10.15160/1826-803X/1599
The paper aims at investigating the manuscript tradition of Dante’s Comedy until the early printed editions. After a brief overview of different typologies of the most ancient manuscript tradition (14th century, first half), the analysis will focus on some famous copyists of the Comedy (e.g. Francesco di ser Nardo da Barberino, the ‘copyist of Parm’), then, it will investigate the main codicological features that identify some of the most important codices of Dante’s masterpiece.
application/pdf
1826-803X
1599
it
Sandro Bertelli
Sezione di Lettere
Romance Philology.
<I>Dante Alighieri's "Comedy": codices, copyists and scriptures</I>
Text.Serial.Journal
https://annali.unife.it/lettere
Letteratura
2018-07-23
2018-02-18
2018-07-23
2022-01-24
44-84
AOLF
Sandro Bertelli
2017
10.15160/1826-803X/1599
44
1826-803X
Romance Philology.
it
84
<I>Dante Alighieri's "Comedy": codices, copyists and scriptures</I>
https://annali.unife.it/lettere/article/download/1599/1438
                                     SANDRO BERTELLI


                    Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”:
                  codices, copyists and scriptures*

In the last few years, there have been several surveys – not only the codicological-
palaeographical ones – dedicated to the manuscript tradition of Dante’s Comedy, that
have achieved significant results: just looking at the editions of Salerno Editrice
publishing on Dante’s commentaries 1 , or at the most recent philological research
(intended mostly to build on the National Edition by Giorgio Petrocchi, produced on the
occasion of the 7th centenary of the birth of the Poet, and published in the years 1966-
67)2, as well as the vigorous revival of studies on the manuscripts and ateliers, which led
to the recent discovery of a new portrait of Homer in Dante’s Toledo codex (a Giovanni
Boccaccio autograph) 3 . Nevertheless, a few scholars have dedicated themselves to
investigating the different codex typologies that are peculiar to the manuscript tradition
of the Divine Comedy4.
    Thus, the aim of this paper is to identify the formal standard features of Dante’s
codices that allow us to collect the manuscripts into precise groups, i.e. to distinguish
handbook types, realized by the copyists as such, and henceforth demanded and sought
after by customers. In other words, our purpose is to verify if Dante’s Comedy, in its
extraordinary tradition, had a model book, or also more several patterns attributable to
the nature and form of the manuscripts.



* I wish to thank Richard Chapman (University of Ferrara) and Paolo Trovato (University of Ferrara) for
revising the text and for stylistic suggestions.
1Among the most recent at least worthy of note is VOLPI (2010); AZZETTA (2012); RINALDI (2013); and the
most recent commentary by PAVARINI (2014).
2A phase inaugurated grosso modo with the revised reprint of the work (PETROCCHI, 1966-1967), that
certainly stimulated, after some decades of quiet, interest in the text of the Commedia. Thus, remarkable
publications followed, such as the editions LANZA (1995); and SANGUINETI (2001). But worth mentioning,
among others are the most recent specialized studies collected firstly in TROVATO (2007); and later in
TONELLO – TROVATO (2013).
3See at least BOSCHI ROTIROTI (2004); BERTELLI (2011a); (2016). The discovery of Homer’s portrait was
announced for the first time by Sandro Bertelli and Marco Cursi in the paper E Boccaccio raffigurò Omero,
published on p. 25 of the Sunday issue of Il Sole 24ore, July 15, 2012; while the first scientific inquiry
appeared in the paper BERTELLI – CURSI (2012, 287-95).
4As in the case of the survey and study of 14th century manuscripts in humanistic script, on which see
BERTELLI (2007a).
Bertelli                                                                       AOFL XII (2017), 2, 45-84


      As is well known, a little, or almost nothing is known about the earliest circulation of
the Poem. According to the most recent scholarship, when Dante’s sons, Pietro and
Iacopo, returned to Florence – both were already in the Tuscan city in 1325 – the
Comedy was unquestionably already in its complete and unitary form, that is to say,
with the three cantiche (or parts) collected: we do not know where this was realized,
maybe in a town in northern Italy, possibly in Emilia or Romagna5. The fact is that, if we
are to believe the indications in the Aldine edition of 1515, owned by the erudite
Florentine Luca Martini (now at the Biblioteca Braidense in Milan, known as Mart)6, a
codex written by the parish priest Forese Donati between October 1330 and January 1331
circulated in Florence and thus contained the entire Poem. That manuscript seems to
have been lost, but there are several identified variants, such as those taken up in 1548 by
Luca Martini in his exemplar. Nevertheless, aside from these readings and the fact that it
was written – according to Martini’s own description – «in a mercantile hand» (to be
understood in its more generic acceptation to mean ‘cursive’), we know nothing else
about what this ancient manuscript may have looked like7. Martini also owned another
codex, used with other copies in 1546 at the parish church of San Gavino in Mugello,
where the erudite Florentine had gone to collate the Comedy in the company of
Benedetto Varchi (1503-1565), among others. However, all we know about this codex is
that it was on «vellum [parchment] well written in the year 1329», but it too is now part
of the long list of manuscripts of the Comedy that have been lost forever 8 . All that
remain of the oldest tradition are minimal and sporadic attestations in several very
limited fragments (transcriptions from memory, some of which completed during the
poet’s lifetime), the most substantial of which contain the verses from Inf. V 1-23
transcribed in a Registro dated 1319 and from Purg. XI 1-24 in a Memoriale dated 1327:
the Memoriali and Registri of Bologna notaries, conserved in the city’s Archivio di Stato
(Bo), are famous.




5   See CIOCIOLA (2001, 174-76, with former bibliography). It’s useful to see also MALATO (2004, 91-106).
6Ms. Aldina AP XVI 25, on which see PETROCCHI (1966-1967, vol. I, 76-78). For a recent description, also
see ROMANINI (2007a, 55f.).
7On this subject, see VANDELLI (1922, 111-44). See also the remarks made by SAVINO (2000, 6); and BOSCHI
ROTIROTI (2004, 65f.).
8 For general statistics, see GUIDI (2007, 215-28). Guidi based his analysis on the data presented by BOSCHI
ROTIROTI (2004, 109f.). He distinguishes and quantifies the manuscript production over three periods: 83
mss. belong to the first one (1321-1350); 210 mss. are due to the second period (1351-1400); 439 mss. dated
back to the third period (1401-1500), for a total amount of 732 manuscripts. However, Guidi suggests some
interesting remarks also on the lost materials, estimating a loss exceeding 70 per cent (GUIDI, 2007, 224).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                        AOFL XII (2017), 2, 46-84


1. Early circulation of Dante’s masterpiece


Since Dante’s autograph manuscripts have been lost, as have the first copies of the entire
Poem following his death, the oldest complete witness in our possession is the famous
Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Ashburnham 828, known to Giorgio Petrocchi
as Ash (Table 1), not surprisingly known as the “Antichissimo” (‘very ancient’), for
obvious reason, given that it is dated before 1335: then, since the manuscript is of Pisan
linguistic origin, it should be dated with reference to the common style, i.e. dating back a




               Tab. 1. Ash, f. 35r
Bertelli                                                                         AOFL XII (2017), 2, 47-84


year to 1334. Consequently, we are chronologically very close to the two famous
manuscripts mentioned here, forcing us to note that by the late 1320s or, at most, the
early 1330s the definitive version of the Comedy circulated not only in the Pisan area but
also around Florence.
      There were two copyists who worked at the current version of Ash, both writing in
littera textualis: the first was responsible for the text of the Comedy (fols. 1rA-102rB); the
other, who also signed the codex (on fol. 104rB, where we find: «d’ogosto
MCCCXXXV»: August 1335), copied the Capitolo by Iacopo Alighieri (fols. 103rA-
104rA)9. It is noteworthy that the two copyists were contemporary, but they came from
the same atelier as well, working side by side, as demonstrated by both a historical-
philological analysis, and by codicological-palaeographical study. 10 Briefly, the oldest
extant copy of the Comedy (written shortly before August 1334) is a manuscript that
associates the text of the Poem with that of Iacopo Alighieri’s Capitolo, and it was thus
planned, organized and completed as a codex. From a codicological standpoint, it is a
parchment manuscript in a medium-large format (311 × 232 mm.), with the text of the
Comedy and Iacopo’s Capitolo arranged in two columns, written in littera textualis and
with a rather austere decorative apparatus composed of simple pen-flourished initials,
which differ when they are in cantiche or cantos, with all the other typical decorative
motives distinguishing Gothic manuscripts: red rubrics, red and blue paragraph signs,
majuscules with yellow or red touches.
      Notwithstanding its antiquity and authoritativeness, the model book represented by
Ash was not very successful, nor did it leave a clear and decisive mark on the rest of the
manuscript tradition of the Comedy, at least judging from the extant fourteenth codices:
of about 300 manuscripts dated to the 14th century (out of a total of more than 800) 11, in
fact, ca. thirty of them at most share Ash’s macroscopic formal characteristics (such as
medium-large format, the two columns mise en page, and the script), that is barely 10%.
This fact is quite surprising, as the formal aspects of the extremely old Ash codex are
also the most frequent in Italian vernacular manuscript production of the early 14th
century12. In short, it is the formal layout that best follows tradition and best identifies
the book as a “container”, even if concerning the text of the Comedy it evidently does not
fit with the requirements of the patrons. If we consider a fourth parameter, in addition to

9   On Ash and its updated description, see BERTELLI (2011a, 346f. n. 13, fig. 16).
10   As shown by BERTELLI (2011a, 38-40).
11An overview essay on the 13th century manuscripts is BOSCHI ROTIROTI (2004); on generale statistics, see
also GUIDI (2007, 215-28).
12 See   on this regard my two volumes BERTELLI (2002, 27-31; and 2011b, 23-28).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                                          AOFL XII (2017), 2, 48-84


the above-mentioned formal characteristics, that is to say, the presence of another text in
connection to that of the Comedy, i.e. Iacopo’s Capitolo13, we should note that among the
thirty or so copies, only four manuscripts were influenced by this book type, namely ms.
Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton 203 (Ham), copied in 1347 by Tommaso Benetti da
Lucca14; the ms. Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 40.11, dated to the fifth
decade of the 14th century15; the ms. Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Palatino
319, also grosso modo coeval to the Laurentian manuscript 16 ; and a codex still
underestimated by the most recent studies, but surely datable to the second quarter or
not later than the mid-14th century, that is the exceptional manuscript Padua, Biblioteca
del Seminario vescovile, codex no. 2 (Table 2)17. Like Ash, all four of these manuscripts
contain, besides the text of the Comedy, either Iacopo Alighieri’s Capitolo alone (as in
the case of the Berlin ms.), or Iacopo’s Capitolo together with that of Bosone da Gubbio
(as is the case with the other three).




