venetian editions that followed (see Lippi 1979, pp. 140-144) was plainly edited using an α-based
source – quite possibly one of the Latin printed editions then circulating. (Reeve tentatively notes some the tell-
tale Venetian variants, but clear proof of contamination may be found at 31.8.8, where the Venetian editions add
"questo fusse al presidio de la Sicilia provincia” (with α), but the MSS and editio princeps omit these words

Boccaccio was an associate of Petrarch, which lead Billanovich to theorize that
Boccaccio was indeed the translator of both the Third and Fourth decades – and that the Latin
source for his translation was derived from Petrarch’s A (MS London B.L. Harley 2493). His
seminal 1953 article on the subject supplied copious confirmation of this textual connection
in the Third Decade – but posited only single piece of evidence (“sola prova”) for the Fourth:
The book division at 31.27, which lead Billanovich to conclude that Boccaccio's translation
"d'accordo con lo Harlieiano del Petrarca".55 This conclusion has been repeated many times
since, but not seriously reexamined – like the proverbial fruitcake that is repeatedly re-gifted,
but never cut into.
If Billanovich was correct, this would make the Volgarizzamento’s source for the
Fourth Decade a solidly φ manuscript. As noted, Billanovich’s textual analysis of the Fourth
Decade itself was thin, but the specific MSS he pointed to for the Third Decade (from the Θ
family of that tradition) correspond to the β family of φ manuscripts in the Fourth
(particularly MS London B.L. Burney 198). This lead Reeve and Briscoe to conclude, at first
“guardedly” and then less so, that “Boccaccio before 1346 used a descendant or relative of β
for his translation.”56 The manifest problem with this hypothesis is that it overlooks the very
reason Billanovich associated the Volgarizzamento’s Fourth Decade with Petrarch in the first
place – i.e., the book division at 31.27, which is entirely absent from β.
For the reasons noted above, the 31.27 book division is characteristic of α, not φ – and
certainly not β, which manuscripts, as McDonald explicitly notes, "Librum 33 deesse
agnouerunt." By itself, this division demonstrates no connection with Petrarch’s A other than
that the scribes of both must have been exposed to an α source at some point – thus severing
the connections between scholars (and between the Volgarizzamento’s Third and Fourth
Decades) perceived by Billanovich.57 This does not necessarily mean that Billanovich, Reeve,
(with φ and its descendants).) Pizzorno's edition of 1842-49 (P. Francesco Pizzorno, Le Deche di Tito Livio,
volgarizzamento del buon secolo corretto e ridato a miglior lezione) – still widely used today – was ostensibly
set up from MS Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale, N. I. 8 (olim 1708); however, as Lippi notes, Pizzorno
"intervened constantly" with the text, including filling "le lacune dell'antico volgarizzamento" without
comment. (Lippi 1979, p. 145, fn. 19.) This lead Lippi to observe harshly that "[t]he result is a faithless edition
of rather low interest", and I tend to agree – a warning to those might be tempted to use Pizzorno for any sort of
textual analysis. (See, e.g., Cosimo Burgassi, Le traduzioni dei classici attribuite a Boccaccio alla luce del
Dizionario dei Volgarizzamenti (DiVo), Heliotropia 14 (2017), pp. 168-169, fn. 23.) For purposes of this paper, I
have relied upon the three Fourth Decade manuscripts listed above and the editio princeps.
55 Il Boccaccio, il Petrarca, in Lezioni di filologia petrarchesca 2008, pp. 8-9, fn. 27. Billanovich’s
observation, thirty years later, that “la massima parte...codice α” contains such a division (Il Livio di Pomposa,
in Itinera 2004, p. 197) does not appear to have caused him to re-examine this point.
56 Reeve 1986, p. 135, fn. 3; Reeve 1989, p. 98; Briscoe 1991, v. 1, p. xvi, fn. 88. See also John Briscoe,
Livy: A Belgian Bimillenary, Histos 12 (2018), p. lvi ("The manuscript of Livy used by Boccaccio was
not...London, BL Harley 2493 (A), but one derived from β, also the work of Petrarch (the earliest witness is
London, BL Burney 198).”)
57 Cursory textual examination plainly reveals that the Volgarizzamento does not derive directly from
Petrarch's A, either its original text or Petrarch's marginal corrections (generally referred to in the critical
apparatus as A2). Examples of deviations from A are set forth in the next footnote, and the omission of "id
praesidio siciliae prouinciae esset" (in any translated form) at 31.8.8 indicates that the translator was not
working from Petrarch's A2 corrections. (Compare Harley 2493, f. 224v with Valencia 0386, f. 15r; BNF Ital.
119, f. 5r; and Vat. Lat. 4808, f. 3v.)

and Briscoe are wrong – merely that the textual connection of the Volgarizzamento with the
Fourth Decade Latin manuscript tradition remains unproven, and should be re-examined. The
very identifying feature noted by Billanovich – the 31.27 book division – suggests that this
re-examination should start, at least, with the α family from whence that feature derives.58
The Italian churchman Giovanni Cavallini was active at approximately the same time
as the Volgarizzamento was being prepared, and here the results are more immediately
conclusive. Cavallini was born and died at Rome, but spent the most prominent part of his
career in Avignon.59 He left one original work, the Polistoria de virtutibus et dotibus
Romanorum, a "passionate eulogy of the greatness of imperial and Christian Rome based on
an extensive description of famous facts, places and deeds,”60 along with extensive glosses on
both Valerius Maximus and Livy’s First Decade, preserved in the margins of MSS Vat. Lat.
1927 and 1846, respectively.61 All three works cite the Fourth Decade with familiarity, and
collectively contain distinctive fingerprints of Cavallini’s manuscript source.
58 In fairness to the traditional view, there are some real textual signs of β in the Volgarizzamento (cf.
McDonald 1965, pp. xxviii-xxix and Reeve 1986, p. 135, fn. 3), including 31.1.6, "le inimicitie" (Valencia
0386, f. 13r; BNF Ital. 119, f. 4r; and Vat. Lat. 4808, f. 3r); 31.12.3 "á Minutio" (Valencia 0386, f. 17v; BNF
Ital. 119, f. 6v; and Vat. Lat. 4808, f. 4v); and 31.16.4 "ganimede" (Valencia 0386, f. 20v; BNF Ital. 119, f. 7v;
and Vat. Lat. 4808, f. 5v). However, the correspondence is not perfect. For example, at 32.9.3, where φ reads
"Auruncae", α (and A2) reads "aruspices", and β omits the word entirely (McDonald 1965, pp. xxvi, xxviii), the
Volgarizzamento agrees with φ against β (Valencia 0386, f. 53r ["adruncha"]; BNF Ital. 119, f. 13v ["ad
arungha"]; and Vat. Lat. 4808, f. 16v ["ad arunca"]). Similarly, at 31.14.3, the Volgarizzamento again agrees
with φα ("centum") against β ("Centimalus"). (Valencia 0386, f. 19r; BNF Ital. 119, f. 7r; and Vat. Lat. 4808, f.
5r). Reeve's initial, "guarded" approach to "the relationship of Boccaccio's exemplar to β" remains prudent.
59 Marco Palma, "Cavallini dei Cerroni, Giovanni" in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 22 (1979),
785-787 <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/cavallini-dei-cerroni-giovanni_(Dizionario-Biografico)/>
provides an excellent brief biography of Cavallini. See also Marc Laureys, Between Mirabilia and Roma
Instaurata: Giovanni Cavallini's Polistoria, in M. Pade, et al. (eds.) Avignon & Naples. Italy in France - France
in Italy in the Fourteenth Century (Rome 1997), p. 100-115.
60 Palma 1989, p. 786. Additional background information on Cavallini and the Polistoria may be found
in the preface to Laureys’ critical edition (Marc Laureys, Ioannis Caballini de Cerronibus Polistoria de
Virtutibus ed Dotibus Romanorum, recensuit Marc Laureys (Teubner 1995), pp. vii - xi), and in Anna Moscati,
Note su Giovanni Cavallini, Studi romani III (1955), pp. 397-400 and Marc Laureys, Antiquarianism and
Politics in 14th-century Avignon: the Humanism of Giovanni Cavallini in Karl Enekel, et al. (eds.), Petrarch
and His Readers in the Renaissance (Brill 2006), pp. 31-52.
61 Cavallini’s Valerius gloss was first noted by Sabbadini in 1914 (Sabbadini 1914, pp. 47-50), and has
been studied extensively by Schullian, among others. (Dorothy Schullian, Valerius Maximus, in Catalogus
Translationum et Commentariorum V (Washington D.C. 1984), pp. 334-337.) The Livy commentary remained
in obscurity until 1996, when M. Pettoletti noted that the glossator of Vat. Lat. 1856 referred to “polistorie mee”
(f. 71v), among numerous other correspondences with Cavallini’s known works (and suspiciously similar
handwriting). (Marco Petoletti, Nota Pro Consilio Polistorie Mee Orationem Predictam: Giovanni Cavallini
lettore di Livio, Italia medioevale e umanistica 39 (1996), pp. 47–76..)

