On Two Poems (Omitted) from the Anthologia Latina

Author(s): Han Lamers

Source: Classical Philology , Vol. 110, No. 4 (October 2015), pp. 367-375
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/683041

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Classical Philology

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Notes and Discussions 367

On Two Poems (Omitted) from the Anthologia Latina

This note concerns the relationship of four poems: two supposedly ancient compo-
sitions from the Latin Anthology and two epigrams from Michele Tarcaniota Marullo’s
Epigrammaton libri (published in print for the first time c. 1489). The poems under con-
sideration are given below. In the left column are the putatively ancient compositions,
referred to as ep. 758 and ep. 1363 in accordance with the edition of Heinrich Meyer
(1835), the last edition of the Latin Anthology in which they occur. In the right column
are the epigrams by the Neo-Latin poet and Lucretius scholar Marullo (c. 1453–1500),
referred to as E. 1.14 and E. 2.30 according to the authoritative edition of Alessandro
Perosa (1951). Diverging lines, phrases, and words are italicized:

Germanici Caesaris, Caligulae patris (ep. 758, ed. Meyer) Epitaphium Germanici Caesaris (1.14)

Parce, hospes, tumulo: Caesar Germanicus hic sum:
saepe etiam ignotis ipse dedi requiem.
quod siquem tumuli nihil huius gratia tangit,
admoveat patriae fraude quod hic iaceo.
sed iaceo, quamvis non vitae et plenus honoris,
hoc uno ingratus, quod genui, patriae.
testata est mores lacrimis plebesque patresque:
haec sunt sinceri iudicia ingenii.
Parce, hospes, tumulo: Caesar Germanicus hic sum:
saepe etiam ignotis ipse dedi requiem.
quod siquem tituli nihil huius gratia tangit,
at moveat patria fraude quod hic iaceo.
sed iaceo, quamvis non vitae, at plenus honorum,
hoc uno ingratus, quod genui, patriae.
testata est mores lacrimis plebesque patresque:
haec sunt sinceri iudicia ingenii.

Untitled (ep. 1363, ed. Meyer) De fortitudine Byzantiae (2.30)

Viderat exanimem mater Byzantia natum,
forte facit patriis dum sua vota sacris,
impositumque suis iuvenem quae gesserat armis,
et madida hostili tela manusque nece.
mox nec scissa comam mater nec territa casu
femina, fortuna celsior ipsa sua:
“nate,” ait, “egregrium patriae per saecula nomen,
quam non degeneri funere, nate, iaces!
nunc demum peperisse iuvat: dolor omnis abesto!
numquam ego te nato non bene mater ero.”
Senserat exanimum mater Byzantia natum,
forte facit patriis dum sua sacra deis;
uniusque dolor totam concusserat urbem
atque erat in luctu vir mulierque novo.
illa immota diu, postquam stata sacra peregit,
respicit adverso pectore vulnus hians
impositumque suis iuvenem, quae gesserat, armis
et madida hostili tela manusque nece.
mox nec scissa comam mater nec territa casu
foemina, fortuna celsior ipsa sua
“nate,” ait “egregium patriae per saecula nomen,
quam non degeneri funere, nate, iaces!
agnosco quae saepe mihi promittere suetus,
oraque adhuc hosti pene tremenda tuo.
nunc demum peperisse iuvat: dolor omnis abesto!
nunquam ego, te nato, non bene mater ero.”

2] Forte facit patriis dum sua : Dum faceret patriis

annua ed. 1489 3] concusserat : perculserat ed. 1489

If we take a glance at the poems in the left and right columns and briefly compare them,
it seems obvious that Marullo took the ancient Latin epigrams as his models. While
the poet adopted the epitaph of Germanicus almost literally (E. 1.14), he reworked the
poem on the Spartan mother in his usual humanist way to produce something of his