                                Tab. 2. Padova, Bibl. Seminario, Ms. 2, f. 1r




13   On Iacopo Alighieri’s Capitolo, see GIUNTI (2007, 583-610).
14Described by PETROCCHI (1966-1967, vol. I, 68f.) and RODDEWIG (1984, 9-10 n. 15, fig. 5, the colophon and
copyst’s sign are reproduced).
15   Described by BERTELLI (2011a, 327f. n. 1, fig. 1, with former bibliography).
16   See BERTELLI (2011a, 377f. n. 32, fig. 38, with former bibliography).
17   Described by RODDEWIG (1984, 227 n. 532).
Bertelli                                                                      AOFL XII (2017), 2, 49-84


      The structure of the contents is certainly not random, but was instead intentionally
studied by copyists and thus patrons, above all during this period (the first half of the
14th century): not only because the arguments obviously coincide, but also due to the
complementarity of their intentions and treatment. In fact, while Iacopo Alighieri aims
at concisely exposing the main structure, the content of his father’s work, Bosone da
Gubbio describes the meaning of some of the principal allegories of the Comedy
episodically (for example, he discusses the significance of the tree beasts, or the figures of
Virgil and Beatrix, and so on). This is why the two Capitoli are often paired in
Dantesque manuscripts, thus representing a sort of ‘framework’ for the Comedy.
      Nevertheless, in the four manuscripts we have mentioned, we can also note a
macroscopic difference with respect to the model they follow: the level of the decorative
work. As already noted, although in Ash the decorative apparatus is rather plain, in the
four manuscripts it is of a rather higher level; as a matter of fact, at the topical points of
the text (the initials of the cantiche in the Poem, the initials of the Capitoli, but also in
the large space next to them) there is a relevant decoration executed by brush, with
ornate initials and the presence of gold (and in the Paduan ms. – preserved in the library
of the earl Alfonso Speroni Alvarotti – there is also a series of other illuminations
running along the lower margin of the codex)18. It is evident that this is a different phase
in the manuscript production of the Poem and, henceforth, of Dante’s text. In other
words, from a chronological point of view, only a few years passed between the first and
the others, a decade at most. But these were the years in which the demand, the speed of
transmission and geographical circulation of the Comedy was extraordinary. In this
dynamic process – carried out by ateliers, where individuals with different
specializations operated, and a bustling book market – the approach to the Poem had
obviously changed, while the patrons’ tastes also evolved, following very closely the
trend of the time from a formal, aesthetic standpoint. The tendency of the moment was
oriented towards that type of decoration at certain parts of the manuscript.
      Moreover, there are at least two other book type of the Comedy from the early 14th
century that are certainly worth examining, because they are well represented in the
manuscript tradition of the Poem. The first of these refers to the appearance of the so-
called “Danti del Cento” (literally, ‘Dante’s hundreds manuscripts’)19.




18On the figurative aspects of this important Paduan manuscript, see MARIANI CANOVA (1997, 151-77, at p.
160).
19   See at least BOSCHI ROTIROTI (2004, 77-93, with further bibliography).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                                      AOFL XII (2017), 2, 50-84


The “Danti del Cento”


The definition of “Danti del Cento” is not an issue to be addressed here, as there are
well-known anecdotes by Vincenzio Borghini (1515-1580) and by some other 15th
century annotations within a small group of Florentine manuscripts20. For the purposes
of this paper, it must instead determine at least those codicological features, representing
the huge group of manuscripts realized in the “Cento style”.
     First of all, it consists of about 70 codices which share the following characteristics: a
medium-large format (350/400 mm. ca. high and 250 mm. wide); parchment support; a
length of approximately 90 fols.; the mise en page, i.e. the layout of the text into two
columns with the tercet initials extending into the margins; the prevalent use of the so-
called caesura among the cantiche (that is to say, the presence of a break among the
cantiche, marked by blank pages); a high-level decorative apparatus (with quite standard
images, such as Dante in the dark wood in the Inferno; Dante and Virgil on the boat in
the Purgatorio; and Dante and Beatrix in the Paradiso, otherwise Christ in Glory);
finally, a bastard secretary hand in the script21.
     Among others, only two manuscripts have the date and signature expressly indicated:
the codex Trivulziano 1080 (Triv; see Table 3)22 and Laurenziano Plut. 90 sup. 125 (Ga)23,
both written by the same copyist, Francesco di ser Nardo da Barberino, who executed
them in Florence, respectively the former in 1337, and the latter between September 1347
and March 134824. These two important manuscripts, as well as all the other manuscripts

20 It is worth remembering that in his Lettera intorno a’ manoscritti antichi [‘Letter on ancient
manuscripts’], Borghini wrote: «gli scrittori di que’ tempi furono per la maggior parte persone che ne
teneano bottega aperta, et vivevano di scrivere i libri a prezzo, et si conta d’uno che con cento Danti ch’egli
scrisse maritò non so quante sue figliuole, et di questo se ne trova ancora qualchuno, che si chiamano di
que’ del cento, et sono ragionevoli ma non però ottimi» [“writers were once for the most part people who
had open ateliers, writing books in order to be paid; among them, there was one who married a lot of
daughters by selling hundreds of Dante’s books. It is still possible to find some of these manuscripts, called
‘del cento’, that are fine copies, but not the best ones”]. See BELLONI (1995, 21).
21On the terminological question, see at least CASAMASSIMA (1988, 98f.); DE ROBERTIS BONIFORTI (1997,
58f.); and ZAMPONI (1997, 485-87).
22The decorative apparatus is due to the ability of the so-called Maestro delle Effigi Domenicane (a
misterious painter and miniaturist, active in Florence in the 1330s-1340s), on which see KANTER (2004, 560-
62). For a description of the codex, see RODDEWIG (1984, 189-90 n. 451). Also note that a spectacular
facsimile edition of this manuscript was issued in the occasion of the 7th centenary of Dante’s death, on
which see ROCCA (1921).
23Recently described by BERTELLI (2011b, 64-66 n. 34, figg. 52-53; and 2011a, 339-42 n. 9, figure 12, with
former bibliography).
24For a profile and a study of the production of the renowned copyist from Barberino Val d’Elsa (a town
near to Poggibonsi, not very far from Florence, in the province of Siena), see BERTELLI (2003, 408-21), where
there is a description both of the signed manuscripts and of those attributable to him (included a fragment
now preserved at Genève, Bibliothèque Publique et Universitaire, Comites Latentes 316, actually produced
Bertelli                                                                   AOFL XII (2017), 2, 51-84


of the same group, allow us to identify both the place of production of the entire group
of the Cento codices in the Florentine area, and to date them within a chronological
range, going from 1330s and 1340s circa.




                 Tab. 3. Triv, f. 1r



     The group of the “Danti del Cento” is characterized by anonym copyists and by an
extraordinary uniformity in the script, so that it is often difficult to distinguish one
copyist from another. Only recently, research by Gabriella Pomaro and Marisa Boschi
Rotiroti shed light on the various attributions, identifying the scripts of as many as seven
different scribes. These are defined as follows (in alphabetical order)25: the «copyist of


by the so-called «main copyist of the Cento», as demonstrated by BERTELLI (2007b, 9-33; and 2006, 77-90),
on the analysis of his production and with the description of a new codex, the ms. Roma, Biblioteca
Nazionale Centrale, Vittorio Emanuele 1189, containing the text Vite dei Santi Padri, in the vernacular
version of Domenico Cavalca, to which our copyist devoted himself during the 1330s.
25See in particular POMARO (1986, 343-74; 1994a; 1994b, 193-213; 1995, 497-536); and BOSCHI ROTIROTI (2004,
78).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                                    AOFL XII (2017), 2, 52-84


App» (Florence, BML, Ashburnham Appendice dantesca 1); the «copyist of Ashb»
(Florence, BML, Ashburnham 829); the «copyist of Lau» (Florence, BML, Plut. 40.16); the
«copyist of Parm» (Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, Parmense 3285); the «copyist of Pr»
(Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ital. 539); and the «copyist of Vat» (Vatican
City, BAV, Vat. lat. 3199); to whom must be added the much more prolific «main copyist
of the Cento»26.
     Out of about 70 manuscripts, those which are more interesting to us – as they
contain, besides the Comedy, other texts too – there are around 19 (just over 20%), in
which the Capitolo in tercet by Iacopo Alighieri, otherwise the Capitolo by Bosone da
Gubbio, sometimes together with the Capitolo by Iacopo, is preserved27. It is important
to note that these texts are almost always an appendix to the Poem (they are rarely at
the beginning of the manuscript). Obviously, these texts are ancillary works to the
Comedy, having the purpose of supporting the Poem as brief and sporadic explanations
to single issues or allegorical-symbolical aspects of Dante’s text. In short, their
importance in the framework of the book project is certainly subordinate; in fact, also
from a material viewpoint, their transcription extends to maximum 5 or 6 fols.
     An exception is the manuscript preserved in Bruxelles, Bibliotèque Royale Albert Ier,
14614-14615 and 14616, containing another small work, the Tesoretto by Brunetto Latini,
besides the Comedy and the Capitoli, in tercet by Iacopo and Bosone da Gubbio28. Three
copyists worked on writing this manuscript: the early two cantiche, the beginning of the
third cantica and the final Tesoretto (this one exceptionally arranged in three columns,
these are fols. 1rA-65rB and 95rA-106rA) are work of the first amanuensis, who writes in
a bastard secretary hand (“Cento style”), a harmonious and regular script; in the
Paradiso, some cantos (from V onwards, or fols. 65rB-76vA) are by another copyist,
having a bastard secretary hand that is more artificial and calligraphic, which is
followed, from the XVIII canto onwards including the two Capitoli (or fols. 76vB-93rB),


26For an overview on these copyists and a palaeographical analysis of the different handwritings, see
BERTELLI (2011a, 48-129).
27The manuscripts are: Belluno, Biblioteca Lolliniana, 35 (signed Lo); Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton
202; Berlin, Staatsbibl., Hamilton 203 (Ham); Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royale Albert Ier, 14614-15-16; Vatican
City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Chig. L.V.167; Vatican City, BAV, Urb. lat. 378; Florence, Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana, Pl. 90 sup. 127; Florence, BML, Ashb. App. dant. 1; Florence, BML, Strozzi 149;
Florence, BML, Strozzi 151; Florence, BML, Strozzi 152; Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, II.I.32;
Florence, BNC, Conv. Soppr. C.III.1262; Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, 1025; Florence, BR, 1033;
Holkham Hall, Library of the Earl of Leicester, 513; Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, 1080 (Triv); Paris,
Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ital. 528; and Paris, BnF, Ital. 529.
28For a description of the codex, see RODDEWIG (2004, 25 n. 51). A brief description and other information
in BOLTON HOLLOWAY (1986, 17).
Bertelli                                                                      AOFL XII (2017), 2, 53-84


by the elegant and distinctive hand of the so-called “copyist of Parm” (identifying
manuscript 3285 of the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma, see Table 4). It is clearly an atelier
product, but not an atelier at all! Due to graphic skilfulness and to dating (there are
documents of the years 1334-1339, attesting his activity), the “copyist of Parm” is
undoubtedly one of the most relevant interpreters of the writing embodying the style
known as “del Cento”. To his authorship other manuscripts are also attributable, besides
the ms. Parmense 3285, such as the fragments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at the Archivio di Stato in
Bologna and a part of the ms. Riccardiano 1025 (fols. 84vA-88rB), both containing the
Comedy; some Statuti preserved at the Archivio di Stato in Florence29; lastly, the ms.
Riccardiano 1578, with the vernacular version of Ovidius’ Epistolae by Filippo Ceffi30.