The two glosses provide the initial hints. Both appear to have been prepared at
Avignon, likely during the latter part of Cavallini’s life.62 The commentaries unmistakably
demonstrate that Cavallini’s source for the Fourth Decade did not contain a book division at
31.27. Repeal of the Lex Oppia (Livy 34.2 through 34.4) is twice cited as “livius de bello
macedonico libro iii,”63 as is the oration of the Spartan tyrant Nabis (Livy 34.31).64
Hannibal’s description of his boyhood oath “never to be friend of the Roman people” (Livy
35.19) is similarly identified as “de bello macedonico libro iiii”.65 Moreover, the Senate
debate over the triumph of Lucius Furius Purpurio (Livy 31.48) is explicitly reported as
“livius de bello macedonico libro i”.66
Most telling, however, are the glosses’ citations to Book 38. Cavallini’s First Decade
commentary identifies the lustrum of 188 B.C. (Livy 38.36) as "titus libro vii de bello
macedonico".67 By contrast, the Valerius commentary cites the exile of Scipio Africanus (Livy
38.50) as "titus livius de bello macedonico libro viii".68 The citations to subsequent books of
Livy are thereafter consistently correct: Hannibal’s suicide (Livy 39.51) is twice reported as
“de bello macedonico libro viiii”.69 If Cavallini used the same Livian manuscript for both
commentaries, this would appear to indicate a book division somewhere between 38.36 and
38.50 – thus squarely indicating an α(d) source, with a characteristic break at 38.42.70
62 The Livy commentary cites the Polistoria (e.g., ff. 37r, 71v), and thus must have been written
sometime between 1345 and Cavallini’s death in 1349 (see below). Sabbadini posits that the Valerius
commentary was likely written “nel terzo decennio del secolo xiv,” but concedes that it could have been as late
as 1350. (Sabbadini 1914, pp. 47-48. See also Schullian 1984, p. 334.) Given Cavallini’s obvious debt to
Dionigi da Borgo San Sepolcro, this strongly suggests a date after 1339 for completion of the work (see below).
63 Vat. Lat. 1927, ff. 45r (“libro iii circa principium”); 83v (“libro iii titulo de oratione catonis pro lege
oppia”). The paleography of the first citation is admittedly somewhat unclear , but the latter is not
Cavallini also references the counter-speech of the tribune Lucius Valerius (Livy 34.3), cited clearly as “livius
de bello macedonico libro iii titulo de oratione lucii valerii contra lege oppia ut abrogaretis etc.” (f. 70v).
64 Vat. Lat. 1846, f. 36r (“de bello macedonico libro iii de oratione napidis tyrranum lacedemoniorum”).
65 Vat. Lat. 1927 f. 87r (“titus...de bello macedonico libro iiii titulo de oratione hannial ad antiochum
regem”).
66 Vat. Lat. 1846, f. 7r (“livius de bello macedonico libro i de altercatione habita in senatu”).
67 Vat. Lat. 1846, f. 12r (“titus libro vii de bello macedonico titulo de consulibus et praetoribus creatis”).
68 Vat. Lat. 1927, f. 46v ("titus livius de bello macedonico libro viii capitulo de morte publii scipionis et
capitulo de accusatione publii scipionis africani”).
69 Vat. Lat. 1927, ff. 85v; 91v (“livius de bello macedonico libro viiii titulo de morte hannibalis · c ·
primo”).
70 The Valerius commentary displays one anomaly in the regard, stemming from an obvious clerical error
on Cavallini's part. The gloss on Val. Max. 2.10.2 (Vat. Lat. 1927, f. 18v) cites the return of Scipio’ son by
Antiochus (Livy 37.37) as "titus de bello macedonico libro iii" (more fully, “titus de bello macedonico libro iii
titulo de responsionem africam ad legatum regis antiochi”). This is likely simply a misprint for "vii", which
would be consistent with the book numbering noted above (and the paleography is close enough to make that
mistake plausible, ) – however, this is nonetheless intriguing, as the same incident is the subject of another
obvious error in the Polistoria (see fn. 78, infra). Note that of the several textual features evident in this

The foregoing hypothesis is confirmed by examination of the Polistoria. The
Polistoria has been convincingly dated to sometime between 1345 and 1347 (although
possibly as late as 1349), and was likewise probably written at Avignon.71 As with the
commentaries, the Fourth Decade source used by Cavallini for the Polistoria clearly did not
contain a book division at 31.27.72 Specifically, like the glosses, Cavallini here cites the repeal
of the Lex Oppia (Livy 34.2) as “livius iii de bello macedonico”.73 Cementing this conclusion,
Livy’s description of the Lautumiae (Livy 32.26) is identified as “livium ii de bello
macedonico”.74
Moreover, the references to Book 38 are here again most probative. Livy 38.40 is
cited as “livium vii de bello macedonico”75 – but Livy 38.51 is twice identified as “livium viii
de bello macedonico"76 and "livius de bello macedonico libro viii”.77 This can only mean the
particular quotation, one ("...subsidia recepisse transgressus...") is explicitly identified by Briscoe as an α

reading. (Briscoe 1991, t. 2, p. 470.)
71 C.L. Ulrichs, Codex urbis Romae topographicus (Wirceburgi 1871), p. 139; Laureys 1997, p. 112, fn.
17.
72 For the text of the Polistoria, I have relied primarily on the critical edition of Laureys 1995, cross-
checked against two of the better manuscripts as appropriate, Wolfenbuttel, Guelph. Gud. Lat. 47 and Vatican,
Ott. Lat. 1261 – which respectively represent the text before and after (apparent) correction by Cavallini. (See
Laureys 1995, pp. xi – xxix.)
73 Laureys 1995, p. 215; Guelph. Gud. Lat. 47, f. 26v; Ott. Lat. 1261, ff. 59v-60r (“...propter quod livius
· iii · de bello macedonico · c · de oratione catonis pro lege oppia servanda ibi date frenos impotenti nature et
indomito animali et desperate ipsas modum licentie facturas...”).
74 Laureys 1995, p. 168; Guelph. Gud. Lat. 47, f. 20v; Ott. Lat. 1261, f. 52v (“...huiusmodi porta alias
dicta lacuma hoc est carcer apud quam erat carcer ubi olim homines cathenis ligati custodiebantur secundum
livium ii de bello macedonico circa finem ibi aut multa i[t]a etc...”). The reference here is almost certainly to
Livy 32.26, but there are some textual issues with the passage. Laureys reads "lacuma" as "lacunia", and the
paleography in the Polistoria MSS is somewhat difficult, but either way represents a deviation from modern
critical text of Livy ("lautumia[rum]"). Additionally, the Livian MSS read "haud multo ita" (Briscoe 1991, v. 1,
p. 106), whereas the Polistoria reads, at closest, "aut multa ita" (following Ott. Lat.) (Laureys, following
Guelph, reads the Polistoria as "aut multa ira".) These deviations may eventually assist in further identifying
Cavallini's specific manuscript source. Interestingly, some of the Fourth Decade α(d) MSS begin the chapter in
which this passage appears with "haud multo ita" – which would explain why Cavallini chose to quote these
particular words, and might explain how "haud" became "aut", if the rubricated capital "h" was missing in his
source. This possibility is visually evident in Vat. Lat. 1857, f. 28v:
75 Laureys 1995, p. 211; Guelph. Gud. Lat. 47, f. 26r; Ott. Lat. 1261, f. 59r ("...secundum livium vii de
bello macedonico · c · de federe inter romanos et anthiocum ibi varia fortune pugna…")
76 Laureys 1995, p. 11; Guelph. Gud. Lat. 47, f. 1v; Ott. Lat. 1261, f. 25v ("...a roma orbis terrarum
domina secundum livium viii de bello macedonico titulo de accusatione publii scipionis · c · ii…").
77 Laureys 1995, pp. 241-242; Guelph. Gud. Lat. 47, f. 30r; Ott. Lat. 1261, ff. 63v-64r ("unde livius de
bello macedonico libro viii de accusatione publii scipionis · c · ii in fine ibi unum hominem caput columpnaque
imperii romani esse sub umbra cuius civitatem romanam orbis terrarum dominam latere nutus eius pro decretis
patrum pro populi iussis esse…").