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
368 Notes and Discussions

own (E. 2.30).1 Or so it seems. Scholars have not achieved consensus over the relation-
ship of the four poems. The “ancient” compositions were, for uncertain or unverified
reasons, omitted from the most recent editions of the Latin Anthology, while modern
scholars working on Marullo’s epigrams generally ignore them in their discussions of
E. 1.14 and E. 2.30. As modern scholars have so far not discussed the poems together,
this brief note offers the first account of their textual and philological history. It is not
designed to settle the issue with definitive answers, yet it suggests that all four poems
are Marullo’s works and indicates the most likely ways in which ep. 758 and ep. 1363
could have entered Latin anthologies before Alexander Riese omitted them from his
influential anthology.
Modern scholars working on Marullo’s poetry all unanimously recognize the authen-
ticity of E. 1.14 and E. 2.30.2 One scholar regarded the Germanicus epitaph (E. 1.14) as
Marullo’s personal interpretation of  Tacitus’ account of the death of the Roman general,
presenting “rather a demonstration of humanistic learning and scholarship than a realis-
tic imitation of an epitaph of antiquity.”3 Marullo’s biographer even saw De fortitudine
Byzantiae (E. 2.30) as an autobiographical poem.4 The poems in Meyer’s edition
(ep. 758 and ep. 1363) have been ignored in discussions of Marullo’s epigrams. This
can be explained by the fact that the Latin Anthology is now normally consulted in the
editions of Riese (1869) and D. R. Shackleton Bailey (1982), which omit the poems.
Before Riese’s edition, however, leading philologists such as Pierre Pithou, Isaac Ca-
saubon, and Pieter Burman Jr. had all regarded ep. 758 and ep. 1363 as ancient compo-
sitions and included them in their Latin anthologies. This prompts the question of how
these epigrams entered the tradition of the Latin Anthology and why they eventually
disappeared from it.
The first printed collection I know of to include both poems is the anthology of ep-
igrammata vetera by Pithou, who is remembered today mainly for his editio princeps
of Phaedrus (1596). This collection, first published in Paris in 1590, is a thematically
arranged mélange of supposedly ancient epigrams culled from manuscripts, inscrip-
tions, and earlier printed volumes. Together with Josephus Justus Scaliger’s Catalecta
(1573), Pithou’s edition initiated a series of “Latin anthologies” that emulated the long-
established tradition of the Greek or Planudean Anthology, first put to the presses by
Janus Lascaris in Florence in 1494.5 The French scholar included ep. 758 and ep. 1363
in the part of his work that he dedicated to epitaphia et tumuli. In compliance with the
scholarly conventions of his time, he did not indicate the provenance of the composi-
tions. On the title page of his edition, he simply stated that he published most epigrams
for the first time “from ancient codices and stones, while others had previously been
dispersed here and there [alia sparsim antehac errantia].”

1. The emulative method Marullo seems to apply in E. 2.30 is very similar to the way in which the poet
reworked Catullus 101 in his funeral poem to his own brother (E. 1.22).
2. See Fantazzi 2012, 10–13, 74–75; Guillot 2012, 469–70, 603–5; Mariotti 2010, 407; Enenkel 2009, 11;
Kidwell 1989, 28, 106; Perosa 1951.
3. Enenkel 2009, 11.
4. Kidwell 1989, 28.
5. The poem is absent from the collection that Pithou’s friend J. J. Scaliger had published in Lyon in 1572:
the Veterum poetarum Catalectorum libri duo. On Pithou’s role in the history of Scaliger’s collection, see Schet-
ter 1983, 365–69. See also Scaliger’s letters to Pithou in Botley and Van Miert 2012, 1: 12–12, 31–38, 41–44. A
useful biographical note on Pithou with references is in Botley and Van Miert 2012, 8: 125–26.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Notes and Discussions 369

To my best knowledge, ep. 758 and ep. 1363 did not circulate in Latin scholarship
before Pithou published his anthology, which went through reprints in 1596 and 1619.
From the anthologies of Latin poetry produced after Pithou’s, the two-volume edition
of the Dutch scholar Burman (issued in 1759 and 1773) remained the standard until
that of Riese. Unlike Pithou, Burman added a substantial commentary to his edition.
In his discussion of the poems, he was silent about their original provenance (which he
probably did not know). On the other hand, Burman was the first to put the poems into
relation with Marullo’s E. 1.14 and E. 2.30, which he, a Latin poet himself, had read
and recognized.6
As to the Germanicus epitaph, Burman did not doubt its antiquity. He speculated
that Marullo had found the epitaph in some ancient manuscript. According to the Dutch
scholar, the Greek poet had then decided to insert it into his own collection of epigrams,
presumably in the belief that nobody would ever recognize the poem as not his.7 The
idea that ep. 758 was an ancient epitaph had already been spread via the scholarship
on Suetonius’ Caligula. In his commentary on Suetonius ( published five years after
Pithou’s anthology in 1595), Casaubon (1559–1614) observed that the poem aptly il-
lustrated the sententia in Caligula 5.1.8 Through Casaubon’s commentary, the poem
entered the anthology of Theodorus Janssonius van Amsteloveen (1657–1712), which
Burman used for his Anthologia Latina.9 In this way, from Pithou’s collection onward,
ep. 758 was commonly accepted as an ancient poem. Some even considered it to be
an original composition by Germanicus himself—an idea that still lingers on in the
scholarship.10
What was Burman’s opinion about ep. 1363? Comparing the poem with Marullo’s E.
2.30, the Dutch scholar concluded that it was an ancient composition, just as ep. 758/E.
1.14. He railed against Marullo’s version of ep. 1363 as he wrote about De fortitudine
Byzantiae:
If Marullo had not been there to shrewdly impose upon common property these enervated
and weary verses as multicolored rags, incomparable with those other excellent verses, and
if he had adopted the poem unaltered and without adding anything to it, one could indeed