                     Tab. 4. Parm, f. 1r

      The handwriting style of the “copyist of Parm”, one of the most refined scribes of the
Comedy in the early 14th century, distinguishes itself from the several other
contemporary copyists due to its overwhelming tendency to the variatio, in particular

29It is, in particular: Statuti del Podestà, Ms. 7; Statuti dell’Arte di Calimala, Ms. 4 and Ms. 5; and Statuti
dei Capitani di Parte Guelfa, red nos. 2, on which see POMARO (2007, 243-79).
30   See BERTELLI (2011a, 75-78).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                                           AOFL XII (2017), 2, 54-84


when carrying out the letters d (Figure 1) and g (Figure 2), more generally emphasizing
crossbars and loops (Figures 3-4). From a morphological standpoint, a distinctive aspect
of the handwriting style of this copyist is the recurrent letter g, showing a rather
flattened loop, which is very stretched and inclining to be horizontal; or the double çç
(Figure 5), whose cedilla is formed by a unique stroke going down from the left letter to
the right one in a flowing shape, going up after executing a double loop. The execution
in two phases of a straight letter r (Figure 6) is also noteworthy, whose first stroke is
often extended below the writing line, which is a clear indication of high graphic
expertise and uncommon professionalism. The majuscule alphabet is also very
characteristic (Figure 10).




                                I   II        III                IV                             V        VI
          d




                                                                 VII                     VIII
  Fig. 1. Samples from I-IV in Parm. 3285; V-VI in Ricc. 1025; VII in ASBo Framm. 6; VIII in
                                    Marciano Lat. VI 167




         g              I                II         III                IV            V              VI   VII




                                                          VIII              IX
          Fig. 2. Samples from I-VII in Parm. 3285; VIII-IX in Marciano Lat. VI 167




          h
                            I       II        III                IV              V                  VI


              Fig. 3. Samples from I-V in Parm. 3285; VI in Marciano Lat. VI 167
Bertelli                                                              AOFL XII (2017), 2, 55-84



            b, h,
            k, l


                                  Fig. 4. Samples in Parm. 3285




           z, zz,
           ç, çç


                                  Fig. 5. Samples in Parm. 3285




             r, x, v


                                  Fig. 6. Samples in Parm. 3285



       tironian sign
             et
                              I      II       III        IV             V
                Fig. 7. Samples from I-IV in Parm. 3285; V in Marciano Lat. VI.167




                          I         II         III       IV       V          VI      VII VIII
            l, f, s



                        IX               X    XI

             Fig. 8. Samples from I-IX in Parm. 3285; X-XI in Marciano Lat. VI.167
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                           AOFL XII (2017), 2, 56-84




          tituli
     abbreviations        I            II             III         IV           V
       other signs




                         VI            VII     VIII
          Fig. 9. Samples from I-VI in Parm. 3285; VII-VIII in Marciano Lat. VI.167




        Majuscule
        alphabet




                          Fig. 10. Samples from I-XI in Parm. 3285


  Before examining the other type of manuscript surveyed in this research, it is also
worth noting another aspect, that is probably not so obvious, but quite curious and
interesting to observe. Among the 19 manuscripts, related to the book type of the “Danti
del Cento”, there is the ancestor manuscript of the group too, i.e. the model from which
all the others originate, this is ms. Trivulziano 1080 (Triv), containing the Capitoli by
Iacopo Alighieri and Bosone da Gubbio. Adding to these manuscripts the codex 190 of
the Biblioteca Passerini-Landi in Piacenza (La), copied in Genoa by Antonio da Fermo in
1336, which is not a manuscript belonging to the “Danti del Cento”, but is similar to the
codices of this group, one might observe that the three most ancient manuscripts of the
Comedy (Ash, dated ante 1334; La, dated 1336 and Triv, dated 1337) are three
miscellaneous codices, thus containing besides the Poem, also the Capitoli by Iacopo
Alighieri and Bosone da Gubbio. As anticipated above, this is not accidental: in our
opinion, at that time the need was probably strongly felt to harmonize the Poem with
some other texts as support, in order to assist a not especially easy or difficult
comprehension of Dante’s Comedy. The Capitoli by Iacopo and Bosone were apparently
the most immediate instruments suitable to the purposes prescribed by material
requirements, being both short and readily available.
Bertelli                                                                        AOFL XII (2017), 2, 57-84


The one column manuscripts in ‘littera textualis’


Another well-documented book type from the early 14th century is the one presenting
the text of the Poem in a single column, positioned more or less in the centre of the page,
albeit still requiring much work. As is known, the oldest manuscript tradition of Dante’s
Poem includes codices without any chronological reference31, hence the palaeographers
often disagree32, deciding – recta via – the inclusion/exclusion of a manuscript in the
corpus of the antiquiores. This attitude is particularly evident and significant in relation
to the Comedies written in littera textualis. In this respect, there still seems to be a sort
of prejudice, according to which the manuscripts belonging to this book type are
considered a priori by scholars antecedent exemplars in comparison to those written in
cursive (namely a bastard secretary script), above all when they display a one column
mise en page, with the text placed more or less at the centre of the page33. Then, with the
same condition, or better with the same formal aspects, and with only the graphic
features changing, there is a propensity to date back a manuscript written by a bastard
secretary hand, earlier than a manuscript copied in littera textualis. This sort of attitude
can be explained by two main reasons: the first is to be assigned to an objective difficulty
of assessing this type of script, showing a fairly linear trend over time during the period
concerned (and then displaying no morphological evolutions, such as to make a
chronological stratification of the exemplars, based on the exclusive graphic issue
available34; this feature is instead achievable in the cursive script35); while the second
reason, playing a rather negative role for certain manuscripts, is probably due to the
presence both of two very important manuscripts of the old vernacular tradition, like
Urb (dated 1352; or Vaticano lat. 366, the optimus according to Federico Sanguineti) and

31 The situation will be quite different in the 15th century, at least concerning the manuscripts of the
Commedia in humanistic script, that included a rather high percentage of dated books. In fact, 28 surveyed
units of 81 (that is 34,57% of the total) have at least one useful element that allows dating of the manuscript
(see BERTELLI, 2007a, 22f.). Significant results come from the survey by GUIDI (2007, 219-21), where the
percentage of the dated mss. (14th-15th centuries) is divided as follows: 9,6% the mss. comprised between
the years 1321-1350 (8 dated mss. of 83 mss.); 16,2% the codices of the years 1351-1400 (34 dated mss. of 210
mss.); and 21,4% the mss. of the years 1401-1500 (94 dated mss. of 439 mss.).
32   As observed, for example, also in POMARO (1994b, 195); (2003, 283); and in BERTELLI (2007b, 15f.).
33For an overview on this issue, i.e. on the Commedie in littera textualis, see BOSCHI ROTIROTI (2004, 99-
105).
34 On this aspect, see the recent observations by DE ROBERTIS (2001, 339). However CASAMASSIMA (1988, 95-
130), must be seen, where there is a specific examination of the structural aspects and functioning of the
littera textualis.
35Especially thanks to the comparison with the (few) dated manuscripts of the Poem, extant in this graphic
form (the ones included in the period concerned, of course): La (year 1336); Triv (1337); Ham (1347); Ga
(1347-1348); and Mad (1354).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                                       AOFL XII (2017), 2, 58-84


Laur (dated 1355, or Laurenziano Plut. 40.22) and, maybe mostly, of the focused
influence of the three Boccaccio manuscripts To, Ri and Chig, acting as turning points in
the old vernacular tradition (this is the case of ms. Toledano Zelada 104.6), dating back
grosso modo to a period anterior to the end of the 1350s36. These manuscripts display a
specific physiognomy of the Comedy, determining consequently an almost normal
forward movement of dating for this type of book. The manuscripts belonging to this
type of codices are different: besides Urb, Laur and To, there are, for example, a pair of
manuscripts from Bologna, Biblioteca dell’Archiginnasio, A.321 and ms. 589 from
Biblioteca Universitaria, but also Vaticano Barberiniano Lat. 4117.
      The codex preserved in the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, namely Rehdiger 227 (Table 5),
also belongs to the same group, dated by Roddewig to the second half of the 14th
century, and to the last quarter of the century by Boschi Rotiroti37; it contains the whole
Comedy and, in the final part, the Capitoli by Bosone da Gubbio and Iacopo Alighieri38.
It is a parchment codex, measuring ca. 280 × 230 mm, and quite voluminous (173 fols.);
the layout of the text is in two columns with the tercet initials extending into the
margins with decorated initials of the cantiche (fols. 2r, 57r and 115r)39. The script is a
formal littera textualis by the hand of only one copyist, certainly coming from the
Florentine area40, displaying a definitely archaic conspectus. The amanuensis shows clear
attention to graphic technique, to absolute respect for the rules regulating this type of
script, characterized, moreover, by an almost systematic presence of the letter k instead
of ch: this is a distinctive sign of the oldest Tuscan texts (if not specifically of the
Florentine ones) dating back to the early literature of the Origins41. The frequency of this
feature in the manuscript, and the regularity of execution, cannot derive from an
ancestor codex, but is a spontaneous consequence of the training and handwriting
education of the copyist. Henceforth, it is a Florentine copyist of the first half of the 14th
century; an amanuensis clearly trained at working with this script, furthermore a


36   On the dating of the Boccaccio vernacular autographs, see at least BERTELLI (2014).
37   See RODDEWIG (1984, 13-14 n. 22); and BOSCHI ROTIROTI (2004, 110 n. 11).
38   A short descriptive file also by ROMANINI (2007b, 89f.), who confirms the dating by Boschi Rotiroti.
39Edited in PASUT (2006a, 379-409, figg. 14, 15, 16 and 17). For a more detailed comment of these
decorations, see PASUT (2008, 51-55 and figg. 20, 22 and 24). For the author, the Berlin manuscript
represents probably the oldest illuminated edition of the Poem by the Maestro delle Effigi Domenicane,
dated to 1330 circa. On the figure and artistic activity of this miniaturist, see KANTER (2004, 560-62).
40   In this sense, see also CONTINI (1966, 341).
41This well-known feature was noted since the precious notes Appunti sulla grafia (at p. 264) at the end of
the useful study by SCHIAFFINI (19542). See also the remarks by CASTELLANI (1952, vol. I, 17f.). Several
examples of the Tuscan use (but not only) should also be found in the tables published by BERTELLI (2002
and 2011b).
Bertelli                                                                 AOFL XII (2017), 2, 59-84


professional who works in collaboration with a great expert in the ars miniandi, the so-
called Maestro delle Effigi Domenicane, who was likewise the author of the entire
decorative apparatus of the codex 42 . As is well known, the Maestro delle Effigi
Domenicane also realized the iconographic cycle of at least two other relevant and most
famous Commedie: Triv, copied and signed in 1337 by Francesco di ser Nardo da
Barberino43; and Parm, attributed by Pomaro to the same period as Trivulziano 1080, or
at least datable to the 1330s44. Moreover, the last dated work of the same Maestro is an
altarpiece dating back to 1345 (coming from the church of San Paolino in Florence, now
preserved at the Courtauld Institute of Art Galleries, inv. no. 69, in London)45.