presence of a book division at 38.42, and thus an α(d) source.78 Cavallini’s use of an α(d)
manuscript is significant, because it demonstrates the age of this subfamily – at least to the
1340’s – and places at least one member in Avignon (which is notable, because most of the
surviving examples are Italian). This tends to support the conclusions of Reeve and Briscoe
regarding the value of this subfamily in reconstructing α, and its independence from α(a).79 (It
also tells us that Cavallini was not using the manuscripts circulating among Petrarch and his
associates in Avignon at the same time. What can we learn from that?)
The Augustinian friar Dionigi da Borgo San Sepolcro also wrote a commentary on
Valerius Maximus, which displays some strong similarities to Cavallini. (The connection
between the two is unmistakable, as Cavallini transcribed the preface to Dionigi's work in his
own hand at the end of Vat. Lat. 1927.80) As will appear, these similarities include both the
same Livian book numbering pattern and at least one identical choice of quotation –
suggesting a related manuscript source, at least.81
Fra. Dionigi was a contemporary and friend of Petrarch, and one-time teacher of
Boccaccio. It is generally accepted that his Valerius commentary was composed largely at
Naples around 1340.82 This quite learned work references numerous classical primary
78 There is one book numbering oddity in the Polistoria, which is clearly the result of some error on
Cavallini's part, the exact nature of which is somewhat difficult to unravel. In the chapter on "de excellentis
magistratus romani" (Chapter 3.3 of the Polistoria), Cavallini (correctly) references two anecdotes from the
First Decade ("livium ii ab urbe condita"), and then cites "...et eadem decada libro vi[i] · c · de oratione
scipionis ad regem antiochum..." (Laureys 1995, p. 75; Guelph. Gud. Lat. 47, f. 9r; Ott. Lat. 1261, f. 36v.)
Laureys reads the numeral as "vii", and that is a plausible (albeit imperfectly clear) reading of Guelph; whereas
Ott. Lat. clearly reads "vi" – but either way there is plainly something wrong here. A speech by Scipio to King
Antiochus obviously has no place in the First Decade, and "eadem decada" is thus a mistake. Moreover,
identifying the chapter Cavallini meant to cite is not straightforward. It clearly belongs to the Fourth Decade but
where? Laureys suggests the conversation between Scipio and Antiochus' legate at Livy 37.36 – which, if
accurate, would seem to indicate that the proper reference is to "libro vi" (with Ott. Lat.) rather than "vii", in
accordance with the book numbering pattern previously observed. However, it is not at all clear that this was
actually the passage Cavallini intended to reference. To begin with, that Livian passage concerns a private
conversation with Antiochus' ambassador, not a public speech of the nature usually denominated an oratione –
much less one directed to the King himself. (The chapter heading actually utilized in the two α(d) MSS readily
available, “nobilis responsio incorrupti scipionis”, bears out this point. See Voss. Lat. F66, f. 89v; Vat. Lat.
1857, f. 96v.) Moreover, the passage does not appear to be a natural fit for Cavallini's argument at this juncture
(which concerns that necessity of good order to preserve liberty). On the other hand, no alternative passage in
either Book 37 or Book 38 seems a substantially better candidate. Given the compounded confusion of this
citation, perhaps the only thing that can be said safely is that it does not significantly undermine the relative
clarity of the Livian book numbering evident in the remainder of the Polistoria.
79 See Reeve 1986, p. 143; Briscoe 1993, p. 71.
80 Vat. Lat. 1927, f. 94v.
81 Under other circumstances, one might be tempted to suspect a common intermediary consulted by both
Dionigi and Cavallini; however, Cavallini’s use of the Fourth Decade, at least, is much too extensive to suggest
an intermediary.
82 Sabbadini 1914, pp. 36-44; Schullian 1984, pp. 324-325; John Larkin, A Critical Edition of the First
Book of the Commentary of Dionigi Da Borgo San Sepolcro on the Facta Et Dicta Memorabilia Urbis Romae
of Valerius Maximus, Diss. (Fordham 1967), pp. ix-x. More generally, the pioneering studies of these early
Valerius commentaries include Adriana Zampieri, Per l'edizione critica del volgarizzamento di Valerio Massimo
II: Classificazione dei manoscritti e delle stampe, Studi sul Boccaccio 10 (1977-1978), pp. 55-107; Casella

sources, including several citations ostensibly from Livy's Fourth Decade.83 However, while
there is independent evidence of at least one copy of "de bello macedonico" – consisting of
"decem librorum" – circulating at the Naples court at this time,84 the extent to which Dionigi
actually used it is unclear. Every single one of the incidents for which he cites the Fourth
Decade is also preserved in the Periochae,85 and the obvious conclusion is that Dionigi relied
primarily on that source, rather than Livy's direct tradition. (The fact that Dionigi also cites
Florus, which was commonly transmitted with the Periochae, further enhances this
impression.)86
It is nonetheless apparent that Dionigi utilized a direct manuscript of the Fourth

Decade, at least in part. His comment on Val. Max. 9.1.3 includes direct quotations from
1982; Lippi 1983, pp. 357–72; and Tanturli 1986, pp. 811–88. DiVo's more comprehensive list of relevant
scholarship may be found here: <http://tlion.sns.it/divo/index.php?type=opera&id=1055&op=fetch>. See also
Cornish 2013, pp. 256-260 and Marjorie Berlincourt, The Relationship of Some Fourteenth-Century
Commentaries on Valerius Maximus, Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972), pp. 361-387. On Dionigi da Borgo see
Maurizio Moschella, Dizionario Biographico degli Italiani 40 (1991), sv. Dionigi da Borgo Sansepolcro
(available at: <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/dionigi-da-borgo-sansepolcro_(Dizionario-Biografico)>) and
Attilio Bartoli Langeli, Un agostiniano del Trecento, in Franco Suitner (ed.), Dionigi da Borgo Sansepolcro fra
Petrarca e Boccaccio (Perugia 2001), pp. 1-11.
83 For purposes of this article, I have principally relied upon the manuscripts of Dionigi’s work deemed
most reliable by Moschella, Vat. Lat. 1924 and Paris BNF Lat. 5858 and 5861, as well as the printed edition
produced at Strasbourg in the early 1470’s.
84 On December 23, 1332, the King of Naples, Robert D'Anjou, paid one "Pasqualino, scrittore di libri"
for the labor and materials required for transcription "of the ten books of Titus Livius De Bello Macedonico"
["pro scriptura decem librorum tituliuii de bello macedonico...pro carta de pergameno oportunis pro eisdem
libris ac ligatura et correctura ipsorum librorum"]. (Nicola Barone, La Ratio Thesaurorum della cancelleria
angioina, Archivio storico per le provincie napoletane XI (Napoli 1886), p. 431. See also Giuseppe Billanovich,
Petrarch and the textual tradition of Livy, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 14 (1951), p. 170, fn.
2; Cornelia Coulter, The Library of the Angevin Kings at Naples, Transactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association LXXV (1944), pp. 145, 153.) All things being equal, one might suspect an early
manuscript identified as having ten books to be a member of one of the families displaying a false book division
(i.e., α(a), α(c), or α(d)), whereas an φ derivative would more likely be described as containing nine books.
While this does not conclusively prove that King Robert’s manuscript was actually an α – “decades” naturally
contain ten books, and might be described that way regardless of the actual number present in any given copy –
it is certainly suggestive. (Indeed, a precise description of the work product might be expected from accounting
records that are otherwise so detailed – if the King paid for ten books, that’s likely what he got.)
85 In addition to the three instances noted below (which are found in Per. 34, 37, and 40 respectively),
Dionigi’s discourse on the prodigy of Gn. Domitius (in which his cow warned him, “Take care, Rome!” – Val.
Max. 1.6.5 and Per. 35) concludes with the following note: “de hiis multa ponit titus livius in toto suo libro
precipue de bello macedonico in quo multa prodigia invenies narrari ab ipso”. This conclusion is deducible
from the Periochae as easily as from the direct tradition, and does not provide any book numbering – and is
consequently not helpful for our purposes.
86 Dionigi fails to mention the Periochae in some places where it might be expected, such as the
commentaries on Val. Max. 1.8.ext.19 (which specifically notes the he was unable to find the tale of Regulus’
slaying of an African serpent anywhere in Livy, although that is preserved in Per. 18) and 2.9.3 (which contains
an extensive discussion of the expulsion of L. Flamininius from the Senate, without any acknowledgment that
this incident is related in both Per. 39 and the direct tradition of Livy 39.42-43). However, we cannot deduce
too much from this silence, which may be the result of editorial choice or inadequate research, rather than lack
of access to the relevant texts.