6. Ep. 758 and ep. 1363 also entered the Histoire littéraire (Rivet de la Grange et al. 1733, 155) and Moreri
1759, 171 (with the same mistranscription as in the Histoire, to wit “honore”). Ep. 758 was also transcribed by
J. G. Herder in Weimar. See here Irmscher and Adler 1979, 212 (“Gedicht nicht nachzuweisen”). It seems that
ep. 1363 enjoyed particular popularity, also outside Latin scholarship. It was, for instance, translated into Ger-
man by Spalding in Bandemer 1802, 144–46 and included in a nineteenth-century German schoolbook (Hutter
1831, 139: “Weibliche Tapferkeit”). Marullo’s E. 2.30, too, was cited in Besold 1624, 12–13 (omitting lines 3–8
and printing exanimem instead of exanimum in l.1) and Röhrensee and Benckendorf 1705, fol. A4r (who were
probably citing from Besold).
7. Burman 1759, 226–27: sed insigni plagio id [sc. carmen] sibi vindicasse videtur Marullus, idque forte
in vetusto quodam codice reperisse; sed famae securus posteritati imposuisse, suis carminibus ineditum, et
nemini, ut existimabat, notum aut visum carmen inserens. Contrary to what Burman suggests, the poems are
not identical.
8. See Casaubon 1647, 407–8. According to Casaubon, Suet. Cal. 3.5 could serve to explain the second
line of the poem. He also proposed an emendation of the fourth line of the poem in accordance with Marullo’s
formulation in E. 1.14. His commentary was very influential, and the poem entered later commentaries such as
C. Suetonii Tranquili opera omnia, I (London: Valpy, 1826) 539 (with note “e”). Marijke Crab (KU Leuven)
confirmed that the poem was not cited in commentaries on Suetonius before Casaubon’s.
9. Amsteloveen 1694, 7: Extat apud Casaub[onium] in Animadv[ersionibus] in Sueton[ium].
10. See Orelli 1838, xcviii. For a modern attribution to Germanicus, see Meirelles Gouvêa 2010, 81. The
poem is absent among Germanicus’ poems in Baehrens 1882, 4: 102–3. The poem is also absent in Breysig 1899.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
370 Notes and Discussions

doubt the antiquity of the epigram because more of such epigrams that now circulate among
the ancient Catalecta appeared in many poets of more recent date, Italians in particular.11

For Burman, Marullo’s additions in E. 2.30 were so out of tune with the style of
ep. 1363 that the antique core of De fortitudine Byzantiae stood out as self-evident. The
very fact that Burman relied on this type of aesthetic or stylistic argument—mixed with
a sense of suspicion vis-à-vis Italian poets—gives credence to the idea that he tacitly
accepted Pithou’s assessment of the poem without inspecting the manuscript evidence.
Before Riese revolutionized the textual basis of the Latin Anthology, humanists in their
collections often mixed unpublished poems from manuscript sources with poems that
had already been available in printed anthologies such as Pithou’s.
Especially via the editions of Pithou and Burman, ep. 758 and ep. 1363 became part
of the corpus of ancient Latin poems that some prominent classical scholars brought
together from the later sixteenth century onward. In Burman’s Anthologia Latina every-
one could read how Marullo had plagiarized the one (ep. 758 in E. 1.14) and disfigured
the other (ep. 1363 in E. 2.30). When Heinrich Meyer published a revised editio Bur-
manniana in 1835, however, he openly doubted his predecessor’s appraisal of the po-
ems. Meyer was more critical about the authenticity of some poems and found both
Pithou and Burman “diligent rather than prudent in collecting poems.”12 While Meyer
adopted Burman’s opinion regarding the poem about the Spartan mother (hoc carmen
in usum suum convertit Michael Marullus), he claimed that Germanicus’ epitaph was
definitely “not by an older poet.”13 Meyer did not explain the dates or provenance of
the poems but included both compositions in his collection of epitaphs and carmina
sepulcralia all the same.