                           Tab. 5. Berlin, Rehd. 227, f. 2r
      Also taking into consideration the palaeographical observations mentioned above, the
authorship of the decorative apparatus of the Berlin codex by hand of the Maestro delle

42 The authorship of the iconographic apparatus of the Berlin ms. to this relevant miniaturist of the
Commedia is due to Pasut, who presented her research in the following papers: PASUT (2006a, 405-409 and
figg.; 2006b, 125f. and n. 39; and 2008, 51-56 and figg. See also ZANICHELLI (2006, 130f. n. 53).
43For a description of Triv, see BERTELLI (2003, 415f. n. 4 and fig. 4, with former bibliography). Short
descriptive files are given also by BOSCHI ROTIROTI (2004, 134 n. 198); and by ROMANINI (2007a, 59).
44A description of Parm, besides PETROCCHI (1966-1967, vol. I, 80), and RODDEWIG (1984, 255 n. 591); see
also POMARO (1994a, 57 and n. 19); BOSCHI ROTIROTI (2004, 138 n. 234); and ROMANINI (2007a, 56f.).
45   See KANTER (2004, 561).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                          AOFL XII (2017), 2, 60-84


Effigi Domenicane necessarily requires dating the manuscript from the second quarter of
the 14th century. Hence, this manuscript might be ascribed – at least from a
palaeographic standpoint – to a respectful place in the earlier circulation process of
Dante’s Divine Comedy.
      It is very interesting also the case of the Laurentian Plut. 40.3 (Table 6). The codex,
probably from Siena in origin, was executed around the mid-14th century and, in any
case, before 1363. In fact, the magnificent illustrative apparatus of this codex has been
attributed to Niccolò di ser Sozzo, a Sienese painter and illuminator active in Siena
around that time46. Two other works, both of the highest quality, have confidently been
ascribed to him: the miniature with the Assumption in the so-called Caleffo dell’Assunta




                    Tab. 6. Firenze, BML, Plut. 40.3, f. 83r
(register of contracts), now at the Archivio di Stato in Siena, and the polyptych of the
Madonna, Angels and Saints (ca. 1362; Siena, Pinacoteca) executed with Luca di Tommè
(Siena, ca. 1330-after 1389). These works show that he was a follower of Simone Martini


46   See FREULER (2004, 823-26).
Bertelli                                                                   AOFL XII (2017), 2, 61-84


and Pietro Lorenzetti, but was more attentive to a refined and precious decorative
approach. Based on these works, various others have been associated with the artist,
including – in addition to ours – several illuminated codices now at the Museo d’Arte
Sacra in San Gimignano (Siena). The great prestige and renown likely enjoyed by
Niccolò di ser Sozzo can fully be appreciated in the illuminations of this Laurentian
codex, in which he successfully imparts extraordinary vivacity and lightness to the
illustrated scene. For example, we can observe this in the execution of the little boat of
Dante’s intellect (on fol. 83r), in which the vessel is propelled by more favourable and
benevolent winds through the device of the sail extending outside the frame around the
illumination.
     On the sidelines, but extremely important for the history and reconstruction of
Dante’s text, there are several isolated manuscripts, probably from Florence, that cannot
be classified as part of a serial production of codices, such as Palatino 313 at the
Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence (Po), ms. CF 2.16 at the Biblioteca Oratoriana dei
Girolamini in Naples (Fi) and Egerton 943 at the British Library (Eg). All three can be
ascribed to the second quarter of the 14th century and are richly illuminated (particularly
the London codex, composed of nearly 190 medium-large parchment folios accompanied
by 253 illustrations)47.
     Yet the history of Dante’s masterpiece is not Florentine alone. There is the provincial
manuscript production (particularly in areas to the north) – not as extensive, but less
contaminated – handed down to us by exemplars that are quite noteworthy in terms of
quality and antiquity. We need merely consider Landiano 190 at the Biblioteca Passerini-
Landi di Piacenza (La), transcribed in Genova in 1336 by a Marchigian copyist, Antonio
da Fermo, commissioned by the podestà Beccario Beccaria; the famous Riccardiano-
Braidense (Rb), copied around the 1340s by the Bolognese master Galvano (an
exceptional exemplar of the Comedy with comments arranged as a frame by Iacopo della
Lana)48, a unique manuscript but conserved separately (the Inferno and Purgatorio are in
Riccardiano 1005, while the Paradiso is in ms. AG.XII.2 at the Biblioteca Braidense in




47On the three mss., very important and very known not only from an iconographic standpoint, see the
facsimile editions La Commedia di Dante Alighieri (ripr. del ms. Pal. 313 della Bibl. Nazionale Centrale di
Firenze), Firenze 2013, as well as Il codice Filippino della Commedia di Dante Alighieri (ed. integrale in
fac-simile nel formato originale del ms. CF 2 16 già 4 20 della Biblioteca Oratoriana dei Girolamini di
Napoli), Roma 2001; and, more recently, PEGORETTI (2014).
48On the importance of which, see VOLPI (2010). On this subject, by the same author, see at least VOLPI
(2013, 47-70).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                                      AOFL XII (2017), 2, 62-84


Milan)49; and Vaticano Urbinate Lat. 366 (Urb), already mentioned, written in the Emilia-
Romagna area in 1352 and used as a reference manuscript for the recent edition of the
Poem curated by Federico Sanguineti50.
      Nevertheless, an overview of the production and circulation of the Comedy, above all
with regard to early-14th century Florence, must naturally touch on what has been
dubbed the “Vat workshop”, in reference to the famous ms. Vaticano Lat. 3199 (Vat),
thought to be the manuscript Giovanni Boccaccio gave to his friend and teacher
Francesco Petrarca between the summer of 1351 and May 1353 51 . In fact, six other
codices have been attributed to his learned copyist. In terms of importance and artistic
quality, the most noteworthy of these are ms. 597 at the Musée Condé in Chantilly (a
marvellous dedicatory manuscript made for the Genoese nobleman Lucano Spinola,
containing only the Inferno with a commentary by Guido da Pisa) and the Laurentian
Plut. 40.13, both of which have important illustrative cycles attributed respectively to the
Pisan painter Francesco Traini (active in Pisa between around 1315 and 1348) and the so-
called Master of the Dominican Effigies, likewise a painter and illuminator but with a
mysterious background active in Florence in the second quarter of the 14th century52.
      What is striking in Plut. 40.13 is the great attention the illuminator lavished on details,
particularly for the execution of the initial of the Purgatorio (on fol. 25r), in which the
sallow complexions, with very subtle and careful heightening, and the cruciform motif
on the boat show very close parallels with those executed by the same master for the
initial of the second cantica (fol. 36r) in the Trivulziano 1080 codex (Triv), dated 1337.
Thus, these are products of the finest quality in which artisans with different areas of
expertise came together and collaborated: not only professional copyists and
illuminators, but also stationers and merchants who sold writing supports (reams of
paper, parchments of different qualities and sizes) and ink, bookbinders and ordinary



49For a recent description of the two mss., see BERTELLI (2011a, 381-84 n. 34 and fig. 40); DE ROBERTIS –
MIRIELLO (1999, 45f. n. 81 and figg. 100-102: Riccardiano 1005); and GROSSI TURCHETTI (2004, 48 n. 75, fig.
71: Braidense AG.XII.2). Also to Rb has been recently dedicated a facsimile edition entitled La Commedia,
con il commento di Iacomo della Lana, nel ms. Riccardiano-Braidense, Roma 2007 (= «Edizione Nazionale
dei Commenti danteschi» III).
50   See SANGUINETI (2001).
51 On this subject, see POMARO (1986, 343-74). On the copyist and his work, see also BERTELLI (2011a, 80-83
n. 10); BRESCHI (2014, 95-117); BETTARINI – BRESCHI – TANTURLI (2015); and DE ROBERTIS (2015, 148, 152, 155,
159, 163f.).
52 For a detailed analysis of the miniatures and the various attributions, see PASUT (2006b, 115-47; 2009, vol.
I, 184). On the decorative apparatus of Cha, see BRIEGER – MEISS – SINGLETON (1969, vol. I, 31-80);
BATTAGLIA RICCI (1994, 41-43, 46); MULAS (2005, 2-73); BALBARINI (2003, 497-512; 2004, 374-84; 2011); and
BATTAGLIA RICCI (2008, 83-100, with former bibliography).
Bertelli                                                                       AOFL XII (2017), 2, 63-84


people, all of whom undisputedly played a leading role in the very fortunate season so
propitious for Dante’s Comedy, above all in Florence.



2. The second half of the 14th century


The beginning of the ‘publishing’ activity of Giovanni Boccaccio, the greatest 14th
century expert and admirer of Dante Alighieri and his work, has traditionally been dated
to the mid-1350s53.
      We know of many of Boccaccio’s autograph manuscripts (seventeen in all, but we
must also add twelve annotated manuscripts, one of which discovered only recently, and
a letter in the vernacular). Three of these manuscripts hand down the text of the Comedy
and, in chronological order (from the oldest to the most recent), they are: the Toledano
Zelada 104.6 (To), the Riccardiano 1035 (Ri) and the Vaticano Chigiano L.VI.213 (Chig),
in which, in addition to the text of the Poem, Boccaccio repeatedly practised writing and
studying Dante’s works, with extraordinary results above all regarding the tradition of
the text of the Vita nuova and that of the Rime. As has amply been demonstrated, the
three autograph copies present significant textual variations, which have led recent
scholarship to consider the Chigiano to be the last and definitive exemplar of Dante’s
work54.
      Further testimony of Boccaccio’s ardent admiration for Dante comes from his
Trattatello in laude written in honour of the beloved poet (more simply known as Vita di
Dante). It has been handed down to us in two autograph versions, a longer one (in the
autograph Toledano) and a shorter one (in autograph Chigiano), to which a third one
was also added, likewise abridged (and extensively attested to in codices), but to a lesser
extent with respect to the one handed down by the autograph version now in the
Vatican manuscript55. Thus, it is no accident that the Trattatello has pride of place in the
two autograph works – the Toledano and the Chigiano – in which Boccaccio’s short
work opens the volume, and this should be interpreted as a sign of great respect and
admiration for Dante and his work.
      Boccaccio’s voracious and detailed study of the Comedy inspired him to introduce the
start of each cantica in each of the autograph works with chapters in terza rima, in

53The bibliography on the subject is wide, for which see at least BERTELLI-CAPPI (2014, with former
bibliography).
54   On the sequence To > Ri > Chig, see PETROCCHI (1966-1967, vol. I, 18f.); and at least MECCA (2013a, 119).
55   On this subject, see CAPPI – GIOLA (2014, 245-325).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                          AOFL XII (2017), 2, 64-84


which he summarizes the contents of the entire Poem concisely but attentively and in
great detail. This is the so-called Brieve raccoglimento (or simply Argomenti), very
common in the manuscripts (as demonstrated, for example, by the Laurentian
Ashburnham Appendice Dantesca 6, executed in Florence in the second half of the 15th
century) in which Boccaccio establishes the Poem’s ultramundane geography (such as
rivers, skies, the ‘cold’ paths of Ptolomaea and the ‘strange’ ones of the mountain of
Purgatory), dwelling on the various figures that the pilgrim Dante encounters and
observes during his profound knowledge and faithfulness to Dante’s words that
Boccaccio – elderly by this time and a renowned intellectual – was commissioned by the
Priors of the Arts and the Gonfalonier of Justice of Florence to hold the first public
reading of the Poem56.
      The Esposizioni sopra la Commedia commenced on Sunday 23 October 1373, in the
little church of Santo Stefano di Badia, across from the Bargello, where Dante (according
to what he said in the Vita nuova) first saw Beatrice Portinari. The readings continued
until January 1374, when they stopped abruptly (at Inf. XVII 17) due to the outbreak of
another plague in the city as well as Boccaccio’s failing health. The work consists of an
extensive and in-depth accessus ad auctorem, for which Boccaccio turned to the famous
and hotly debated Epistola a Cangrande della Scala and the preceding biography of
Dante 57 . The work was extraordinarily successful, also among contemporaries (the
audience of the public readings included the likes of Benvenuto da Imola, author of the
monumental Comentum super Dantis Aldigherij Comoediam); at the same time, the
Esposizioni were a key source for other commentators on Dante, such as Francesco da
Buti, Filippo Villani, Guiniforte Barzizza and Cristoforo Landino.
      Boccaccio’s prestige and authoritativeness generated a substantial number of
manuscripts, thereby contributing to consolidating a ‘vulgate’ as culturally significant as
it is unreliable from a strictly textual standpoint. Its inferior lessons even ended up
permeating printed tradition, from the Aldine version overseen by Pietro Bembo (Venice,
Aldo Manuzio, 1502) to the edition of the Comedy by the Accademia della Crusca
(Florence, Domenico Manzani, 1595)58. Nevertheless, among the numerous manuscripts
dating back to the second half of the 14th century (about 200) there are several that,
rightly or wrongly, enjoyed special attention and fame in the past, such as the
Bartoliniano 50 (at the Biblioteca Arcivescovile e Bartoliniana in Udine, once owned by