Cato's speech against repeal of the Lex Oppia in Livy 34.2 and 34.4. The quoted text includes
several apparent corruptions, which may eventually allow identification of Dionigi's source.87
His book number citations could be helpful in narrowing down the manuscript families for
such a comparison.
The quotes from Cato's speech are cited with “one-off” book numbering – described
as coming from "titus livius tertio de bello macedonico" – and the return of Scipio's captured
son by Antiochus III (from Livy 37.34 - 37.38) is likewise described as "hoc diffuse tractat
titus livius libro vi de bello macedonico" (in Dionigi's commentary on Val. Max. 2.10.2). On
the other hand, the commentary on Val. Max. 1.1.13 cites "titus livius libro x de bello
macedonico propre finem" for the burning of the "books of Numa" (Livy 40.29).88 This
combination of misnumbered earlier books (34 and 37) and properly numbered final book
(40) suggests an α(d) source, or similar manuscript displaying the false book divisions at
38.42 and 39.23. At a minimum, these features contraindicate any source containing a book
division at 31.27 for Dionigi (i.e., α(a) and most α(c) MSS), and are interesting for that reason
alone.
Dionigi’s commentary formed the foundation for glosses appended to the Italian
vulgate translation of Valerius produced in the mid-Fourteenth century (sometime between
the mid-1320’s and the early 1340’s). These glosses exist in multiple versions, and both the
number and identity of the authors is unknown. (Several scholars have speculated that
Boccaccio may have been responsible for at least some of them, albeit over vigorous
opposition.)89 The fullest version, referred to as group “D,” contains several references to
Livy’s Fourth Decade, some of which are not present in Dionigi; however, it appears probable
that these additional citations derive from the Periochae, rather than Livy’s direct tradition.
87 Dionigi’s text, including the quotation from Livy, reads as follows:
Urbi autem etc. De hac lege oppia mentionem facit titus livius tertio de bello macedonico, ubi
narrat quod cato legem illam volebat manere, et longam orationem trahens inter cetera dixit:
"Date frenos impotenti, nature et indomito animale desperate ipsas modum licencie facturas nisi
vos faciatis minimum hoc est eorum que iniquo animo femine sibi. Aut moribus aut legibus
iniunctum paciuntur. Omnium vero libertatem immo licenciam, si vere dicere volumus desiderant.”
Et post pauca: “Luxuria enim et avaricia omnia magna imperia everterunt.”
For purposes of this section, in addition to the three manuscripts noted above (Vat. Lat. 1924, f. 138v;
Paris, BNF Lat. 5858, f. 207v; Paris, BNF Lat. 5861, f. 88v) and the printed edition, I also collated several other
readily available MSS of Dionigi's commentary (Paris BNF Lat. 5862, f. 196r, Munich, BSB Lat. (CLM) 15733,
f. 232r; Flor. BML Plut. 53.36, f. 110v, Saint-Omer, Bib. Mun. 761, f. 186r, Vatican Pal. Lat. 904, f. 390r;
Vatican Pal. Lat. 908, f. 421v; Vat. Lat. 1929, f. 134r; and Vatican Reg. Lat. 1494, f. 131v) and performed some
rudimentary stemmatics to reconstruct the above text. (Paris BNF Lat. 5859, f. 106r provides a much
abbreviated text of this commentary, citing “titus livius li0 30 de bello punico [sic]”.)
88 This was indeed “near the end” of most χ manuscripts, which broke off at 40.37.3 – except for the α(a)
manuscripts, which famously break off at 40.12.15. (Briscoe 1991, v. 1, pp. v-vii.) If Dionigi derived this
incident from a direct manuscript of Livy, his source plainly thus could not have been a member of the α(a)
family. (This matter is also reported in the Periochae (Per. 40), and Dionigi could perhaps have surmised that it
is located toward the end of Book 40 by its placement therein, even without seeing a direct manuscript – but on
balance this seems unlikely.)
89 This debate is summarized in Cornish 2013, pp. 259-260.

Each of the Livy references reported by Casella and Tanturli90 may be found in the Periochae,
and Tanturli has demonstrated that the glossator’s source for at least one of them cannot have
been the direct tradition.91 Consequently, although the vulgar gloss demonstrates some
interesting book numbering anomalies,92 these should be regarded as deriving from
(mis)readings of the Periochae, and do not provide any reliable information regarding the
transmission of the direct tradition of the Fourth Decade.
Moving from Naples to Bologna, the Romuleon of Benvenuto da Imola likewise used
the Fourth Decade – extensively – but here the book numbering points squarely to an α(a)
source.93 Benvenuto was legally trained, but spent most of his somewhat tumultuous career
as a teacher. He is perhaps best known for his commentary on Dante, widely considered one
of the most important of the Fourteenth Century, but also penned a number of lesser works,
including the Romuleon.94 Written in Bologna and dated to 1361-1364 (by its dedication to
Gomez Albornoz, the Governor of Bologna), the Romuleon is a prose history of Rome from
the destruction of Troy to the reign of Diocletian. While “lacking in originality” and perhaps
somewhat “giovanile,” it is both erudite and accessible, combining information from a broad
90 The most complete group “D” commentary is transmitted only in a single manuscript, Firenze, BNC
Pal. 762, copies of which are not readily available. I have therefore relied upon the thorough spadework of two
leading scholars for the evidence on this point. Tanturli 1986, pp. 863-865 reports citations to “titolivio libro”
“XXXVI”, “XXXVII,” and three citations to “XXXVIII”, while Casella 1982, p. 58 reports additional citations
to “XXXVI” and “XXXVII”. With the single exception noted below, each of these citations correctly states the
book number of an incident reported in the Periochae.
91 Val. Max. 3.7.1 identifies the accusers of Scipio Africanus as “duo Petilii”. The gloss disputes this,
asserting that “Livio non dice due Petylii, ma dice Petylio trybuno del popolo.” The direct Fourth Decade
tradition, however, clearly refers to “duo Q. Petillii” (38.50); rather, it is only the Periochae that implies a single
accuser: “Q. Petilio tr. pl.” (Per. 38). This led Tanturli 1986, p. 863 to observe that “Il chiosatore, dunque,
ricorse all’epitome senza controllare direttamente Livio.”
92 Commenting on the victory and triumph of L. Scipio Asiaticus over Antiochus III, referred to in Val.
Max. 4.1.8, the gloss states that “la victoria e ‘l trionfo del quale tocca la lettera...scrive Titolivio libro XXXVI
et libro XXXVII...” (Tanturli 1986, p. 865.) As Tanturli notes, there is plainly an error here. Scipio’s victory (at
Magnesia) is clearly reported in both the direct Fourth Decade tradition (37.38-44) and the Periochae (Per. 37),
whereas the triumph is reported only in the direct tradition (37.58-59). There is no reference to either in Book
36. It is conceivable that the erroneous reference to "XXXVI" derives from the book numbering in some Fourth
Decade manuscript consulted by the glossator (i.e., the conventional φ numbering resulting from the absence of
Book 33 without compensating division of Book 31); however, this would not explain the correct reference to
"XXXVII" in the very same sentence, nor the other correct Fourth Decade book number references in the gloss.
It is more likely that the glossator illogically mistook the Periochae's report of the triumph Scipio Nasica (Per.
36) as referring to Scipio Asiaticus, possibly due to corruption in his manuscript of the Periochae.
93 Principal references for Benvenuto da Imola and the Romuleon include Lao Paoletti, Dizionario
Biographico degli Italiani 8 (1966), sv. Benvenuto da Imola (available at:
<http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/benvenuto-da-imola_(Dizionario-Biografico)/>); Luca Sarasini, La
tradizione manoscritta del «Romuleon» di Benvenuto da Imola, Acme. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e
Filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Milano 59 (2006), pp. 301–313; Sabbadini 1914, pp. 154-155; Frédéric
Duval, Le «Romuleon» en français. Traduction de Sébastien Mamerot (Geneve 2000) and La traduction du
Romuleon par Sébastien Mamerot (Geneve 2001); Claude Schaefer, Die «Romuleon» Handschriften (78 D 10)
des Berliner Kupferstichkabinetts, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 23 (1981), pp. 125–178.
94 At one time, the Romuleon was widely misattributed to one Roberto della Porta. While this error has
now been thoroughly debunked, it continues to complicate research to this day. See Duval 2001, pp. 14-15.