Table 1. Ep. 758 and Ep. 1363 (Meyer) in Latin Anthologies until Riese’s Edition (1869)

Pithou Burman Meyer Riese

ep. 758 p. 97/81 Ancient nr. 72 Ancient nr. 758 15th cent. Om. Marullo’s
ep. 1363 p. 134/112 Ancient nr. 263 Ancient nr. 1363 Ancient Om. ?

As the above overview shows, ep. 758 and ep. 1363 were for the first time absent in
Riese’s standard edition (1869), which would serve as the basis for Shackleton Bailey’s
reappraisal (1982). Riese revolutionized scholarship on the Latin Anthology. Starting
from the precepts of nineteenth-century German criticism, he was the first to expli-
cate criteria for the in- and exclusion of poems, even though it is not in all cases clear
how he applied his own guidelines to individual pieces. Additionally, he abandoned
the thematic and compilatory arrangement of earlier collections and decided to publish

11. Burman 1759, 201, cols. 1–2: profecto nisi Marullo istos elumbes et languentes versus neque cum ceteris
illis valde eximiis comparandos adfuisset, ut versicolores pannos callidius publico imposuisset, et si totum sine
ulla mutatione aut augmento adoptasset, dubitari posset de antiquitate Epigrammatis, quia et alia similia, quae
inter vetera Catalecta nunc circumferuntur, etiam apud Poëtas nonnullos recentiores, Italos praesertim, occur-
rere, alibi saepius notavimus.
12. Meyer 1835, 1: xl: Pithoeus enim in colligendis epigrammatis multo diligentior quam prudentior erat
nec Burmannus eiusdem culpae immunis est.
13. Meyer 1835, 2: 97.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Notes and Discussions 371

complete collections as he found them in the most ancient manuscripts, arranging them
chronologically by source. From the fact that ep. 758 and ep. 1363 are absent from his
anthology (which included poems until the end of the sixth century c.e.), we may infer
that Riese did not find them in the manuscripts he inspected or had inspected for him.14
In any case, he regarded the epitaph as Marullo’s work. Perhaps he found that some of
the linguistic features of the poems disqualified them as classical or even ancient com-
positions. One could argue, for instance, that, in ep. 758, admoveat (line 4) is hardly
comprehensible and grammatically odd, while non vitae et plenus honoris (line 5) lacks
the desired antithesis of Marullo’s more felicitous non vitae at plenus honoris. Addi-
tionally, testata est . . . plebesque patresque (line 7) is stylistically unusual as there is no
reason to construct the sentence ad sententiam. In ep. 1363, moreover, femina (line 6)
seems superfluous right after mater (line 5), and we would expect non bona mater ero
instead of the idiomatically uncommon non bene mater ero (line 10). Although Riese
protested against excluding poems on purely aesthetic grounds, such linguistic idiosyn-
crasies might have played a role in his assessments of poems that he did not find in the
manuscripts. He for some reason relegated the compositions to the second volume of
his edition with ancient epigraphic poems, edited by his colleague Franz Buecheler, but
in this volume, they do not appear.15 Why Riese believed that Marullo had composed
ep. 758, or why Buecheler omitted the poems from the second volume of their Antholo-
gia Latina, must remain in the dark.
The unexplained omission of the poems from Riese’s Anthologia Latina raises ques-
tions about the editorial choices that have shaped the Latin Anthology as we accept
it today.16 As Riese’s focus was on ancient collections, he treated individual poems
in a stepmotherly fashion. For this reason, his sections with individual poems or so-
called dubia taken from later sources (manuscripts dating from the ninth to the fifteenth
centuries as well as printed collections such as Pithou’s) are most in need of a criti-
cal reappraisal. The need of such a revision was already implicit in Harry Vredeveld’s
1985 note about Riese’s ep. 899 in this journal. Vredeveld convincingly showed that
ep. 899, traditionally attributed to Cornelius Celsus, was actually a poem by the Ger-
man Latin poet Helius Eobanus Hessus (1488–1544) and therefore had to be omitted
from the Anthologia. The improved availability of later Latin poetry in critical editions,
and the ever-increasing digitization of this corpus, is a tremendous aid to reviewing
choices made by classical philologists in the pre-digital era. Such a reappraisal would
also contribute to our understanding of the formation of poetic collections in the later
Middle Ages and the Renaissance and would be of great interest to the interpretation
of Neo-Latin poetry. While intertextuality with major Latin poets such as Catullus and
Vergil is often easily established, this is not the case for the Anthologia Latina or for the
minor Latin poets whose epigrams circulated in miscellanea with often rather complex
histories.17
Contrary to Riese’s ep. 899, initially attributed to Celsus and therefore admitted to
the canon, ep. 758 and ep. 1363 were omitted from it. This leaves at least one question.
If the poems are not ancient compositions, then what are they? Since there is not a trace

