In this volume F., seasoned scholar and the author of critical editions of both Manilius (1996) and Lucretius (2002–2009), presents a collection of previously published essays dealing with the manuscript traditions of these two poets. Many of the essays, which are organised chronologically, detail F.'s fiercely polemical engagement especially with M.D. Reeve and G.P. Goold, whom the excitable F. labels as A.E. Housman's ‘scialbi e pallidi seguaci’ (p. 71). On a broader scale, the book is a synoptic outline of F.'s position in a debate that has lasted for over three decades, and that not only involves the manuscript traditions of ancient authors but also implicates the methodologies of scholars from Richard Bentley to Markus Deufert. Although limited space prevents a full account of the longstanding accusations of incompetence and misrepresentation levelled between F. and his adversaries, a brief summary of the chapters may be helpful to those unacquainted with the context.
The first chapter involves criticism of A.E. Housman with respect to an emendation made to Astr. 5.404–5, the origin of which the British scholar, according to F., was ignorant on account of his ‘non completa valutazione e conoscenza della filologia anteriore al grande rinnovamento dalla fine del ‘700’’ (p. 1). Having traced the source of this emendation to the Dutch humanist Tiberius Hemsterhuis, F. goes on to establish an important contrast between the Dutchman, whose philological methods are comparable to a ‘scienze esatte’ (p. 5), and Bentley, whose textual criticism is pejoratively described as ‘massima vulgata’ (p. 6). The implication of this contrast is revealed in later essays, in which F. closely associates the methods of his British rivals with those of Bentley. The second chapter investigates the histories of two Manilian manuscripts, Marc. 12.69 and Caesen. 25.5. With regard to Marc., F. rejects the view, maintained by Reeve and Goold (for which, see Reeve's chapter in Texts and Transmission: a Survey of the Latin Classics [1983], pp. 235–8), that it was a direct copy of an older manuscript identified as L (Lipsiensis, otherwise known as Cusanus). Relying on passages that show numerous contradictory readings between the two MSS, F. concludes that Marc. must have been the product of two independent sources: Cusanus and a German copy produced at Murbach (Murbacensis). Although F.'s meticulous analysis is revealing, one is struck by the force with which he presents an elaborate and educated conviction as historical fact. In general, F. argues for a more complicated view involving frequent contamination and rejects his rivals' more ‘vertical’ stemma as ‘destituita di ogni fondamento e pertanto falsa’ (p. 33).
The next two chapters, which are again directed at Reeve and Goold respectively, substantially overlap with arguments presented in the previous essay. Therefore, I shall attempt to avoid repetition and summarise only new contributions to the debate. The third chapter is a response to Reeve's article ‘The Marcianus of Manilius’, Vichiana 18 (1989), 341–9, in which the argument is made that Marc. and M, the latter one of three fundamental Manilian manuscripts, were collated with each other and subsequently became the source of a mixed family of manuscripts including Caesen. F. reacts to this view by advancing the same argument he had given previously, namely, that the evidence of contamination in these manuscripts renders direct transmission problematic. Accusing Reeve of having contradicted his own thesis of direct descent by admitting to readings taken from a different source (p. 38), F. again advances his view regarding the intermediary role of Murbacensis as the source of Marc. In the fourth chapter various criticisms of Goold's 1985 Teubner edition of Manilius are presented, the substance of which is closely tied to the controversy surrounding the archetype's identity (summarised in A. Maranini's Filologia fantastica: Manilio e i suoi ‘Astronomica’, [1994], pp. 319–24). F. gives two reasons for which he cannot accept the assertion, made in Goold's preface, that the archetype reappeared at Speyer in the fifteenth century and became the direct source of the three manuscripts M, P and N. First, the errors shared between these are ‘non poi in numero tale, e di tale significatività, da presupporre un antigrafo comune’ (p. 51). Second, he continues to maintain with absolute certainty that the source of M is to be located at Murbach rather than at Speyer. The chapter ends with numerous criticisms of Goold's apparatus – a bold and rather hypocritical censure, especially since F.'s own apparatus is certainly not free from error.
The fifth chapter was originally published three years before the appearance of F.'s edition of Manilius, and in both works he vigorously promotes his first-hand knowledge of the manuscript tradition through autopsy and proudly declares independence from previous scholars' interpretations. This is conveniently contrasted with Goold's edition which, according to F., depends entirely on Housman and fails to challenge the latter's apparently infallible auctoritas (p. 57). But F.'s description of Goold as a ‘fedele pedisequus di Housman’ (p. 70) is unwarranted, especially since there are numerous instances in which Goold deviates from Housman's conjectures (e.g. 1.25, where interius is preferred to Housman's ulterius, and 1.88, where Goold prints iter instead of Housman's linter). Overall, most of F.'s arguments seem to revolve around the assertion that scholars like Goold and Reeve follow their British predecessors with a religious devotion, even taking up ‘una crociata in difesa della parola di Housman’ (p. 71). In the following chapter F. considers Reeve's critical review of his edition of Manilius in Gnomon 1 (2000), 15–21. While defending his own work, he attempts to refrain from emotional outbursts and declares that Reeve's criticisms are personal, ad hominem and motivated by ‘mala fede’ (p. 72). Nothing, however, could be more personal than the vitriolic evaluation of D.R. Shackleton Bailey, who, in F.' opinion, ‘dovrebbe essere incriminato per aver assassinato tutti i testi latini sui quail ha messo le mani’ (p. 70). In his response to Reeve's objections to his edition of Manilius, F. manages to consider some issues in detail but completely ignores others (e.g. the omission of a stemma detailing the most important MSS, the criticisms of F.'s shorthand in the apparatus and the exclusion of an index rerum).
I shall pass over the next two chapters, which deal with the history of Manilian and Lucretian codices respectively, and address F.'s response to the criticisms of German and British scholars regarding his more recent edition of Lucretius. The overarching issue addressed in Chapter 9 is the relationship between the ninth-century MS O (Oblongatus) and a fifteenth-century copy commissioned by Poggio and identified by F. as (P). On the whole, F. argues against K. Müller, M. Deufert and Reeve for the independence of (P) from O and consequently for the inherent value of the Italian manuscript tradition descended from (P). Various insults are directed towards his rivals, but virtually nothing is said about E.J. Kenney's enlightening review of F.'s first volume of Lucretius in Classical Review 54 (2004), 366–70, in which various inaccuracies, omissions and orthographical problems are discussed. The last chapter addresses D. Butterfield's critical review of F.'s third volume of Lucretius, published in 2009. In his response to Butterfield, F. employs his usual method: accusations of intellectual dependence on predecessors (the familiar term ‘pedisequo’ appears once again) and criticisms involving incompetence with regard to the Latin in F.'s apparatus.
F.'s representation of textual problems is understandably one-sided, but his criticism is at times overly disparaging. Indeed, in many cases an equally vigorous but more restrained tenor would have been more appropriate (if not more convincing). Nevertheless, the fact that this volume systematically records the viewpoints of a respected and battle-hardened expert in the field makes it indispensable for serious scholars of Manilius and Lucretius.