array of classical authors, while written in fairly simple Latin – essentially a popular history
for an unscholarly aristocratic audience.95
Benvenuto cites de bello macedonico pervasively throughout the early portions of

Book VII of the Romuleon (chapters VII.1 through VII.26),96 which cover the events of the
Fourth Decade in straightforward chronological fashion.97 The references to Books 34
through 39 are almost uniformly correct,98 and there is no trace of any book numbering
anomaly in Books 38 or 39.99 The first hint of an α(a) source comes in Chapters VII.25 and
VII.26, which skip seamlessly from events related by Livy at the end of Book 39 (correctly
identified as “libro nono de bello macedonico”) to an account of the ascension of Perseus in
Macedon and the ensuing Battle of Pydna (derived from Justin and Eusebius) – making the
mistaken assumption that these latter are contained in “libro decimo de bello macedonico.”
This strongly suggests that Benvenuto’s Livy manuscript did not actually contain much of
Book 40 (i.e., not even through the usual χ ending at 40.37), which in turn points to the
famous early termination of α(a) manuscripts at 40.12.100 Additionally, while generally
95 See Paoletti 1966; Luca Carlo Rossi, «Benevenutus De Ymola Super Valerio Maximo» Ricerca
Sull'expositio, Aevum 76 (2002), p. 382. The fact that a good number of the surviving manuscripts of the
Romuleon are comparatively low quality “codici personali” suggests that the work may found its intended
audience. See Sarasini 2001, p. 306.
96 For purposes of this examination, I have relied upon eight readily accessible Latin manuscripts of the
Romuleon (Vatican, Pal. Lat. 926, ff. 198r – 227v; Vat. Lat. 1948, ff. 117r – 130v; Cologny, Bib. Bodmer, Cod.
143, ff. 91r – 92v, 149r – 169v; Amiens, Bib. Mun. 480, ff. 134r – 153r; Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 21 sin.10, ff.
132v – 152r; Flor. Med. Laur. Plut. 66.29, ff. 180v – 207v; Madrid, Bib. Nac. 5567, ff. 118r – 133r; and Paris,
Bib. de l'Arsenal 668, ff. 126v – 141r), the late fifteenth century "remake" of the Romuleon held by the
Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal (Paris, Bib. de l'Arsenal 667, ff. 115r - 132r), the venerable French translation
critically edited by Duval 2000, and the Italian translation published in the nineteenth century as Giuseppe
Guatteri, Il Romuleo di Mess. Benvenuto da Imola, v. II (Bologna 1868).
97 Much has been made of the debt ostensibly owed by Benvenuto to the Compendium Romanae
historiae of Riccobaldo of Ferrara. (See Duval 2000, pp. 31-35.) While the similarities are indeed obvious, it is
equally obvious that Benevenuto made some independent use of a Fourth Decade manuscript – since neither the
Compendium nor its predecessor, Riccobaldo’s Historia Romana, included specific book citations to Livy. (See
Ricobaldi Ferrariensis Compendium Romanae historiae, ed. A. Teresa Hankey (Rome 1984) and Vat. Lat. 1961
(the main surviving source for the Historia).
98 The one apparent exception is VII.10, which introduces events related by Livy 35.24 to 35.45 as "sicut
scribit titus livius libro sexto de bello macedonico". This could be the result of an as yet unidentified book
division anomaly in the α family (similar to the omission of the division between Books 37 and 38 in Lips 1.1) -
but is more likely a simple error by Benvenuto or corruption in the transmission of his work. (Benvenuto also
makes a brief reference to the Fourth Decade in Romul. VIII.21, correctly citing Livy 34.9 as “titus livius libro
quarto de bello macdonico”.)
99 Chapter VII.17, introduced as "libro octavo de bello macedonico", covers events from Livy 38.24 to
38.42, with the next two chapters (VII.18 and VII.19) covering Livy 38.50 to 38.57 – also both labeled "libro
octavo". Chapter VII.20 opens with Livy 39.1, and is correctly labeled "libro nono".
100 Chapter VII.25 begins with a virtual paraphrase of verbiage from Livy Book 39 (identified as "libro
nono de bello macedonico"), ending with the election of praetors at 39.56. Benvenuto then proceeds, without a
break, to detail the "invidia et discordia" between Perseus and Demetrius and the death of Demetrius taken
(somewhat more loosely, but still clearly) from Justin Book 32. The chapter concludes with an abbreviated
account of the Battle of Pydna and subsequent events, likewise taken from Justin (with some additional detail
apparently from Eusebius). Chapter VII.26 begins with the words "atholis et macedonibus superatis, sicut dicit

