This collection of previously published papers by B., who was professor in Genoa and died in 2012, is dedicated to Nonius Marcellus. B. was a well-known specialist of Nonius and De compendiosa doctrina (C.D.) has been a privileged subject of study by the colleagues of the University of Genoa starting from a fundamental paper by F. Della Corte about the Lex Lindsay (Aevum 16 [1942], 57–68).

The fourteen papers, published between 1967 and 2009, concentrate on the C.D. by Nonius and connected authors such as Fulgentius, Priscian, Perotti's Cornucopiae and Osbern of Gloucester. There is also a good preface by J.-L. Charlet, editor of the new edition of Perotti's Cornu Copiae (see below, n. 1): he describes B.'s scholarly activity step by step.

The first paper (pp. 13–76) is about the C.D. and the indirect tradition. B. takes into account Nonius' mistakes and gives a precise distribution of them following the different kinds of errors. It is very clear that Lindsay's edition is now unreliable, and this worthy paper could be considered as an introduction to a new edition of Nonius. At the end of the paper B. focusses on seven types of Nonius' mistakes and on the important point that in the Middle Ages a Nonius plenior surely existed. R.P. Oliver (in TAPhA 78 [1947], 376–424 [p. 400]) spoke of a Nonius auctus, but B.'s expression is more correct, because this was a text richer than the Nonius that we have today (p. 182). In the following paper (pp. 77–110) B. corrects L. Müller, Strzelecki and Pizzani; considering all the lemmata present in Fulgentius and in Nonius he comes to the conclusion that Fulgentius depended upon Nonius and that Verrius Flaccus' and Festus' doctrine arrived to Fulgentius through Nonius. A similar accurate inquiry on the dependency of Priscian upon Nonius occurs in the third paper (pp. 111–56). There are 133 lemmata and quotations which are common to Priscian's Institutiones and to Nonius' C.D.; 85 of them can be considered casual, 21 are probable dependences of Priscian upon Nonius and 27 are sure dependences. On the other hand Priscian used only the first twelve books of Nonius and excluded the last eight, with the exception in the first case of Book 5, and in the second of Book 15 (cf. pp. 328–9). B. never forgot, using these later writers, to correct/improve the text of some classical authors, such as Virgil, Sallust and Cicero.

In the paper about Niccolò Perotti (pp. 169–85) B. pleads for Perotti's credibility against Timpanaro, who believed that Perotti did not give up the Humanistic method of integrating and inventing (Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 5 [1952], 208). B. too, however, admits that at Cornu Copiae, col. 150.22 Plaut. Nulla est fenestratior domus, the hypothesis of a falsification by Perotti is the most credible theory. However, B. shows that Perotti's quotation of Roman writers is usually authentic and B. supposes he had at his disposal a plenior redaction of Nonius. Thus many new fragments of Roman authors could be detected through an attentive examination of Perotti's incredibly rich Cornu Copiae sive linguae Latinae commentarii. B., like Timpanaro, does not exclude the possibility that Perotti's misunderstanding was due to his sources, but refuses to admit a voluntary falsification by Perotti. B. wrote a number of papers on Perotti's Cornu Copiae and Nonius, four of which have been collected in this volume.Footnote ¹ In the following paper (pp. 205–13) B. takes into account the question whether some traces of the lost Book 16 of Nonius' C.D. can be found in Perotti's Cornu Copiae, assuming that Perotti used a Nonius plenior. Also in the Policraticus by John of Salisbury is quoted an etymology given by Nonius which does not appear in our copy of C.D., another proof of the existence in the Middle Ages of a Nonius plenior.

The following paper (pp. 223–30) is also dedicated to Perotti and B.'s aim is to prove again that Perotti was not a falsifier. Perotti combined material from different authors but did not invent the information that he gives. B. shows this peculiarity through some examples: Perotti, Corn. p. 216.61 combines data from three authors, Nonius, p. 868 L., Varro, Ling. 5.133 and Festus-Paulus, p. 104 L. Nonius explains Laena, vestimentum militare, quod supra omnia vestimenta sumitur and gives the example Virg. Aen. 4.262 ‘Tyrioque ardebat murice laena’. Varro insists on the large coverage of this mantle: lena, quod de lana multa, duarum etiam togarum instar; ut antiquissimum mulierum ricinium, sic hoc duplex virorum. Festus-Paulus inquires into the origin of the word: laena vestimenti genus habitu duplicis. Quidam appellatam existimant Tusce, quidam Graece, quam χλανίδα dicunt. Perotti, on his side, writes (I emphasise in bold the words Perotti assumed from his sources): Laena … vestis genus est militaris villorum crassitudine calefaciens chlamydem. utuntur hac hyeme, ac supra omnia vestimentainduunt. Virgilius tyrioque ardebat murice laena. Varro laenama lanadictam putat. Ego potius ἀπὸ τῆς χλαίναςlaenam deductam existimo detractione primae litterae. Chlaena autem ἀπὸ τοῦ χλαίνειν deducitur quod tepefacere est. Perotti added a personal deduction and this proves, B. thinks, that he combined rather than invented data: ‘Questo è un bell'esempio dell'abituale tecnica compositiva del Perotti … la tecnica è sempre quella del compilatore, del mosaicista, del tessitore, del rapsodo, non quella del falsario’ (p. 226). But I am not completely sure that Perotti did not want to intervene with some personal observation into the discussion as in the case of Chlaena > Laena, and such an intervention raises doubt about Perotti's total innocence. It did not need great cleverness to invent the derivation Chlaena > Laena, nor much more that an improbable χλαίνειν (instead of χλιαίνειν) means ‘tepefacere’. B. (pp. 310–22) gives a good survey of the different positions on this subject, from H. Jocelyn to the editors of the Cornu Copiae, J.L. Charlet and others, who excluded the possibility that Perotti was an intentional falsifier, but rather think that for every quotation by him we must control the source and, if this is not clear enough, put such a passage in an appendix locorum suspectorum.

The following two papers concern Osbernus of Gloucester's lexicon, Derivationes (pp. 231–40), and a preface and specimen of an edition (pp. 241–55). B. relates how he began to prepare the edition of Derivationes Books 1–2, with a staff of younger scholars of the University of Genoa. They found another team headed by Vincenzo Ussani in Rome engaged in the same enterprise. The second paper presents a specimen of the edition (Osberno, Derivazioni, a cura di Paola Busdraghi [et al.], sotto la direzione di F. Bertini e V. Ussani jr [1996], 2 vols.) and a list of the manuscripts.

Of the last two papers, the first is a valuable intervention on the use and knowledge of Nonius in the Middle Ages up to Perotti (pp. 258–322) and the second (pp. 323–32) is about the relationship between Nonius and Priscian. Particularly noteworthy in the first contribution are the pages dedicated to Lupus of Ferrières, who shows a great knowledge of Nonius by quoting some lemmata by him. Lupus appears as corrector or annotator in many manuscripts (more than 40) and B. points out the incredible love for sapientia which is witnessed by Lupus in the letter to Einhard (1 §5, p. 2 Marshall) and on other occasions, as well as the enormous group of classical and Christian authors to whom Lupus devoted his attention.

This book is an important contribution to the knowledge of the history of the Classics in the Middle Ages as well as for some particular authors such as Nonius Marcellus, Fulgentius, Priscian, the Medieval Lexica and the Humanist Nicolò Perotti. I regret the absence of indexes and a bibliography, but I am grateful to the editors for this intelligent collection of papers.