56   See at least BAGLIO (2013a, 277f.).
57   See BAGLIO (2013b, 281-83).
58   On the subject, see the latest study of MECCA (2013b, 9-59).
Bertelli                                                                     AOFL XII (2017), 2, 65-84


Michele della Torre, bishop of Adria), ms. Bolognese 589 (now at the Biblioteca
Universitaria, donated by Pope Benedict XIV to the University of Bologna), the Conventi
Soppressi 204 at the Biblioteca Laurenziana (commissioned by Pietro Gambacorta, Lord
of Pisa), the Laurentian Palatino 74 (once owned by the powerful Guinigi family of
Lucca), the Vaticano Ottoboniano Lat. 2358 (owned by Pope Benedict XIV), the




                Tab. 7. LauSC, f. 1r

Laurentian Plut. 40.7 (with a wealth of illustrations) and the so-called ‘Tempiano
Maggiore’ (formerly part of the collection of Marquis Luigi Tempi and at the Biblioteca
Laurenziana since 1839 with the shelfmark Tempi 1), in which the text of the Comedy is
often accompanied by extensive comments and/or marvellous illustrations59.




59   For obvious reasons of space, see at least MALATO – MAZZUCCHI (2011).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                                         AOFL XII (2017), 2, 66-84


      The Laurenziano Plut. 26 sin. 1 (LauSC; see Table 7) is also a very significant
representative of the late 14th century Florentine tradition of the Comedy. As is well
know and widely accepted, responsibility for the graphics of the manuscript was
attributed by Fra Tedaldo della Casa (on fol. 201r: see the transcription just ahead) to the
Florentine chronicler Filippo Villani (1325-1407/9)60.
The codex is significant due to the presence of original lessons and valuable
contaminations, and it was probably completed in the 1390s, when the University of
Florence commissioned Villani to hold a series of Dante readings (1391-1402).
Nevertheless, we cannot reject the possibility that the manuscript was completed in 1401,
as indicated – probably by Villani himself – at the end of the Comedy (external margin
of fol. 200v); the year it was copied was later changed to 1343, due to an obvious
misunderstanding of the colophon by Fra Sebastiano Bucelli, the librarian at the
Franciscan convent of Santa Croce61. Again with regard to dating, it is important to note
that Fra Tedaldo’s numerous interventions, easily identifiable also because they were
done in pen and red ink (the explicit of the cantos, rubrics, running titles, short
comments in the margins of cantos II-IX of the Inferno, the colophon on fol. 201r), must
be dated to the last years of his life (around 1410), when Villani had likely already been
dead for some time, as can be deduced from the colophon of fol. 201r, which reads:
          Questo libro fu scripto per mano di messer
          Phylippo Villani, il quale in Firenze in
          publiche scuole molti anni gloriosa|mente
          con expositione leterali, all[e]gorice,
          anag[og]ice et morali lesse il predetto [il predetto, crossed out]
          et sue expositioni a molti sono communicate62.


      The most interesting codicological aspect is the layout of the text on the page, where
the frequent presence of large blank spaces between cantos (perhaps left to accommodate
extensive introductory rubrics on the subject matter) seems to suggest an incomplete
text. The large Laurentian codex (380 mm. high and 270 mm. wide) from the convent of
Santa Croce has a full-page layout that generally has 33 lines of writing (11 tercets).
Villani used a small, closely spaced and morphologically simplified littera textualis


60   For a description of the codex, see BERTELLI (2016, 553-55, fig. 59, with former bibliography).
61In the colophon, it is read: «Completum in festo sancte Anne [26 July] in quo dux Athenarum Gualterius
tyrannus civitatis Florentie pulsus est»; followed by indication «1401». Bucelli crossed out the first three
numbers of the date and added «343»: «[140]1343». On the dating, see also POMARO (2001, 1067).
62The ms. also belonged to another copyist, who signs himself at f. 200v: «Non bene pro toto libertas
venditur auro». On this copyist, see TANTURLI (2008, 75-78).
Bertelli                                                              AOFL XII (2017), 2, 67-84


resembling that of Boccaccio’s three autograph manuscripts. Indeed, like the Chigiano
L.VI.213 (Chig), the Riccardiano 1035 (Ri) and the Toledano 104.6 (To), the Laurentian
Plut. 26 sin. 1 shows an important innovation with respect to the rest of the 14th-century
manuscript production of the Poem. This innovation, which can also be found alongside
other graphic characteristics in the outline of several manuscripts of the Comedy from
the end of century, would subsequently be considered one of the distinctive elements of
the old-style humanistic codex: the introduction of the tercet initials in the form of
epigraphic capitals (e.g. A, E, M, N and so on)63.



3. The 15th century and the first printed editions


The body of 15th-century copies of the Comedy is extremely rich (representing about
two-thirds of the entire tradition; translated into numbers, the figure is unquestionably
over 500 units). Despite this abundant testimony, however, this is certainly the part of
the tradition of the Poem that has been explored the least and is not nearly as well
known by scholars. It thus represents a very fertile source of information not only to
investigate its geographical and social dissemination, but also for the study of the
manuscripts, individual copyists and illuminators, and the centres that copied and
produced Dante’s text64.
      From an exegetic standpoint, it seems that the scholastic production of the Comedy
continued uninterruptedly in the late 14th and early 15th century. There is no question
that, with the new century, strictly exegetic tradition dropped off dramatically, almost as
if the 14th-century comments on the Poem were considered sufficient for understanding
and explaining Dante’s work. In fact, apart from the work of Giovanni Bertoldi da
Serravalle, who wrote his comment in Latin between February 1416 and January 1417 to
make Dante’s masterpiece accessible to everyone participating in the Council of
Constance (and, in any case, he declared himself a disciple of Benvenuto da Imola), the
commentary on the Inferno by Guiniforte Barzizza, written a few years later (dating to
around 1440), and the 1477-78 revision by Martino Paolo Nibia (called Nidobeato) of the
commentary by Iacopo della Lana (but also using glosses taken from the comments of
Pietro Alighieri and Guido da Pisa), essentially nothing new appeared until Cristoforo
Landino’s commentary (printed in Florence in 1481 by Niccolò della Magna with

63   On this particular type of book, see BERTELLI (2007a).
64As already observed by FOLENA (1965-1966, vol. I, 60f.). On the subject, it is always of great use
DIONISOTTI (1965, vol. I, 333-78).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                                            AOFL XII (2017), 2, 68-84


engravings after drawings by Sandro Botticelli). In short, unlike what had occurred in
the previous century, throughout most of the 1400s the Comedy no longer represented a
text on which to exercise one’s critical abilities, an evident sign of an abrupt divergence
– if not a complete break – between the scholastic world and the doctrinal content of
Dante’s work. Not surprisingly, from the standpoint of the manuscript tradition there is
very little testimony of the commentary of Giovanni da Serravalle (handed down to us
in five manuscripts, to which we must add four others between those that have been lost
and those whose identification is uncertain), but also Barzizza’s (likewise handed down
to us in five codices, in addition to which there are six others containing only the
introductory letter plus one that has been lost). Obviously the case of Landino’s
commentary is different, as it represents the very successful result of a new season, both
philosophical and philological.
      Despite this documented divergence between the scholastic and doctrinal realms,
however, the Comedy was produced in large quantities, following all the graphic and
book models that characterized the late Middle Ages. In other words, from a
codicological standpoint, between the late 14th century and around the end of the 15th
(things would change to some extent with the advent of printing) the manuscript
containing the text of the Comedy was characterized by a very wide range in terms of
quality, product and type. Production probably moved at a very fast pace and in the
variety of materials, writing, layout techniques and ornamentation – in short, in what is
technically defined as the set of “graphic aspects” and “publishing” choices of the copyist
– this testifies to extraordinary and unflagging interest in the work among an extremely
varied and heterogeneous readership. In this kind of context, we can thus find products
intended for private use, for study purposes, executed personally and generally rather
second-rate and sometimes even quite modest in quality, as well as Comedy that were
instead for prestigious patrons, luxurious copies made by professionals65. It is above all
among the latter that, in the illustrations, we find the development of the “visualization”
of the Poem, the representation of its “figurative exegesis”66.
      In this jumble of manuscripts, the book type that explicitly evokes the humanistic
conception and model of codex, the so-called “ancient style” Comedy, becomes
particularly relevant also from a numerical standpoint67. One of the studies I conducted
several years ago led to the identification of no less than 86 copies characterized


65   On this aspect, see PETRUCCI (1988, 1229); and MIGLIO (2001, Vol. I, 295-323).
66   See at least BATTAGLIA RICCI (2001, vol. I, 601-39); MIGLIO (2003, 377-401).
67   See BERTELLI (2007a).
Bertelli                                                                     AOFL XII (2017), 2, 69-84


essentially by two elements: writing and decoration. In fact, the most immediate and
striking codicological aspect that differentiates and distinguishes this book type from
other models has to do with graphics. Two types of writing were adopted by copyists in
the 15th century to create a humanist manuscript: littera antiqua (humanistic minuscule
or humanistic round-hand; the terms are equivalent) and humanistic cursive68. As far as
decoration is concerned, the humanistic book is generally associated with the presence of
illustrative apparatuses using the technique referred to as white vine-stem decorations.
This decorative work was executed with a brush, with the continuous and sometimes
complex interweaving of white vines ending with floral motifs; they are arranged –
sometimes on one or more ornamental friezes – to frame or surround an initial letter of a
work or its internal division. This letter is always in the form of an epigraphic capital
and can vary in size depending on the importance of the textual or individual section.
Consequently, it can be large, medium or small, depending on whether it introduces or
complements a text section considered especially significant. It is not uncommon to find
the most important initials with busts of authors, thus forming a link with the white
vine-stem decorations in the ornamental friezes along the margins. In deluxe
manuscripts, this type of decoration can also be accompanied by medallions containing
the title of the work or the patron’s name, aristocratic coats of arms and, more rarely,
series of illuminations illustrating the subject.
     The Laurentian Plutei 40.18 (Table 8), 40.19 and 40.28 are particularly interesting
because of their dating (late 14th/early 15th century) and they are paralleled by ms.
Italiano e.6 at the Bodleian Library in Oxford based on compelling codicological and
palaeographic affinities69. From a general standpoint, these codices share a number of
characteristics. In terms of content, they contain only the text of the Comedy (with the
exception of Plut. 40.19, which alongside the Poem includes the ‘Ottimo commento’,
missing the headpiece of the first part of the preface and with della Lana’s
interpolations), which in the Oxford and Plut. 40.18 manuscripts is accompanied by short
rubrics in Latin (1-2 lines of writing). In Plut. 40.28 the rubrics are in the vernacular and
are rather long (3-7 lines of writing), while they are not present in Plut. 40.19. With
regard to material, they are parchment codices that are quite large (averaging around 200
folios), organized in quinternions in a medium format (Plut. 40.28) or medium-small
format (Italiano e.6 and Plut. 40.18; obviously Plut. 40.19 is more substantial, as it