hazardous to read too much into omissions in an abbreviated work, it is nonetheless worth
noting that the Romuleon likewise skips over the events narrated in Livy 37.59.2 through
38.17.15, which are missing in the archetype α(a) manuscripts.101 Cursory examination of the
Romuleon’s text also contains traces of what are likely α (and specifically α(a)) readings from
Livy.102
The conclusive evidence, however, is found in Chapter VII.2, which relates the
contested triumph of Lucius Furius Purpurio (Livy 31.47-49) as “titus livius libro secundo de
bello macedonico”.103 This plainly signals as book division somewhere before 31.47, which
can only be the α(a)/(c) division at 31.27. In conjunction with the other textual evidence, this
helps confirm Benevenuto’s Livy as an α(a) manuscript.
The complex interaction between the dating of a derivative work, and the
identification of its author's classical manuscript sources, is perhaps best demonstrated by two
contrasting examples, one in which the manuscript source evidence may help date the work,
and one in which the known dating of the work may tell us something about the sources.
Guido da Pisa, an evidently learned, but otherwise obscure Carmelite friar, wrote an
early commentary on Dante’s Inferno, which has been described as “one of perhaps the most
singular, certainly most fascinating, products of Dante's oldest exegesis.”104 Estimates of the
titus livius libro decimo de bello macedonico, soli achei nimis potentes videbantur." Notwithstanding the
attribution to Livy, this is plainly a paraphrase of Justin 34.1: "Poenis ac Macedonibus subactis Aetolorumque
viribus principum captivitate debilitatis soli adhuc ex Graecia universa Achaei nimis potentes tunc temporis
Romanis videbantur." (The remainder of that chapter continues as an abbreviated paraphrase of Justin Book 34.)
If, as I suspect, Benvenuto's Livy manuscript broke off at 40.12, during the events leading up to Demetrius'
death, this would explain his assumption that the remaining events described by Justin in connection therewith
would also be found in Livy Book 40.
101 Chapter VII.15 breaks off with with the triumph of Lucius Scipio from Livy 37.59.1, and Chapter
VII.16 picks up with Manlius’ battle against the “gallogreci” at Mt. Olympus from Livy 38.18. In this,
Benvenuto closely follows Riccobaldo (who was unquestionably using an α(a) source, see Billanovich 1981, pp.
30-31; Gabriele Zanella, Riccobaldo e Livio, Studi Petrarcheschi 6 (1989), pp. 53–69): The Historia contains
exactly the same lacuna (conspicuously starting and ending with almost the precise words missing from the α(a)
MSS), and the Compendium skips even more (leaving off with the foundation of colonies at Livy 37.59). The
opening sentence of Romul. VII.16 is an almost verbatim copy of the analogous passages from both of
Riccobaldo’s works. See Vat. Lat. 1961, f. 336v; Hankey 1984, p. 334.
102 For example, the identification of the Bacchanal informer Hispala Faecenia as "mulier [h]ispana" in
Chapter VII.21 (Livy 39.9-19) is a clear α reading (compare the full range of α MSS [Paris BNF Lat. 5740, f.
229v; Lips. Bibl. Univ. Rep. 1.1, f. 194v; Vat. Arch. Cap. S. Pietro C.132, f. 175v; and Leiden, Voss. Lat. F66, f.
117v] with φ [Paris, BNF Lat. 5690, f. 349v]), and "triginta navibus" in Chapter VII.4 (Livy 34.8) is purely α(a)
(compare α(a) [Paris BNF Lat. 5740, f. 184r, Lips. Bibl. Univ. Rep. 1.1, f. 162v; and Vat. Arch. Cap. S. Pietro
C.132, f. 125r] with α(d) [Leiden, Voss. Lat. F66, f. 30v] and φ [London, B.L. Harley 2493, f. 250r, and Paris,
BNF Lat. 5690, f. 297r]).
103 This citation is consistent throughout all of the Romuleon manuscripts surveyed. (Pal. Lat. 926, f.
200r; Vat. Lat. 1948, f. 118r; Amiens, Bib. Mun. 480, f. 135r; Plut. 21 sin.10, f. 134r; Plut. 66.29, f. 182v;
Madrid, Bib. Nac. 5567, f. 119r; Bib. de l'Arsenal 668, f. 127v.) It is likewise carried forward into the early
French translation. (Duval 2000, p. 7.)
104 M. Rinaldi, Le Expositiones et glose super Comediam Dantis di Guido da Pisa. Edizione critica.,
Thesis (Napoli 2011), p. 12.

dating of this work vary widely, from the early 1320’s to the late-1340’s – a critical period in
the dissemination of many classical works throughout the scholarly communities of Italy and
France.105
The Expositiones et Glose Super Comediam Dantis cites “titus livius de bello
macedonico” exactly once. During his commentary on “ypocritas” in Canto XXIII, Guido
notes that Dante’s tortured hypocrites wore heavy capes “...quia capa est vestis honesta ac
etiam religiosa, sub tali veste hominem ypocrita falsus fallit, quod nichil fallacius reperitur.
Unde titus livius de bello macedonico libro viii· Nichil fallacius quam prava religio· Sub
prava enim et simulata religione multe fallacie occultantur...”106 This is an abbreviated
quote107 from the oration of Sp. Postumius Albinus (cos. 186 BC) on the Bacchanalian
conspiracy in Livy 39.16.
The identification of Book 39 as “libro viii” clearly indicates that the Livy MS used
by Guido did not have a book division at 31.27. Given that ψ was not widely circulating
during this period,108 this leaves two feasible prospects, φ and α(d) – both of which suggest a
somewhat later date for the Expositiones. The majority opinion is that φ “c.a. 1328 scriptus
est” in Avignon109 – i.e., almost exactly the same dating conjectured by Jenaro-MacLennan
for the Expositiones, hundreds of miles away. If Guido was consulting an φ source, then this
105 Principal scholarship on the Expositiones – including the complicated question of dating – includes
Rinaldi 2011; Arianna Terzi, Dizionario Biographico degli Italiani 61 (2004), sv. Guido da Pisa (available at:
<http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/guido-da-pisa_(Dizionario-Biografico)>); Vincenzo Cioffari, Guido da
Pisa's Expositiones et Glose super Comediam Dantis or Commentary on Dante's Inferno, edited with Notes and
an Introduction (New York, 1974); Vincenzo Cioffari, The Importance of the Guido da Pisa Commentary on the
Inferno, Dante Studies 85 (1967), pp. 1-13; Fabrizio Franceschini, Per la datazione delle Expositiones et glose
di Guido da Pisa tra il 1335 e il 1340, Rivista di studi danteschi 1 (2002), pp. 64-103; L. Jenaro-MacLennan,
The Dating of Guido da Pisa's Commentary on the Inferno, Italian Studies, 23 (1968), pp. 19-54; and Paola
Locatin, Una Prima Redazione Del Commento All'inferno Di Guido Da Pisa: Tra Le Chiose Alla Commedia
Contenute Nel Ms. Laur. 40.2, Thesis (Trento 2009).
106 For the text of the relevant passage from the Expositiones, I have relied upon the MS Chantilly, Musée
Condé 597 (1424), f. 152r (suspected of being the original copy presented to its dedicatee, Lucano Spinola), and
the critical editions of Cioffari 1974, p. 438 and Rinaldi 2011, p. 580.
107 The direct Livian tradition, consistent across the major representatives of all Fourth Decade manuscript
families, reads “nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio”. (See Briscoe 1991, v. 2, p. 630.) The
quotation reported in the Expositiones could very well simply be Guido’s own paraphrase of Livy – perhaps
from scribbled notes, or imperfect memory – but if so, the omission of “in speciem” is somewhat odd. The
central theme of Guido’s commentary on this portion of Canto XXIII concerns false appearances (“ypocrite in
hac vita exteriori et falsa se honestate depingunt”), so altering Livy’s characterization of bad religion as false
“in appearance” would seem to weaken the very point the author was trying to make. An alternative –
tantalizing – possibility is that this may represent a textual variation in Guido’s manuscript source, but my
research has not yet uncovered any such Fourth Decade manuscript.
108 As with the dating, the exact location of composition for the Expositiones remains unknown (beyond
the fact that the work is obviously Italian). One suggested location has been Florence (see Cioffari 1974, p.
VIX), which raises the possibility that Guido may have been exposed to some hitherto unknown Florentine
ancestor of ψ (see De La Mare 1971, p. 178). However, the attribution to Florence is heavily disputed – and in
any event, most the of ψ MSS correctly number all books after 34, making a ψ source highly unlikely here.
109 Briscoe 1991, v. 1, p. vii.