14. Riese 1894 –1926, 1,2: li.

15. Riese 1894 –1926, 1,2: liii.
16. Please note that the unexplained, or insufficiently explained, omission of poems is also found in the
edition of Shackleton Bailey, on which see the critical review of Reeve (1985, 175).
17. Busch 2009, 25–26.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
372 Notes and Discussions

of ep. 758 and ep. 1363 in the ancient manuscripts, judging from modern editions of po-
etic collections as well as so-called incipitaria, I think we must reckon with alternative
scenarios.18 First, there is the option that ep. 758 and ep. 1363 were either written or re-
written by a (near) contemporary of Marullo’s. Second, there is the possibility that they
represent different redactions of E. 1.14 and E. 2.30 by Marullo himself. As I have so far
not been able to find ep. 758 and ep. 1363 among the poems of any other Renaissance
poet, I think the latter option is at this stage most probable. True, the modern critical
edition of Marullo’s poetry does not record these hypothetical pentimenti. But the editor
did not trace the manuscript tradition of every single poem and reasonably confined his
recension to those manuscripts that contained the Epigrammaton libri entirely.19 Apart
from the language of the poems (which is humanist and bears no distinctively medieval
features), in the case of De fortitudine Byzantiae (E. 2.30) the peculiar theme also points
in the direction of Marullus.
If we assume that ep. 758 and ep. 1363 represent different (and probably earlier)
redactions of E. 1.14 and E. 2.30, the question emerges how these two Neo-Latin poems
could have entered Pithou’s collection of ancient epigrams. Although Pithou clearly
knew how to discern between ancient and modern codices, he did realize that his col-
lection was probably not free from more recent or even contemporary poems.20 From
this, we may infer that the French scholar had not only used obviously ancient sources
such as the so-called Codex Thuaneus (now Par. lat. 8071 in the Bibliothèque Nationale
in Paris) but also more recent manuscripts. In the case of Riese’s 899, Vredeveld con-
jectured that the poem found its way into Pithou’s book because it had been copied out
of its original context without the attribution to Hessus, from where it was passed on to
the French scholar, who then decided to include it in his collection.21
Ep. 758 and ep. 1363 might have entered Pithou’s collection in a similar way. Hu-
manists often circulated and even published drafts of poems before they anthologized
them. These individual poems sometimes entered miscellaneous collections of friends
and admirers next to ancient poems and without clear ascriptions. Apart from manu-
scripts with Marullo’s complete works, individual poems did circulate in such miscella-
neous manuscripts, for example, his third Nenia in Monac. gr. 289 ( Munich, Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek).22 Humanists also copied individual poems for their own reference
in their books and notes. A fascinating example of this is the polyhistor Hartmann
Schedel, who copied, without attribution, two of  Marullo’s epigrams (E. 1.10 and E. 2.5)

18. See Schaller and Könsgen 1977; Schaller, Könsgen, and Klein 2005; Walther 1969; Bertalot 1985. There
is no trace of the poems in the modern critical editions of the Latin Anthology, the Minor Latin Poets, the epi-
grammata Bobiensia (discovered long after Riese’s edition in 1950), or the few epigrams attributed to German-
icus Caesar. The earliest manuscript trace of the two poems I have thus far been able to find is Voss. lat. F. 123
(fol. 16v) in the Library of Leiden University: a collection of poems and inscriptions, both ancient and “modern,”
dating to the first half of the seventeenth century. Cf. De Meyier 1973, 253–56.
19. See Perosa 1951, vii–xiii. The only exception is the miscellaneous Vindob. Palat. 9977 (Vienna, Öster­
reichische Nationalbibliothek), which contains an older version of E. 4.33.
20. Pithou 1596, 581: maluissemus etiam in alium locum reiecta plura non modo dubiae vetustatis, sed et
recentiora ac nostri fortassis saeculi, quae ex adversariis licet per rerum otia, sine delectu tamen prout quaeque
occurrerant, congestis facile inrepserunt, eius potissimum incuria qui ea primum excerpenda et in mundum
redigenda susceperat.
21. Vredeveld 1985.
22. Cf. Perosa 2000.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Notes and Discussions 373