68
 On this subject, see MORISON (1944, 13); PETRUCCI (1969, 295-313); CASAMASSIMA (1974, IX-XXXIII); DE LA
MARE (1977, 91).
69For a description of the manuscripts, see RODDEWIG (1984, 49 n. 110, 49 n. 111, 53 n. 120 and 225 n. 528);
for the Oxoniense ms., see also BERTELLI (2007a, 264 n. 86, fig. 89) and ZAMPONI (2009, 302f. n. 95 and fig.).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                                        AOFL XII (2017), 2, 70-84


includes the commentary), with a full-page layout of a rather modest number of terze
rime (ten for Plut. 40.18, and twelve for Italiano e.6 and Plut. 40.28; they vary according
to the length of the comment in Plut. 40.19). The Oxford codex and Plut. 40.28 are
written in simplified littera textualis by a single copyist, Plut. 40.19 is in an ancient-style
bastard script, and Plut. 40.18 uses both types. Lastly, Italiano e.6 was decorated in a very
simple style, presenting rubricated initials alternating red and blue, with greater
emphasis in Plutei 40.18 and 40.19, and in Plut. 40.28. In fact, Plut. 40.19 (like the other
two Laurentian manuscripts) is noteworthy for the presence of three large initials for the




                            Tab. 8. Firenze, BML, Plut. 40.18, f. 1r
cantiche (on fols. 1r, 58r and 114v), a type that did not become widespread until the early
15th century: namely, a square form with the initial in gold and white vine-stem
decorations against a polychrome ground70. These characteristics seem to have led to a
new book type differing from those encountered so far71.


70   On this particular decoration typologies, see at least DE LA MARE (1977, 98-108).
71   On this subject, see DEROLEZ (1984).
Bertelli                                                                AOFL XII (2017), 2, 71-84


      In fact, the 14th-century Comedy is generally presented in the form of a medium-large
manuscript laid out in two columns, and the number of pages rarely exceeds 100.
Therefore, we can probably surmise that towards the end of the 14th century there was a
decisive change in the techniques used to produce the manuscript book with Dante’s
work. This change first of all involved a smaller format, shifting from medium-large to
medium and medium-small sizes, but it also involved the mise en page, which changed
substantially, as in the 15th century (in the wake of Boccaccio’s model) the general




                    Tab. 9. Firenze, BNC, Banco Rari 98, f. 2r
preference for two columns changed to a single column in the middle of the page,
making the manuscripts significantly longer, around 200 folios.
      The tradition of the Comedy in the second half of the 15th century, already quite
sweeping and diverse, was further enriched following the invention of printing 72 .
Although they are of little value from a textual standpoint and were generally based on

72   See MECCA (2013b, 33-77); and COGLIEVINA (2001, vol. I, 325-70).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                            AOFL XII (2017), 2, 72-84


randomly chosen manuscripts, the first printed editions of the Comedy are nevertheless
significant for the history of the success of Dante’s Comedy. As we know, the first
edition (editio princeps) was printed in the town of Foligno, near Perugia, in 1472 (“nel
quarto mese a dì cinque et sei”, meaning 11 April), by Johann Numeister of Mainz (IGI
nr. 352; see Table 9)73, as we can read in the colophon:
        Nel mille quatro cento septe et due
        nel quarto mese adì cinque et sei
        questa opera gentile impressa fue.
        Io maestro Iohanni Numeister opera dei
        alla decta impressione et meco fue
        El fulginato Evangelista mei.

     In the above-mentioned colophon, two of the three leading figures involved in the
Foligno edition are specifically mentioned: the first is the “maestro Iohanni Numeister”,
while the second is listed in the last verso of the two tercets, “El filginato Evangelista
mei”.

     The German Johann Numeister, trained in Mainz, perhaps at the famous workshop of
Gutemberg (the inventor of movable type, which he used to print the famous ‘Forty-two-
line Bible’ in Mainz between 1453 and 1455), was a printer of great artistic and technical
qualities. He executed outstanding editions of liturgical books in particular, such as the
illustrated edition of the Meditationes by the Spanish bishop Juan de Torquemada dated
1479 (printed in Mainz, where Johann had evidently returned) and re-proposed in 1481 in
the French city of Albi, near Toulouse, where he had subsequently moved. There was
also the so-called Missale d’Uzès (printed together with his compatriot Michael Topie) in
1495 in Lyon, where he had already printed numerous other works such as the
Breviarium Viennense (bearing the date of 24 January 1489), commissioned by Angelo
Cato of Benevento, archbishop of Vienne, and a Psalterium cum hymnis (15 February
1489). Also interesting – and not only because of ties with the Foligno editio princeps of
the Comedy – are De bello Italico adversus Gothos by Leonardo Bruni (published in 1470,
IGI nr. 2188), a work that was extraordinarily popular in the 15 th century, and Cicero’s
Epistolae ad familiares (IGI nr. 2810), which is undated but that we can confidently
assert was published the following year (1471). Numeister died in Lyon around 1522.
     In the colophon of the Comedy we can also read the name and homeland of the
German master’s companion in printing the “opera gentile”: the “fulginato Evangelista”,

73 See CASAMASSIMA (1972). The repertory IGI corresponds to Indice generale degli incunaboli delle
biblioteche d’Italia, Roma, Ist. Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1943-1981, 6 voll.
Bertelli                                                                    AOFL XII (2017), 2, 73-84


Evangelista Angelini, a native of Trevi who moved to Foligno before 1470. He played a
key role in the Foligno edition and, in fact, was its true mastermind: he can be credited
with the linguistic patina of the editio princeps, which shows a colourful southern
Umbrian air that cannot be traced to the ‘exemplar’ used at the printing works (the
Lolliniano 35 from the Biblioteca del Seminario in Belluno, which has the same
anomalies, lacunae and lapses of the pen present in the Foligno edition)74 but, rather, to
the typographer, who acted like a scribe regarding graphic-phonetic interventions on the
text. The third (undeclared) key figure in the 1472 edition of the Comedy was Emiliano
degli Orfini, Numeister’s partner, and an engraver, medallist and minter from Foligno (d.
after 1492). Working with the proto-typographer from Mainz, at his house in Foligno
where he had set up a printer shop, Orfini printed both De bello Italico adverus Gothos
(of 1470, mentioned above, in which the colophon reads: “Hunc libellum Emilianus de
Orfinis Fulginas | & Iohannes Numeister theutunicus: eiusque sotii | feliciter
impresserunt          Fulginei        in   domo      eiusdem        |    Emiliani       anno       domini
Millesimoquadringente|simoseptuagesimo feliciter»), and the editio princeps of the
Poem, for which he probably designed and engraved its magnificent humanist
characters.
      The Mantua edition (Georg and Paul of Butzbach, IGI nr. 353) and the Venice edition
(Federico de’ Conti, 18 July 1472, IGI nr. 354) appeared the same year, but they are
decidedly less interesting if we consider the design of the types and the architecture of
the page. Two Neapolitan editions were modelled after several copies of the Foligno
edition: one dated 12 April 1477 (Mattia di Olomouc the Moravian, IGI nr. 355) and one
from 1478-79 (Francesco del Tuppo, IGI nr. 356).
      Among the oldest incunabula (a term that literally means ‘books in the cradle’), we
can also cite the Vatican edition of 1477 (Vindelino da Spira, IGI nr. 358), the Milanese
one of 1477-78 (Ludovico and Alberto Piemontesi), also known as the ‘Nidobeatina’ as it
was curated by Nidobeato of Novara, who – as already noted – added his revision of
Jacopo della Lana’s commentary (IGI nr. 359), and above all the Florentine edition dated
30 August 1481 (Nicolò di Lorenzo della Magna), a magnificent and very successful folio
exemplar of the Comedy, with a commentary by Cristoforo Landino and engravings by
Baccio Bandini after drawings attributed to Sandro Botticelli (IGI nr. 360)75.



74   See CASAMASSIMA (1972, 61-83).
75On which, Dionisotti said: «la prima edizione a stampa della Commedia […] fu tale che d’un colpo solo
annullò quanto altrove editori e stampatori avevano fatto per illustrare l’opera di Dante» (DIONISOTTI 1965,
372).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                        AOFL XII (2017), 2, 74-84


      The edition of the Comedy printed in Venice by Aldo Manuzio in 1502 and curated by
the humanist cardinal Pietro Bembo (1470-1547) is particularly noteworthy, due not only
to the prominence and importance of the curator and printer, but also the profound
influence it would have on all the other 16th-century publications of the Poem. As we
know, the manuscript followed for the Aldine edition of 1502 was Vatican Latin 3199
(Vat), the exemplar Boccaccio gave Petrarch between the summer of 1351 and May 1353,
and later owned by Bernardo Bembo (Pietro’s father and a senator of the Venetian
Republic). However, the printer’s exemplar was not the actual Vat, but a copy written by
Bembo, namely, the one now referred to as Vatican Latin 3197, “in which the usual
conjectural interventions on the text went hand in hand with systematic work to
standardize spelling and prosody”76.
      The Aldine edition of the Comedy was an extraordinary operation not only from a
philological standpoint, but due also to the great innovation of the formal choices made
by the duo of Bembo-Manuzio. This is evident from the use of a special and unique title
(it was not repeated in the later printed tradition), namely, Le terze rime di Dante,
explicitly evoking the metre of the Poem, with the subtitle Lo ’nferno e il Purgatorio e ’l
Paradiso di Dante Alighieri (on the verso of the title page), as well as the format, a small
octavo, much smaller than the large and majestic folio volumes. It includes 244 folios
that are unnumbered and have no catchwords, thus forming a practical, easy-to-handle
book – we would call it ‘portable’ today – printed using a brand-new typeface, the
cursive. The 1502 Aldine edition was reprinted in 1515 (“nelle case d’Aldo e d’Andrea di
Asola suo suocero, nell’anno 1515 del mese di agosto”), with the title Dante col sito, et
forma dell’Inferno tratta dalla istessa descrittione del Poeta.
      As noted at the beginning of this essay, it was on an exemplar of this 1515 Aldine
edition that in 1548 the Florentine Luca Martini annotated the variants of an extremely
old codex of the Comedy, written by the parish priest Forese Donati between October
1330 and January 1331. That copy has been lost, but its vestiges have survived in the
margins of this valuable manuscript, now at the Biblioteca Braidense in Milan (Mart).

Sandro Bertelli
Università degli Studi di Ferrara
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Via Paradiso 12
44121 Ferrara
sandro.bertelli@unife.it


76   See CIOCIOLA (2001, 184).
Bertelli                                                         AOFL XII (2017), 2, 75-84


Riferimenti bibliografici

AZZETTA 2012
L. Azzetta (a cura di), Andrea Lancia. Chiose alla Commedia, Roma, 2 voll. (= «Edizione
nazionale dei commenti danteschi» IX).

BAGLIO 2013a
M. Baglio, Argomenti in terza rima, in T. De Robertis et al. (a cura di), Boccaccio autore e
copista. Catalogo della mostra (Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 11 ottobre 2013-
11 gennaio 2014), Firenze, 277-78.

BAGLIO 2013b
M. Baglio, Esposizioni sopra la Commedia, in T. De Robertis et al. (a cura di), Boccaccio
autore e copista. Catalogo della mostra (Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 11
ottobre 2013-11 gennaio 2014), Firenze, 281-83.

BALBARINI 2003
C. Balbarini, Per verba e per imagines: un commento illustrato all’Inferno nel Musée
Condé di Chantilly, in Intorno al testo. Tipologie del corredo esegetico e soluzioni
editoriali. Atti del Convegno, Urbino, 1-3 ottobre 2001, Roma, 497-512.

BALBARINI 2004
C. Balbarini, Progetto d’autore e committenza illustre nel codice di dedica delle
Expositiones di Guido da Pisa sull’Inferno, «Rivista di studi danteschi» IV 374-84.

BALBARINI 2011
C. Balbarini, L’Inferno di Chantilly. Cultura artistica e letteraria a Pisa nella prima metà
del Trecento, Roma.

BATTAGLIA RICCI 1994
L. Battaglia Ricci, Parole e immagini nella letteratura italiana medievale. Materiali e
problemi, Pisa.

BATTAGLIA RICCI 2001
L. Battaglia Ricci, Il commento illustrato alla Commedia: schede di iconografia
trecentesca, in «Per correr miglior acque…». Bilanci e prospettive degli studi danteschi
alle soglie del nuovo millennio. Atti del Convegno di Verona-Ravenna, 25-29 ottobre
1999, vol. I, Roma, 601-39 (= «Pubblicazioni del Centro Pio Rajna. Studi e saggi» IX).

BATTAGLIA RICCI 2008
L. Battaglia Ricci, Un sistema esegetico complesso: il Dante Chantilly di Guido da Pisa,
«Rivista di studi danteschi» VIII 83-100.
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                       AOFL XII (2017), 2, 76-84


BELLONI 1995
G. Belloni (a cura di), Vincenzio Borghini. Lettera intorno a’ manoscritti antichi, Roma (=
«Testi e documenti di letteratura e di lingua» XVII).

BERTELLI 2002
S. Bertelli, I manoscritti della letteratura italiana delle Origini. Firenze, Biblioteca
Nazionale Centrale, Firenze (= «Biblioteche e Archivi» XI).

BERTELLI 2003
S. Bertelli, I codici di Francesco di ser Nardo da Barberino, «Rivista di studi danteschi»
III 408-21.

BERTELLI 2006
S. Bertelli, Dentro l’officina di Francesco di ser Nardo da Barberino, «L’Alighieri.
Rassegna bibliografica dantesca» XXVIII 77-90.

BERTELLI 2007a
S. Bertelli, La Commedia all’antica, Firenze.

BERTELLI 2007b
S. Bertelli, Per il testo della Commedia. Il ms. Comites Latentes 316 della Bibliothèque
Publique et Universitaire di Ginevra, in «Bibliofilia Subalpina. Quaderno», 9-33.

BERTELLI 2011a
S. Bertelli, La tradizione della Commedia: dai manoscritti al testo. Vol. I. I codici
trecenteschi (entro l’antica vulgata) conservati a Firenze, Firenze (= «Biblioteca
dell’“Archivum romanicum”. Serie I: Storia, Letteratura, Paleografia» CCCLXXVI).

BERTELLI 2011b
S. Bertelli, I manoscritti della letteratura italiana delle Origini. Firenze, Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana, Firenze (= «Biblioteche e Archivi» XXII).

BERTELLI 2014
S. Bertelli, Codicologia d’autore. Il manoscritto in volgare secondo Giovanni Boccaccio, in
S. Bertelli – D. Cappi (a cura di), Dentro l’officina di Giovanni Boccaccio. Studi sugli
autografi in volgare e su Boccaccio dantista, Città del Vaticano, 1-80.

BERTELLI 2016
S. Bertelli, La tradizione della Commedia: dai manoscritti al testo. Vol. II. I codici
trecenteschi (oltre l’antica vulgata) conservati a Firenze, Firenze (= «Biblioteca
dell’“Archivum romanicum”. Serie I: Storia, Letteratura, Paleografia» CDXLVIII).
Bertelli                                                        AOFL XII (2017), 2, 77-84


BERTELLI – CAPPI 2014
S. Bertelli – D. Cappi (a cura di), Dentro l’officina di Giovanni Boccaccio. Studi sugli
autografi in volgare e su Boccaccio dantista, Città del Vaticano (= «Studi e Testi»
CDLXXXVI).

BERTELLI – CURSI 2012
S. Bertelli – M. Cursi, Novità sull’autografo Toledano di Giovanni Boccaccio. Una data e
un disegno sconosciuti, «Critica del Testo» XV/1 287-95.

BETTARINI – BRESCHI – TANTURLI 2015
A. Bettarini Bruni – G. Breschi – G. Tanturli, Giovanni Boccaccio e la tradizione dei testi
volgari, in M. Marchiaro – S. Zamponi (a cura di), Boccaccio letterato. Atti del Convegno
internazionale di Firenze-Certaldo, 10-12 ottobre 2013, Firenze, 9-104.

BOLTON HOLLOWAY 1986
J. Bolton Holloway (ed.), Brunetto Latini: an analytic bibliography, London-Wolfeboro.

BOSCHI ROTIROTI 2004
M. Boschi Rotiroti, Codicologia trecentesca della Commedia. Dentro e oltre l’antica
vulgata, Roma (= «Scritture e libri del medioevo» II).

BRESCHI 2014
G. Breschi, Il ms. Vaticano latino 3199 tra Boccaccio e Petrarca, «Studi di filologia
italiana» LXXII 95-117.

BRIEGER – MEISS – SINGLETON 1969
P. Brieger – M. Meiss- Ch.S. Singleton (eds.), Illuminated Manuscripts of the Divine
Comedy, Princeton, 2 voll.

CAPPI – GIOLA 2014
D. Cappi – M. Giola, La redazione non autografa del Trattatello in laude di Dante:
tradizione manoscritta e rapporti con le altre redazioni, in S. Bertelli – D. Cappi (a cura
di), Dentro l’officina di Giovanni Boccaccio. Studi sugli autografi in volgare e su
Boccaccio dantista, Città del Vaticano, 245-325.

CASAMASSIMA 1972
E. Casamassima, La prima edizione della Divina Commedia, Milano.

CASAMASSIMA 1974
E. Casamassima, Literulae latinae. Nota paleografica, in S. Caroti – S. Zamponi (a cura
di), Lo scrittoio di Bartolomeo Fonzio umanista fiorentino, Milano, IX-XXXIII.
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                       AOFL XII (2017), 2, 78-84


CASAMASSIMA 1988
E. Casamassima, Tradizione corsiva e tradizione libraria nella scrittura latina del
Medioevo, Roma.

CASTELLANI 1952
A. Castellani, Nuovi testi fiorentini del Dugento con introduzione, trattazione linguistica
e glossario, Firenze, 2 voll. (= «Autori classici e documenti di lingua pubblicati
dall’Accademia della Crusca»).

CIOCIOLA 2001
C. Ciociola, Dante, in E. Malato (dir.), Storia della letteratura italiana, vol. X. La
tradizione dei testi, Roma, 137-99.

COGLIEVINA 2001
L. Coglievina, Lettori della Commedia: le stampe, in «Per correr miglior acque…».
Bilanci e prospettive degli studi danteschi alle soglie del nuovo millennio. Atti del
Convegno di Verona-Ravenna, 25-29 ottobre 1999, vol. I, Roma, 325-70 (= «Pubblicazioni
del Centro Pio Rajna. Studi e saggi» IX).

CONTINI 1966
G. Contini, Manoscritti meridionali della Commedia, in Dante e l’Italia meridionale. Atti
del congresso nazionale di studi danteschi di Caserta, Benevento, Cassino, Salerno,
Napoli, 10-16 ottobre 1965, ed. Seminario di studi danteschi di Caserta, Firenze, 337-41 (=
«Comitato nazionale per le celebrazioni del VII centenario della nascita di Dante»).

DE LA MARE 1977
A.C. de la Mare, Humanistic Script: the First Ten Years, in F. Krafft – D. Wuttke (Hrsg.),
Das Verhältnis der Humanisten zum Buch, Boppard, 89-108.

DE ROBERTIS 2001
T. De Robertis, Descrizione e storia del canzoniere Palatino, in L. Leonardi (a cura di), I
canzonieri della lirica italiana delle Origini. Vol. I. Il canzoniere Vaticano (Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 3793). Vol. II. Il canzoniere Laurenziano (Firenze,
Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Redi 9). Vol. III. Il canzoniere Palatino (Biblioteca
Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Banco Rari 217, ex Palatino 418). Vol. IV. Studi critici,
Firenze, 2000-2001, vol. IV, 317-50 (= «Biblioteche e Archivi» VI).

DE ROBERTIS 2015
T. De Robertis, Il posto di Boccaccio nella storia della scrittura, in M. Marchiaro – S.
Zamponi (a cura di), Boccaccio letterato. Atti del Convegno internazionale di Firenze-
Certaldo, 10-12 ottobre 2013, Firenze, 145-70.
Bertelli                                                         AOFL XII (2017), 2, 79-84


DE ROBERTIS BONIFORTI 1997
T. De Robertis Boniforti, Nota sul codice e la sua scrittura, in Z.G. Barański – P. Boyde
(eds.), The «Fiore» in Context. Dante, France, Tuscany, Notre Dame-London, 49-86.

DE ROBERTIS – MIRIELLO 1999
T. De Robertis – R. Miriello (a cura di), I manoscritti datati della Biblioteca Riccardiana
di Firenze, vol. II. Mss. 1001-1400, Firenze (= «Manoscritti datati d’Italia» III).

DEROLEZ 1984
A. Derolez, Codicologie des manuscrits en écriture humanistique sur parchemin,
Turnhout, 2 voll.

DIONISOTTI 1965
C. Dionisotti, Dante nel Quattrocento, in Atti del Congresso internazionale di studi
danteschi, 20-27 aprile 1965, eds. Società Dantesca Italiana and Associazione
Internazionale per gli Studi di Lingua e Letteratura Italiana e sotto il patrocinio dei
Comuni di Firenze, Verona-Ravenna, vol. I, Firenze, 333-78.

FOLENA 1965-1966
G. Folena, La tradizione delle Opere di Dante Alighieri, in Atti del Congresso
internazionale di studi danteschi, 20-27 aprile 1965, eds. Società Dantesca Italiana and
Associazione Internazionale per gli Studi di Lingua e Letteratura Italiana e sotto il
patrocinio dei Comuni di Firenze, Verona-Ravenna, vol. I, Firenze, 1-78.

FREULER 2004
G. Freuler, Niccolò di ser Sozzo, in Dizionario biografico dei miniatori italiani. Secoli IX-
XVI, ed. M. Bollati, Milano, 823-26.

GIUNTI 2007
C. Giunti, L’«antica vulgata» del Capitolo di Jacopo Alighieri. Con un’edizione
(provvisoria) del testo, in P. Trovato (a cura di), Nuove prospettive sulla tradizione della
Commedia. Una guida filologico-linguistica al poema dantesco, Firenze, 583-610.

GROSSI TURCHETTI 2004
M.L. Grossi Turchetti (a cura di), I manoscritti datati della Biblioteca Nazionale
Braidense di Milano, Firenze (= «Manoscritti datati d’Italia» X).

GUIDI 2007
V. Guidi, I numeri della tradizione dantesca. Qualche considerazione di statistica
descrittiva, in P. Trovato (a cura di), Nuove prospettive sulla tradizione della Commedia.
Una guida filologico-linguistica al poema dantesco, Firenze, 215-28.
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                      AOFL XII (2017), 2, 80-84


KANTER 2004
L.B. Kanter, Maestro delle Effigi Domenicane, in M. Bollati (a cura di), Dizionario
biografico dei miniatori italiani. Secoli IX-XVI, Milano, 560-62.

LANZA 1995
A. Lanza (a cura di), Dante Alighieri, Comedìa. Nuovo testo critico secondo i più antichi
manoscritti fiorentini, Anzio (= «Medioevo e Rinascimento» V).

MALATO 2004
E. Malato, Per una nuova edizione commentata delle opere di Dante, Roma.

MALATO – MAZZUCCHI 2011
E. Malato – A. Mazzucchi (a cura di), Censimento dei commenti danteschi, 1. I commenti
di tradizione manoscritta (fino al 1480), Roma, 2 voll. (www.centropiorajna.it).

MARIANI CANOVA 1997
G. Mariani Canova, I manoscritti miniati, in P. Gios – A.M. Spiazzi (a cura di), Il
Seminario di Gregorio Barbarigo. Trecento anni di arte, cultura e fede, Padova, 151-77.

MECCA 2013a
A.E. Mecca, Il canone editoriale dell’antica vulgata di Giorgio Petrocchi e le edizioni
dantesche del Boccaccio, in E. Tonello – P. Trovato (a cura di), Nuove prospettive sulla
tradizione della Commedia. Seconda serie (2008-2013), Padova, 119-82.

MECCA 2013b
A.E. Mecca, La tradizione a stampa della Commedia: dall’aldina del Bembo (1502)
all’edizione della Crusca (1595), «Nuova Rivista di Letteratura Italiana» XVI 9-59.

MIGLIO 2001
L. Miglio, Lettori della Commedia: i manoscritti, in «Per correr miglior acque…». Bilanci
e prospettive degli studi danteschi alle soglie del nuovo millennio. Atti del Convegno di
Verona-Ravenna, 25-29 ottobre 1999, vol. I, Roma, 295-323 (= «Pubblicazioni del Centro
Pio Rajna. Studi e saggi» IX).

MIGLIO 2003
L. Miglio, I commenti danteschi: i commenti figurati, in Intorno al testo: tipologie del
corredo esegetico e soluzioni editoriali. Atti del Convegno di Urbino, 1-3 ottobre 2001,
Roma, 377-401.

MORISON 1944
S. Morison, Early Humanistic Script and the First Roman Type, «The Library» s. IV
XXIV 1-29.
Bertelli                                                        AOFL XII (2017), 2, 81-84


MULAS 2005
P.L. Mulas, L’Enfer de Dante, «Art de l’enluminure» XIV (septembre/octobre/novembre)
2-73.

PASUT 2006a
F. Pasut, Codici miniati della Commedia a Firenze attorno al 1330: questioni attributive e
di cronologia, «Rivista di studi danteschi» VI 379-409.

PASUT 2006b
F. Pasut, Il «Dante» illustrato di Petrarca: problemi di miniatura tra Firenze e Pisa alla
metà del Trecento, «Studi Petrarcheschi» n.s. XIX 115-47.

PASUT 2008
F. Pasut, Pacino di Bonaguida e le miniature della Divina Commedia: un percorso tra
codici poco noti, in F. Pasut – J. Tripps (a cura di), Da Giotto a Botticelli. Pittura
fiorentina tra Gotico e Rinascimento. Atti del convegno internazionale di Firenze,
Università degli Studi e Museo di San Marco, 20-21 maggio 2005, Firenze, 41-62.

PASUT 2009
F. Pasut, Maestro delle Effigi Domenicane, description of the Divina Commedia Firenze,
BML, Plut. 40.13, in A. Tomei (a cura di), Giotto e il Trecento. «Il più Sovrano Maestro
stato in dipintura». Catalogo della mostra, Roma, Complesso del Vittoriano, 6 marzo-29
giugno 2009, Milano, 2 voll.

PAVARINI 2014
S. Pavarini (a cura di), Vincenzio Buonanni. Discorso sopra la prima cantica della
Commedia, Roma (= «Edizione nazionale dei commenti danteschi» XXXV).

PEGORETTI 2014
A. Pegoretti, Indagine su un codice dantesco. La Commedia Egerton 943 della British
Library, Pisa.

PETROCCHI 1966-1967
G. Petrocchi (a cura di), Dante Alighieri. La Commedia secondo l’antica vulgata, Milano,
4 voll. (repr. Firenze, Le Lettere, 1994 and 2003).

PETRUCCI 1969
A. Petrucci, Alle origini del libro moderno. Libri da banco, libri da bisaccia, libretti da
mano, «Italia medioevale e umanistica» XII 295-313.

PETRUCCI 1988
A. Petrucci, Storia e geografia delle culture scritte (dal sec. XI al secolo XVIII), in
Letteratura italiana. II. Storia e geografia. 2, L’età moderna, Torino, 1193-1292.
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                       AOFL XII (2017), 2, 82-84


POMARO 1986
G. Pomaro, Codicologia dantesca. I. L’officina di Vat, «Studi Danteschi» LVIII 343-74.

POMARO 1994a
G. Pomaro, Frammenti di un discorso dantesco, Modena (= «Archivio storico
nonantolano» III).

POMARO 1994b
G. Pomaro, I testi e il testo, in V. Placella – S. Martelli (a cura di), I moderni ausili
all’ecdotica. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi di Fisciano-Vietri sul Mare-Napoli,
27-31 ottobre 1990, Napoli, 193-213.

POMARO 1995
G. Pomaro, I copisti e il testo. Quattro esempi dalla Biblioteca Riccardiana, in R. Abardo
(a cura di), La Società Dantesca Italiana 1888-1988. Convegno internazionale di Firenze,
24-26 novembre 1988, Palazzo Vecchio-Palazzo Medici Riccardi-Palagio dell’Arte della
Lana, Milano-Napoli, 497-536.

POMARO 2001
G. Pomaro, Analisi codicologica e valutazioni testuali della tradizione della Commedia,
in «Per correr miglior acque…». Bilanci e prospettive degli studi danteschi alle soglie del
nuovo millennio. Atti del Convegno di Verona-Ravenna, 25-29 ottobre 1999, vol. II,
Roma, 1055-68 (= «Pubblicazioni del ‘Centro Pio Rajna’. Studi e saggi» IX).

POMARO 2003
G. Pomaro, Forme editoriali nella Commedia, in Intorno al testo. Tipologie del corredo
esegetico e soluzioni editoriali. Atti del Convegno di Urbino, 1-3 ottobre 2001, Roma, 283-
319 (= «Pubblicazioni del ‘Centro Pio Rajna’. Sezione prima. Studi e saggi» XI).

POMARO 2007
G. Pomaro, Ricerche d’archivio per il «copista di Parm» e la mano principale del Cento.
(In margine ai «Frammenti di un discorso dantesco»), in P. Trovato (a cura di), Nuove
prospettive sulla tradizione della Commedia. Una guida filologico-linguistica al poema
dantesco, Firenze, 243-79.

RINALDI 2013
M. Rinaldi (a cura di), Guido da Pisa. Expositiones et glose. Declaratio super ‘Comediam’
Dantis, Roma, 2 voll. (= «Edizione nazionale dei commenti danteschi» V).

ROCCA 1921
L. Rocca (a cura di), Il Codice Trivulziano 1080 della Divina Commedia riprodotto in
eliocromia sotto gli auspici della Sezione milanese della Società Dantesca Italiana nel
Bertelli                                                        AOFL XII (2017), 2, 83-84


sesto centenario della morte del Poeta, with an historical introduction and ms.
description, Milano.

RODDEWIG 1984
M. Roddewig, Dante Alighieri. Die göttliche Komödie. Vergleichende Bestandsaufnahme
der Commedia-Handschriften, Stuttgart (= «Hiersemanns bibliographische Handbücher»
IV).

ROMANINI 2007a
F. Romanini, Manoscritti e postillati dell’«antica vulgata», in P. Trovato (a cura di),
Nuove prospettive sulla tradizione della Commedia. Una guida filologico-linguistica al
poema dantesco, Firenze, 49-60.

ROMANINI 2007b
F. Romanini, Altri testimoni della Commedia, in P. Trovato (a cura di), Nuove prospettive
sulla tradizione della Commedia. Una guida filologico-linguistica al poema dantesco,
Firenze, 61-94.

SANGUINETI 2001
F. Sanguineti (a cura di), Dantis Alagherii Comedia, Firenze (= «Archivio romanzo» II).

SAVINO 2000
G. Savino, L’autografo virtuale della Commedia, Firenze, Società Dantesca Italiana
(reprinted also in «Per correr miglior acque…». Bilanci e prospettive degli studi danteschi
alle soglie del nuovo millennio. Atti del Convegno di Verona-Ravenna, 25-29 ottobre
1999, vol. II, Roma 2001, 1099-1110).

SCHIAFFINI 19542
A. Schiaffini, Testi fiorentini del Dugento e dei primi del Trecento, Firenze (= «Autori
classici e documenti di lingua pubblicati dall’Accademia della Crusca, first ed. Firenze,
Sansoni», 1926).

TANTURLI 2008
G. Tanturli, L’edizione fiorentina della Commedia del tempo e dell’ambiente del Salutati,
in T. De Robertis – G. Tanturli – S. Zamponi (a cura di), Coluccio Salutati e l’invenzione
dell’Umanesimo. Catalogo della Mostra di Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 2
novembre 2008-30 gennaio 2009, Firenze, 75-78.

TONELLO – TROVATO 2013
E. Tonello – P. Trovato (a cura di), Nuove prospettive sulla tradizione della Commedia.
Seconda serie (2008-2013), Padova (= «Storie e linguaggi» III).
Dante Alighieri’s “Comedy”                                      AOFL XII (2017), 2, 84-84


TROVATO 2007
P. Trovato (a cura di), Nuove prospettive sulla tradizione della Commedia. Una guida
filologico-linguistica al poema dantesco, Firenze (= «Filologia e ordinatori» III).

VANDELLI 1922
G. Vandelli, Il più antico testo critico della «Divina Commedia» (1922), in R. Abardo (a
cura di), Per il testo della Divina Commedia, Firenze 1989, 111-44.

VOLPI 2010
M. Volpi (a cura di), Iacomo della Lana. Commento alla ‘Commedia’, Roma (= «Edizione
nazionale dei commenti danteschi» III).

VOLPI 2013
M. Volpi, Dai lemmi del commento verso il perduto Dante del Lana, in E. Tonello – P.
Trovato (a cura di), Nuove prospettive sulla tradizione della Commedia. Seconda serie
(2008-2013), Padova, 47-70.

ZAMPONI 1997
S. Zamponi, Bastarda, in Von H. Cancik – H. Schneider (Hrsg.), Der Neue Pauly.
Enzyklopädie der Antike, vol. II, Stuttgart, 485-87.

ZAMPONI 2009
S. Zamponi, Un Dante all’antica copiato da Iacopo Angeli da Scarperia, in T. De Robertis
– G. Tanturli – S. Zamponi (a cura di), Coluccio Salutati e l’invenzione dell’Umanesimo.
Catalogo della Mostra di Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 2 novembre 2008-30
gennaio 2009, Firenze, 302-03.

ZANICHELLI 2006
G.Z. Zanichelli, L’immagine come glossa. Considerazioni su alcuni frontespizi miniati
della Commedia, in M.M. Donato et al. (a cura di), Dante e le arti visive, Milano, 109-43
(= «Gerione» I).