early dating cannot be right. Similarly, the earliest secure evidence for circulation of α(d) are
the above-described citations by Giovanni Cavellini (and possible Dionigi da Borgo) in the
1340’s. This does not, course, entirely preclude the possibility that Guido may have been
exposed to an earlier representative of α(d) than yet recorded, but on balance, use of a Livy
manuscript lacking the 31.27 division – in Italy – weighs in favor of a later date.
The latter work in this category presents something of a puzzle. In the early 1330’s,
Thomas Waleys, an extremely erudite Dominican friar, wrote a commentary on De Civitate
Dei that quickly became popular and circulated widely for the next two centuries.110 Waleys
quoted from Livy’s Fourth Decade on multiple occasions, and fortuitously also recorded
unusually extensive information about his direct manuscript source.111 As detailed by B.
Smalley, the text of Waleys’ work preserved at Merton College, Oxford includes the
following notation explaining where, when, and how Waleys came to read de bello
macedonico:
"...[titus livius] fuit autem maximus historiographus fertur enim quod triginta
scripsit volumina de hystoriis romanorum quorum quodlibet decem libros
continebat id est XXX decades ex quibus duas vidi in anglia videlicet unam de
origine urbis et aliam de secondo bello punico et tertiam cum istis vidi
[b]onon. et habui diu ad inspectionem a domino episcopo m[u]tinensi et fuit
de bello macedonico plures non vidi nec scire potui ubi invenirentur…"112
Waleys’ statement that “...the third I saw together with the others at Bologna, and I
had it for a long time for inspection from the lord bishop of Modena, and it was de bello
macedonico...” tells us both the timing and circumstances of his fortunate encounter with this
rare Livy. “Episcopo Mutinensi” at this time was Guido de Guisis, a learned prelate and
canon lawyer connected with a larger circle of prehumanist intellectuals that included such
luminaries as Giovanni d’Andria and Petrarch. He is known to have spent nine months in
110 As detailed in my forthcoming paper, In Aula de Merton: Composition and Transmission of Thomas
Waleys’ Commentary on De Civitate Dei, there is substantial evidence that Waleys’ work was completed in two
distinct stages: A first edition written in Bologna and finished around 1332 (transmitted in MS Oxford, Merton
Coll. 256B), and a second finished at Avignon within a few years thereafter, likely during Waleys’ imprisonment
there on heresy charges (transmitted by the remaining surviving witnesses). This hypothesis does not affect the
present question, however, as the Livian book numbering cited by Waleys is consistent throughout the tradition.
111 Beryl Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity in the Early Fourteenth Century (Oxford 1960), pp. 75-
108 is the principal fount of research into Waleys’ life and works. (See also Beryl Smalley, Thomas Waleys O.P.
in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 24 (1954), pp. 50-107.) More recently, Edwina Thorn's excellent thesis,
Nicholas Trevet's and Thomas Waleys's Commentaries on Augustine's De Civitate Dei and Later Medieval
Approaches to Antiquity (Bristol 2013), provides invaluable context for Waleys' work and its reception. For my
forthcoming papers, I have collated the relevant passages in over 25 manuscripts of Waleys’ commentary
(approximately one-third of the known surviving copies), along with the printed editions. For present purposes,
I will reference selected leading representatives of the most prominent families apparent from this collation
(Paris BNF Lat. 2072; Szczecin, Bibl. Publ. 27 (olim Konig. Marienstifts-Gymnasium, Stettin, XV.47); and
Trier, Stadtbibl. 140), and the evidently unique Merton 256B.
112 Oxford, Merton 256B, ff. 101v-102r. This most helpful note is not retained in the version of Waleys’
text carried in the remainder of the manuscript tradition and the printed editions. (See, e.g., Paris BNF Lat.
2072, f. 21r; Szczecin, Bibl. Publ. 27, f. 34v; Trier, Stadtbibl. 140, f. 56v.) As noted above, I intend to explore
this textual deviation and others in forthcoming papers.

Bologna in late 1329 and early 1330, while exiled from Modena by Louis of Bavaria – which
coincides perfectly with Waleys’ labors on his commentary. 113
For reasons explained earlier, a manuscript circulating in Northern Italy circa 1329
would naturally be expected to have been a member of the α family, and there are indeed
several textual clues that point in this direction. In Chapter VI.9 of the commentary, Waleys,
like Benvenuto da Imola, identifies Hispala Faecenia as “hispanam ancillam”, which, as
noted above, is a distinctly α reading.114 Similarly, Chapter III.21 quotes “convivia alia” from
Livy 39.6, which is likewise indicative of α.115 Nonetheless, the Livian book numbering given
by Waleys appears to tell a different story, at least on first blush.
As noted, Waleys provides an extensive quote from Livy 39.6, concerning the triumph
of Gnaeus Manlius Vulso and influx of “foreign luxury” to Rome (a popular topic in both
ancient and medieval historiography). He explicitly cites this passage as “titus livius de bello
macedonico li. viii” – i.e., one-off the correct numbering – which indicates that his source did
not have a book division at 31.27.116 Merton 256B adds the detail that this passage was found
“circa principium, that is, near the beginning of the book,117 which further suggests that the
Livy manuscript did display the true division between Books 38 and 39. This inference is
confirmed by Waleys’ discussion of the death of Scipio Africanus earlier in Chapter III.21,
which lightly paraphrases Livy 38.56, citing Livy as “titus livius de bello macedonico li. vii
circa finem”.118 The express reference to “Book 7 near the end” confirms without doubt that
Waleys’ source contained the true book division between these passages, and thus could not
have displayed the α(d) pattern of omitting this division in favor of false divisions at 38.42
and 39.23.119
113 On de Guisis, see Luca Gianni, Guizzi Guido da Reggio Emilia, vescovo di Concordia, in Nuovo
Liruti. Dizionario Biografico dei Friulani (Udine 2006) and Prima di Concordia. Gli anni emiliani del vescovo
Guido Guizzi (1307-1334), Atti dell'Accademia San Marco 15 (2013).
114 See footnote 102, supra.
115 See Briscoe 1991, v. 2, p. 615.
116 Paris BNF Lat. 2072, f. 41r; Szczecin, Bibl. Publ. 27, f. 57v; Trier, Stadtbibl. 140, f. 97v. Waleys
discussion of the Bacchanalian conspiracy in Chapter VI.9 – which is a concise summary of Livy 39.8 through
39.19 in Waleys’ own words, without direct quotation – likewise cites his source as “titus livius de bello
macedonico libro viii”. See Paris BNF Lat. 2072, f. 79v; Szczecin, Bibl. Publ. 27, f. 84r; Trier, Stadtbibl. 140, f.
154v; Oxford, Merton 256B, f. 192v.
117 Oxford, Merton 256B, f. 136v. Interestingly, the Merton MS contains a lacuna consisting of several
blank lines in place of the actual quotation from Livy, indicating an erasure or omission – and there are other
similar lacunae throughout the text. These features will be explored further in my forthcoming papers on
Waleys’ work and sources.
118 The folio citations for this portion of Chapter III.21 are the same as in footnote 116, supra, except
Trier, Stadtbibl. 140, f. 97r and Oxford, Merton 256B, f. 136r.
119 Waleys' commentary includes one other citation to the Fourth Decade, which is an oddity in its own
right. In Chapter VII.34, Waleys discusses the discovery of the "Books of Numa" under the Janiculum (related
by Augustine from Varro), and notes that "sciendum quod illud quod narrat hic varro narrat etiam titus livius de
bello macedonico libro viii valerius vero libro primo sic narrat..." (He then proceeds to discuss the alternate
version of the story given by Valerius Maximus 1.1.12. See Paris BNF Lat. 2072, f. 90r; Szczecin, Bibl. Publ.

