¹ See LCM 9.10 (December 1984), 151; 10.1 (January 1985), 16; 15.10 (December 1990), 150–1, 18.8 (October 1993), 126–7; CQ² 44 (1994), 486

² Reprinted from Opera (Paris, 1642), iii.251; in Gaetani's first edition, Opera (Rome, 606–15), i.103–4 and the separate edition of Peter's letters (Paris, 1610) this was epist. 2.14.

³ Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae 2: Die Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit, 4: Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, iii(Munich, 1989), no. 106, pp. 168–85. Our passage appears on p. 169.

⁴ For another instance of Grilliuswrongly emended toGelliussee Hertz, loc. cit.

⁵ P. 169 n. 3; the statement is not corrected in the supplementary note at vol. iv (Munich, 1993), p. 547

⁶ Quorum si aliquid incident, manifestum est controversiam stare non posse; that is to say, it is (parum consistensGell. 9.15.6), a term for which there is no recognized English equivalent. Malcolm Heath, in his translation of Hermogenes,On Issues(Oxford, 1995), p. 30, makes such questions ‘lack issue’.

⁷ Read deliberat debeat credere?

⁸ De vita Galfridi archiepiscopiEboracensis 2.19 (‘Descriptio beluae multiformis’), Brewer J. S. (ed.),Giraldi Cambrensis Opera iv (London, 1873), p. 425.

⁹ The same passage of the Geticawas exploited soon afterwards in a letter ostensibly written to Philip of Dreux, bishop of Beauvais, who had been taken prisoner by Richard's brother and subsequent successor John on 19 May 1996, by Pope Celestine III (d. 8 January 1998), reproduced in Roger of Howden (d. 1201?), Stubbs W. (ed.),Chronica, s.a. 1997, iv (London, 1871), 23: ‘Sinistre licet tibi euenit, nee mirum: cunctorum enim meretur odium qui omnium se in commune approbat inimicum.‘ In a footnote, Stubbs observes ‘It is hardly necessary to remark that this letter is a fabrication’.

¹⁰ Ed. Webb C. C. J. (Oxford, 1909), ii.335.

¹¹ Publilius is Publiusin most MSS of Macrobius as of Gellius; Clodius P. has just been mentioned at Sat. 2.6.6. That Macrobius, not Gellius, is John's source appears from the most cursory comparison.

¹² On which he largely relied for his classical authorities: see Goddu A. A. and Rouse R. H., ‘Gerald of Wales and the Florilegium Angelicum’, Speculum52 (1977), 488–521.

¹³ One may envisage a commonplace book in which Gerald, having ascribed the verse toAgelliusin the margin, followed it with the unattributed passage from Jordanes

¹⁴ As when Gerald assigns to Gellius a passage of Ennodius also known to him from the Florilegium Angelicum (Goddu and Rouse, art. cit., pp. 512–13) or Petrus Cantor a passage of Valerius Maximus from the Valerio-Gellian florilegium (Holford-Strevens, CQ² 44 [1994], 486).