in his personal copy of his famous Liber chronicarum ( Nuremberg, 1493).23 There-
fore, ep. 758 and ep. 1363 might well have entered Pithou’s compilation either because
he had collected them from an unidentified codex containing allegedly ancient poems
(most probably a contemporary miscellanea with a mix of ancient and modern poems,
including anonyma), or because someone copied them out of their original context and
sent them to Pithou without attributions to Marullo. If this is the case, one may doubt
the authenticity of admoveat in ep. 758, 4 and et plenus in ep. 758, 5, which can perhaps
be regarded as corruptions of at moveat and at plenus, respectively.
We must end this note in a state of informed aporia. A detailed exploration of the
sources for Pithou’s collection might eventually reveal the origin of ep. 758 and ep. 1363.
This search is made more difficult by the fact that Pithou did not indicate the prove-
nance of individual poems, while his personal library was dispersed after his death.24
Perhaps only a scopritore felice will be able to settle the issue. In any case, future stu-
dents and editors of Marullo’s epigrams need to take into account ep. 758 and ep. 1363
in their discussions of E. 1.14 and E. 2.30. In the unlikely case that the poems, or one of
them, should turn up in an ancient manuscript that modern editors of the Anthology for
some reason overlooked, a new edition would need to include them.25

Han Lamers
Humboldt University of Berlin

23. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Rar. 287, fol. 309r. See here Wuttke 1976.
24. On the history and the dispersion of the Pithou library, see Bibolet 1998. A starting point for further
inquiry would be Pithou’s surviving correspondence with François Juret, which I was unable to consult (cf.
Gillett 2003, 290).
25. I am very grateful to my anonymous peers for their supportive and insightful comments on an earlier
draft of this note.

Literature Cited

Modern Editions, Anthologies, and Translations

Baehrens, Emil, ed. 1879–83. Poetae Latini Minores. 5 vols. Leipzig.
Bandemer, Susanne von, ed. 1802. Neue vermischte Gedichte. Berlin.
Botley, Paul, and Dirk van Miert, eds. 2012. The Correspondence of Joseph Justus Scaliger.
8 vols. Geneva.
Breysig, A., ed. 1899. Germanici Caesaris . . . accedunt epigrammata. Leipzig.
Fantazzi, Charles, trans. 2012. Michael Marullus: Poems. ITRL 54. Cambridge, Mass.
Guillot, Roland, and Daniel Delas, trans. 2011. Michel Marulle: Oeuvres complètes. Vol. 1, Epi-
grammaton libri quattuor. Paris.
Hutter, Johann B. 1831. Lateinische Anthologie zum Gebrauch für die untern Classen gelehrter
Schulen. Munich.
Meyer, Heinrich. 1835. Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum: Editionem
Burmannianam digessit et auxit Henricus Meyerus. Leipzig.
Orelli, G. G. 1838. Germanici Caesaris . . . reliquiae quae extant omnes. London.
Perosa, Alessandro, ed. 1951. Michaelis Marulli carmina. Turici.
Riese, Alexander, and Franz Bücheler. 1894–1926. Anthologia Latina sive poesis Latinae supple-
mentum. 2 vols. Leipzig.
Shackleton Bailey, David R., ed. 1982. Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina. Stuttgart.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
374 Notes and Discussions