Thus the puzzle. The early date (and location) of Waleys’ exposure to the Fourth
Decade seems to rule out a φ (or ψ) source, either directly or through a contaminated
descendant. Bishop Guido’s Livy predated 1330 and displayed α readings, but lacked the
characteristic divisions of the known α(a) and α(d) manuscripts uncontaminated by φ. What
could it have been? An α(c) relative of Escorial g.1.8 displaying only the true divisions,
earlier than previously known? An α(a) which, like Lips. 1.1, did, in fact, have a false book
division at 31.27, but also omitted the true division between Book 37 and 38, thus re-
scrambling the succeeding book numbering? An α(d) that predated the introduction of the
false divisions found in that subfamily? Further examination is clearly required – but in any
event, careful attention to these clues promises to teach us something we don’t presently
know about the early transmission of Livy’s Fourth Decade.120
In sum, my purpose in researching and writing this article was not merely to expound
the details of Livy’s transmission, but also to demonstrate the broader possibilities of this
method. I am most assuredly not the first – nor even the first "layman"121 – to note the
diversity of book (and chapter) divisions within the tradition of many classical texts.122
However, most scholarship has been directed toward ascertaining which divisions (if any)
27, f. 91r; Trier, Stadtbibl. 140, f. 186v; Oxford, Merton 256B, f. 208r.) The citation to "libro viii" makes no
sense whatsoever. Livy relates these events at 40.29, and no known book numbering in the Fourth Decade
tradition displays a two-off error that would render Book 40 as "libro viii". (Given Waleys' earlier citations to
Book 39 as "viii", this would require a missing division between Books 39 and 40.) Further, this portion of the
Fourth Decade was famously missing from the α(a) manuscripts, which break of at 40.12. Waleys often used the
introductory phrase "sciendum quod" to introduce his own observation or conclusion, or an indirect discussion
of one or more ancient sources, rather than direct quotation. It is tempting to speculate that Waleys may have
been relying upon an intermediate source here – perhaps a (corrupt) margin note in his copy of Augustine or
Valerius – rather than Bishop Guido's Livy for this information. This mystery, like the others, begs for further
examination.
120 I intend to further pursue the origins, nature, and subsequent history of the copy of the Fourth Decade
seen by Waleys in my forthcoming paper The Livy of Modena and Bologna (and Concordia and Avignon): An
Indirect Witness to the Textual Tradition of Livy's Fourth Decade. (This line of inquiry was originally proposed
by Smalley 1954, p. 95. The review of Prof. Smalley's work in Italian Studies likewise includes a plea –
directed toward the late Professor Giuseppe Billanovich – to investigate "Waleys' borrowing a copy of Livy's
exceedingly rare fourth Decade from Guido de Guisis, Bishop of Modena." J.H.W., R.W., J. Cremona, A. J. P.
Taylor, C.G. & Geoffrey Woodhead, Review of B. Smalley English Frians and Antiquity in the Early Fourteenth
Century, Italian Studies, 16:1 (1961), p. 103.)
121 One of the most comprehensive and wide-ranging discussions of this topic has been prepared by Roger
Pearse, a self-described "interested layman", on a webpage entitled "Capituli: Some notes on summaries,
chapter divisions and chapter titles in ancient and medieval manuscripts"
<http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/chapter_titles.htm>, as of Sept. 15, 2019.
122 "A change in the number of chapters was one of the most fundamental changes a scribe could make,
because it changed the ordinatio of a story – its subdivision into books, chapters, and paragraphs. Medieval
scribes considered the ordinatio of a tale to be its formal cause, and essential for understanding the
narrative."(Tjamke Snijders, Work, Version, Text and Scriptum: High Medieval Manuscript Terminology in the
Aftermath of the New Philology, Digital Philology: A Journal of Medieval Cultures, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2013), p.
271.) Snijders continues "[i]n the words of Nicolas of Paris: ‘causa formalis tractatus que est ordinatio
librorum partialium et capitulorum’. John of Garland stated ca. 1240 in his Parisiana poetica that the formal
cause of a manuscript is ‘per libri disposicionem et litterarum protractionem’”. (Id. at p. 288, fn. 9 [citations
omitted].) It is indeed surprising how understudied this topic has been, given the importance that medieval
readers would have attached to it.

were authentic in the original work, rather than studying the patterns of divisions themselves
within the manuscript tradition.123 Even where book division variants have been used
stemmatically to help group manuscript families – notably in the study of Geoffrey of
Monmouth's Historia Regum Britannie124 and M. Gorman’s examination of Augustine125 –
there has been little apparent interest in taking the next step, and examining citations in
secondary works to determine which version of the text subsequent writers were relying
upon.126 The benefits of this approach in advancing our understanding of the transmission,
diffusion, and reception of a classical (or medieval) work have hopefully been made manifest
through the foregoing discussion of Livy, and will commend themselves to future study.
ARTHUR J. WYLENE
Woodland, California
123 See, e.g., F. G. Kenyon, Book Divisions in Greek and Latin Literature, in William Warner Bishop: A
Tribute, ed. H. M. Lydenberg and Andrew Keogh (New Haven 194I), pp. 63-75; Carolyn Higbie, Divide and
Edit: A Brief History of Book Divisions, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 105 (2010), pp. 1-31; Carl P. E.
Springer, The Manuscripts of Sedulius a Provisional Handlist, Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, New Series, Vol. 85, No. 5 (1995), p. 26, fn. 56; Clement Lawrence Smith, A Preliminary Study of
Certain Manuscripts of Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 12 (1901), pp.
19-58; Robert J. Bonner, The Book Divisions of Thucydides, Classical Philology, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1920), pp. 73-
82; Bruce Heiden, The Placement of 'Book Divisions' in the Iliad, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 118 (1998),
pp. 68-81; Catherine Rubincam, How many books did Diodorus Siculus originally intend to write?, The
Classical Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1 (1998) pp. 229-233.
124 While initially somewhat dubious – describing book divisions as "perhaps unpromising as a type of
evidence" – Prof. Julia Crick proceeds to use this evidence to good effect to assist in classifying the over 200
exemplars of the Historia Regum Britannie. (Julia C. Crick, Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of
Mommouth IV: Dissemination and Reception in the later Middle Ages (Cambridge 1991), pp. 143-157. See also
Michael D. Reeve, The Transmission of the Historia Regum Britanniae, The Journal of Medieval Latin 1
(1991), pp. 112-113.) Crick's otherwise excellent discussion of book division variations unfortunately treats
such divisions as merely an "adjunct to rubrication", thereby eliding the realization that book divisions, unlike
rubrics, will often survive into the indirect tradition of a work through secondary citations, thereby opening a
wealth of additional information regarding transmission of that work.
125 See, e.g., Michael M. Gorman, The Diffusion of the Manuscripts of Saint Augustine's De doctrina
christiana in the Early Middle Ages, Revue Bénédictine 95 (1985), pp. 11-24 ["The various systems employed
by medieval scholars to divide the text of De doctrina christiana would undoubtedly provide interesting
evidence for the history of the transmission of the work"]; Chapter Headings for Saint Augustine's De Genesi
ad litteram, Revue d'Etudes Augustiniennes et Patristiques 26 (1980), pp. 88-104; A Survey of the Oldest
Manuscripts of St. Augustine’s De Civitate Dei, The Journal Of Theological Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 (1982), pp.
398-410.
126 The examination of division variants is vastly more advanced in the field of biblical studies than in
classical Latin or Greek texts (see, e.g., Method in Unit Delimitation (Pericope: Scripture as Written and Read
in Antiquity, Vol. 6) ed. Marjo C.A. Korpel, et al. (Leiden 2007); Matti Peikola, Aspects of mise-en-page in
manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible, in Graham D. Caie, et al. (eds.), Medieval Texts in Context (Oxford 2008),
pp. 28-67); however, even there, there has been relatively little inquiry into secondary citations.

United by Their Divisions Fingerprinting PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United by Their Divisions Fingerprinting PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United by Their Divisions:

Fingerprinting the Manuscripts of Livy’s Fourth Decade

Unfortunately, absent direct evidence – such as notes in a manuscript indicating that it

1 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

4 McDonald 1965, p. xxiv.

2 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

While Billanovich’s historical methods were innovative, many of his textual

8 MS London B.L. Harley 2493, f. 229v.

3 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

Additionally, Billanovich identifies several instances in Petrarch’s other writings

12 MS London B.L. Harley 2493, f. 235v.

4 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

5 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

As further noted by Briscoe and Reeve,

One may plausibly posit that some lost

19 Briscoe 1991, p. viii, fn. 34.

20 Reeve 1986, p. 140, fn. 2; Briscoe 1993, p. 76, fn. 15.

6 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

Urb. Lat. 426 proceeds entirely like an φ

7 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

Briscoe has identified "conflation of φ and

8 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

Some confusion creeps into one group of

9 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

Basic stemmatics thus counsels against

β Reeve subdivides β30 into the principal

31 Reeve 1986, p. 136.

33 See Reeve 1986, p. 134; Briscoe 1991, p. XVI.

10 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

γ The γ manuscripts are Fifteenth century

11 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

ψ • Vat. Lat. 3331 ("V") The ψ manuscripts universally display

The non-conjecturable correspondence

12 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

44 See Sabbadini 1914, pp. 90-97.

13 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

In his examination of the transmission of Livy’s First Decade, Billanovich suggested

14 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

15 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

16 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

17 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

18 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

particular quotation, one ("...subsidia recepisse transgressus...") is explicitly identified by Briscoe as an α

19 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

79 See Reeve 1986, p. 143; Briscoe 1993, p. 71.

80 Vat. Lat. 1927, f. 94v.

20 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

It is nonetheless apparent that Dionigi utilized a direct manuscript of the Fourth

21 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

87 Dionigi’s text, including the quotation from Livy, reads as follows:

89 This debate is summarized in Cornish 2013, pp. 259-260.

22 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

23 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

Benvenuto cites de bello macedonico pervasively throughout the early portions of

24 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

25 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

109 Briscoe 1991, v. 1, p. vii.

26 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

27 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

114 See footnote 102, supra.

115 See Briscoe 1991, v. 2, p. 615.

28 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene

29 Copyright © 2019 by Arthur J. Wylene