Modern Scholarship
Bertalot, Ludwig. 1985. Initia humanistica Latina. Vol. 1, Poesie. Tübingen.
Bibolet, F. 1998. Bibliotheca Pithoeana, les manuscrits de Pierre Pithou: Une histoire de fraternité
et d’amitié. In Du copiste au collectionneur: Mélanges d’histoire des textes et des bibliothèques
en l’honneur d’André Vernet, ed. Donatella Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda, Jean François Genest, and
André Vernet, 497–521. Turnhout.
Busch, Stephan. 2009. Versus ex variis locis deducti: On Ancient Collections of Epigrams. In The
Neo-Latin Epigram: A Learned and Witty Genre, ed. Susanna T. M. De Beer, Karl A. E. Enen-
kel, and David Rijser, 25–40. Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia 25. Leuven.
Enenkel, Karl A. E. 2009. The Neo-Latin Epigram: Humanist Self-Definition in a Learned and
Witty Discourse. In The Neo-Latin Epigram: A Learned and Witty Genre, ed. Susanna T. M.
De Beer, Karl A. E. Enenkel, and David Rijser, 1–23. Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia
25. Leuven.
Gillett, Andrew. 2003. Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411–533.
Cambridge.
Irmscher, Hans Dietrich, and Emil Adler. 1979. Der handschriftliche Nachlass Johann Gottfried
Herders. Wiesbaden.
Kidwell, Carol. 1989. Marullus: Soldier Poet of the Renaissance. London.
Mariotti, Scevola. 2010. La Grecia nella poesia del Marullo. In Scritti medievali e umanistici 3, ed.
Silvia Rizzo, 401–9. Rome.
Meirelles Gouvêa, Márcio, Jr. 2010. Carmina Imperialia: As veleidades poéticas dos Césares.
Ágora: Estudos clássicos em debate 12: 71–96.
Meyier, Karel Adriaan de. 1973. Codices Vossiani Latini. Vol. 1. Leiden.
Perosa, Alessandro. 2000. Aggiunte al testo del Marullo. In Studi di filologia umanistica, ed. Paolo
Vitti, 3: 245–53. Rome.
Reeve, M. D. 1985. Review of Anthologia Latina 1.1, ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Phoenix
39: 174–80.
Schaller, Dieter, and Ewald Könsgen. 1977. Initia carminum Latinorum saeculo undecimo an-
tiquiorum: Bibliographisches Repertorium für die lateinische Dichtung der Antike und des
früheren Mittelalters. Göttingen.
Schaller, Dieter, Ewald Könsgen, and Thomas Klein. 2005. Initia carminum Latinorum saeculo
undecimo antiquiorum: Bibliographisches Repertorium für die lateinische Dichtung der Antike
und des früheren Mittelalters. Göttingen.
Schetter, Willy. 1983. Scaliger, Cujas und der Leidensis Voss. Lat. Q. 86. Hermes 111: 363–71.
Vredeveld, Harry. 1985. The Authorship of Anthologia Latina 899. CP 80: 45–46.
Walther, Hans. 1969. Initia carminum ac versuum medii aevi posterioris Latinorum. 2nd rev. ed.
Göttingen.
Wuttke, Dieter. 1976. Hartmann Schedel zitiert Michael Marullus Tarchaniota. Mitteilungen des
Vereines für die Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 63: 362–63.

Early Modern Editions and Scholarship

Amsteloveen, Th. J. van, ed. 1694. Epigrammata et poëmata vetera. Amsterdam.
Besold, Christoph. 1624. Dissertatio philologica de arte iureque belli. Strasbourg.
Burman, Pieter, ed. 1759–73. Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poëmatum sive
Catalecta pöetarum Latinorum in VI. libros digesta, ex marmoribus et monumentis inscriptio-
num vetustis et codicibus mss. eruta. 2 vols. Amsterdam.
Casaubon, Isaac. 1647. Caius Suetonius Tranquillus cum Isaaci Casauboni animadversionibus.
Strasbourg.
Moreri, Louis. 1759. Le grand dictionnaire historique, ou, Le mélange curieux de l’Histoire sacrée
et profane. Vol. 5. Paris.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Notes and Discussions 375

Pithou, Pierre, ed. 1596. Epigrammata et poematia vetera quorum pleraque nunc primum ex an-
tiquis codicibus et lapidibus, alia sparsim antehac errantia, iam undecunque collecta emenda-
tiora eduntur. Paris.
———, ed. 1590. Epigrammata et poematia vetera quorum pleraque nunc primum ex antiquis
codicibus et lapidibus, alia sparsim antehac errantia, iam undecunque collecta emendatiora
eduntur. Paris.
Rivet de la Grange, Antoine, et al., eds. 1733. Histoire littéraire de la France. Vol 1. Paris.
Röhrensee, Christian, and Ludolph Peter Benckendorf. 1705. Dissertatio de milite cive et extero.
Wittenberg.

This content downloaded from

132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:36:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms