## LUCAN'S LOST GAULS: THE INTERPOLATION AT DE BELLO CIVILI 1.436-40

By Alexander Andrée

Summary: This article discusses five spurious lines at Lucan 1.436-40. Reviewing the early printed tradition of De bello civili as well as examining the medieval manuscripts in which the lines are found, the study explores the extant evidence for the lines. In its search for the origin of the lines, the investigation comprises a discussion of the palaeography of the manuscripts, the poetic and contextual interpretation of the lines, and will  venture  a  suggestion  as  to  their  date  and  presumptive  author  and  the  location where they were likely composed.

## I

Lucan 1.392-465 catalogues the Gallic tribes left behind unguarded when Caesar summons his legions to civil war. 1 Among the twenty tribes mentioned by name and the fifteen or so alluded to by way of geographic periphrases - rivers, mountain ranges, gods, cities, and lakes 2 - are counted the Bituriges, the Suessones, the Averni, the Remi and others inhabiting central and northern France or Belgium. After 1.435, Gens habitat cana pendentes rupe Cebennas , follow five spurious lines that are normally excised by modern editors of Lucan:

- 1 Williams 1978: 222, calls this 'a catalogue in reverse' by comparison with previous epic examples, the model being, of course, the catalogue of ships in Iliad 2. Whereas the purpose of previous catalogues, including the two in Virgil's Aeneid , was to present the forces that were to take part in the action, Lucan's catalogue instead lists the tribes that will be left behind when Caesar leaves Gaul to invade Italy.
- 2 See Roche 2009: 278.

- 436  Pictones immunes subigunt sua rura; nec ultra
- 437  instabiles Turones circumsita castra coercent.
- 438  In nebulis, Meduana, tuis marcere perosus
- 439  Andus iam placida Ligeris recreatur ab unda.
- 440  Inclita Caesareis Genabos dissoluitur alis. 3

Housman, 4 Getty, Wuilleumier and Le Bonniec, Shackleton-Bailey, Luck, Gagliardi,  and,  most  recently,  Roche 5 all  either  remove  1.436-40  from their texts or print them in brackets. 6 Although they seem to continue the theme of Lucan's Gallic tribes, these lines have very little support in the manuscripts: of the around 400 surviving copies of De bello civili , only three preserve the first four of these lines; for 440 there seems to be no manuscript support whatsoever. If the consensus that the lines are spurious is so strong among editors, how did they find their way into the convential numbering system, and what is their origin? Let us try to find out.

The lines first appear in print in 1524, when Mariangelo Accorso or Accursius (1489-1546) cited them in a note on Ausonius' Mosella , claiming to have found the lines in a codex peruetustus that  inserted them after 1.435. 7 The lines as quoted by Accursius, however, differ from how they

- 3 'The free (or idle or tax-exempt) men of Poitou cultivate their fields, and no longer do the neighbouring camps surround the fickle men of Touraine. Loathing to be languid in your mists, Mayenne,
- The man of Anjou is now refreshed by the calm waters of the Loire.
- Glorious Orléanais is released from Caesar's troops.' All translations in this article are my own.
- 4 Although claiming to reprint Housman's edition (p. vii), which does not include lines 436-40, Duff 1928: 34-35 adds them in brackets in his Loeb edition, but without translating them.
- 5 Roche 2009: 293, on lines 436-40: 'These lines are not found in Ω and are rejected by all modern editors as an interpolation; 436-9 were apparently inserted at some point before 1115; 440 appears for the first time in 1521.'
- 6 They are defended, unsuccessfully, by Mendell 1942: 3-22 (at 14-15). I am grateful to Christopher M. Berard, Providence College, Rhode Island, who in a time of library closures helped me obtain a copy of this article.
- 7 Accursius 1524: in Ausonii Mos. 468 (n.p.). A bibliographic mishap has meant that scholars have quoted Accursius' work as if it were printed in 1521 (Lejay 1894: CI , repeated most recently by Roche 2009: 293; see note 5 above). The origin of the error

are  conventionally  printed:  instead  of Pictones  immunes  subigunt Accursius  has Pictonis  immunis  subigit ;  he  inverses  lines  437  and  438;  he prints Tricoros instead of Turonos , Medualle in place of Meduana , Adus instead of Andus , and Menabos for Genabos . Although he was aware of the grammatical and hermeneutical inconsistencies of the lines as he read them in his manuscript, Accursius left it to his readers to perform the necessary emendations. 8

It appears that it was Turnebus (1512-1565) who first rearranged the lines in the way we saw them printed above (although he replaced 438 nebulis with ripis ). According to a note in his Aduersaria , the French philologist saw them 'in Belgica editione,' but since he was only able to find the lines in a single manuscript (and one which had just the first four lines), he drew the conclusion that they were spurious. 9 The Belgian edition is mentioned in the context of another occurrence of the lines, hitherto unnoticed. At the foot of fol. 4v of the manuscript Berne, Burgerbibliothek, 45, a ninth-century copy of Lucan from Fleury, the five lines have been  added  in  an  early-modern  hand,  perhaps  that  of  Pierre  Daniel (1530-1603) or Jacques Bongars (1554-1612), the earlier owners of the manuscript, and connected with a line to their position after 435. The annotator claims to have found the lines 'in Belgica editione' but regards them to be 'valde suspecti'; however, the lines do not occur here as they are printed in the Belgian edition, as we shall see below, but according  to  the  emended  version  as  proposed  by  Turnebus,  to  whose Aduersaria the annotator refers with book and chapter.

is to be found in the fact that Accursius dates his apology for the work, entitled 'Testudo,' where he defends himself against charges of plagiarism, printed at the end of the volume, to November 1521, whereas the date of printing, found only a few lines below the date of the preface, is April 1524 (n.p.).

- 8 Accursius 1524: In Ausonii Mos. 468 (n.p.): 'Hos autem, non aliter omnino referentes quam in codice ipso haberentur, et quod hic corrigendi locus non erat, legentium coniecturis discutiendos linquimus.'
- 9 Turnebus 1599: col. 729: 'Libr. i. Lucani quinque versus additi sunt in Belgica editione: quorum quatuor in vno duntaxat exemplari reperi, vt eo nomine mihi pene pro spuriis suspecti sint. confido autem me eos & melius ordinaturum, & fidelius exhibiturum …'

The Belgian edition to which both Turnebus and the anonymous annotator in Berne, Burgerbibliothek, 45 refer ought to be Theodor Poelmann's 1576 Antwerp printing. 10 This contains the lines, numbered 43640, printed almost exactly as Accursius did. 11 And indeed, a note to line 436 reveals that Poelmann read the lines in Accursius's Diatribae . In the same note, Poelmann also cites the lines from Willem Canter's Nouae lectiones , book III, printed at Antwerp in 1571. In this work, 12 the first four lines (436-39) occur in a discussion of other spurious or added lines in Lucan. In the note Canter quotes the lines with 436 Pictonus etc. in the singular, 437 and 438 in the order proposed by Turnebus, as well as displaying the forms Turonos , Meditana , and Andus . Canter does not mention a fifth line; his source must therefore have been different from that of Accursius. Gregor Bersmann, furthermore, in his Leipzig edition of 1589, prints the lines in the text (unnumbered) exactly as Poelmann; in a marginal comment, he also notes the readings of Canter. 13

The lines are also mentioned by Étienne Clavier in his 1602 edition of Claudian's opera . 14 Commenting on 32 Pictorum in the latter's panegyric of  Emperor Honorius' fourth consulate, Clavier claims for reasons unknown that the first four verses (he was apparently unaware of 440) were inserted into Lucan's text by Jacques Cujas (1522-90). Since Cujas did not edit Lucan or comment on him directly, this assertion is difficult to substantiate, short of combing through his massive oeuvre of legal commentary. Hugo Grotius, however, in his three editions of Lucan, 15 prints all five lines, without numbering, with 437 and 438 in the order as corrected by Turnebus, alongside the forms Turonas , Meduana , Andus , and Genabos . In the notes following after the text, Grotius describes the lines as additions, since not all manuscripts carry them. 16

- 10  Poelmann 1576: 28. The lines are not found in the first Belgian edition of Lucan, the 1475-76 Louvain printing by Johann Veldener.
- 11  The difference is that Poelmann prints 436 Pictones immunes subigunt , and 437 coercet (for coercent ).

12  Canter 1571: 155.

13  Bersmann 1589: 35.

14  Clavier 1602: 147.

15  Grotius 1614; 1626; 1651.

- 16  I have read the notes in the 1651 edition, where they are found at 339-40.

Oudendorp seems to be the first editor to set off the lines typographically: in his 1728 edition he both brackets and italicizes them, and adds the comment that he found them neither Latin nor poetic ('neque latini, nec poëtici sunt'). He also expressed the sentiment, before launching into his own rather detailed commentary, that they were worthy neither of being emended nor explained ('addo, nec dignos, ut emendentur, aut explicentur').  Furthermore,  the  manuscript  in  which  Oudendorp  saw them, which had belonged to the mayor Hulst de la Haye, displayed the verses after 443 and, apparently, copied as part of the continuous text. 17 Oudendorp set the tone for future editors: henceforth, the lines are excluded from editions of Lucan's epic.

So far the printed tradition. Accursius claims to have seen the lines in a codex peruetustus ,  and Grotius, Oudendorp, and other critics mention that they have seen the lines in manuscripts. What, then, is the extant manuscript evidence for the spurious lines?

## II

Whereas 440 is nowhere to be found outside the printed tradition, lines 436-39 are preserved by three manuscripts of Lucan's De bello civili : 18

The first is M (Montpellier, Bibliothèque Universitaire Historique de Médecine, H113), a manuscript from the second quarter of the ninth century, whose script 'erinnert an Orléans-typ'; this belonged at one time

- 17  This manuscript is no longer extant. Oudendorp 1728: 61 followed Grotius in reading Turonas : 'from the MS which Canterus used, in which Turonos (although I know that Turonios is  read  in  Tacitus. But Caesar always uses Turones ,  whom I believe Lucan followed).' And he also reports the variants of other editions: 'Grotius, Canterus, Ciacconus, Hulst have Turonos ; Pulm. & Bersm. have Tricoros .'
- 18  I use the sigla of Lejay 1894: LXXXIV , mindful that Gotoff 1971 uses R not of Paris, BnF, lat.  8040,  but  of  Montpellier,  Bibliothèque  Universitaire  Historique  de  Médecine, H362. No other of the seventy-something manuscripts from French, Italian, English, Swiss, and German libraries that I have collated for this study contains the four (or five) spurious lines.

ubf meduans tui marce polist

to the abbey of Saint-Martin, Autun. 19 Used by all modern editors of Lucan, M is  Hosius' 'codex optimus,' but Housman's 'king of shreds and patches […], the manuscript which we could best dispense with.' 20 Our spurious lines were added by a French seemingly twelfth-century hand mid-page in the left margin of fol. 7v, 21 where cropping of the page has resulted in the loss of the first five or six letters of each line. Their position after 435 Cebennas (spelled gebennas in the manuscript) and before 441 Tu quoque is indicated by an oblique line: 22

Bibliothèque universitaire historique de médecine, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier. H113, fol. 7v (detail). Photo credits: BIU de Montpellier. Service photographique Montpellier.

<!-- image -->

The next is R (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 8040), an eleventh-century manuscript (either early or late, the dating varies), 23 which belonged to the abbey of St Benedict at Fleury-sur-Loire, 24 a gift of a certain Girard, according to an 'ex-libris', written in a hand contemporary with the main text, running across the opening of fol. 7v-8r and down part of the right-hand column of fol. 8r: 'Hunc librum contulit Girardus monachus Patri Benedicto. Quem si quis tulerit anathema sit.'

- 19  The placing and dating are Bischoff's in Bischoff & Ebersperger 1998-2014: vol. 2, 200, no. 2828. See also Munk Olsen 1982-85: 48; and Gotoff 1971: 14.
- 20  See Hosius 1913: xlvii; Housman 1927: xiii.
- 21  Unless otherwise stated, the dating of scribal hands in this article is my own.
- 22  The tie-mark visible in the image over meduana is not picked up anywhere on the page.
- 23  Châtelain 1894-1900: vol. 2, 19, specifying the date to s . XI in ; Munk Olsen 1982-85: 5556, gives instead s . XI 2 .
- 24  The volume is found in the 1552 booklist of Fleury. It is BF1143 in Mostert 1989: 223. On the manuscripts of the Classics from Fleury, see Pellegrin 1986. Manuscript R is mentioned on p. 164.

cens babraiz cana p azel horrenta feru attarb: clai o z zarant feythe n mon ara drane ;

of quay; que forref ammar bellog, pempras

rebellop empar

ictond immund fubizz fua rura nec ubera

The same inscription is repeated in the same way at fol. 113v-14r. Our lines  were  added  by  a  French  late  eleventh-  or  early  twelfth-century hand at fol. 8r, immediately below the text, with a tie-mark indicating their  position  after  435 Cebennas (spelled gebennas in  the  manuscript). Châtelain seems to suggest that if Girardus, the donor of the manuscript, is identified with a certain Giraldus, 25 'auteur de divers poèmes,' he may be the author of our spurious lines; outside of the Histoire littéraire , however, this Giraldus is unknown. 26 R is normally not used by editors of Lucan.

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 8040, fol. 8r (detail).

<!-- image -->

The third and last manuscript is T (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 8039) written, according to Bischoff, either late in the ninth or early in the tenth century, perhaps at Fleury. 27 The hands that copied the  manuscript,  which  also  includes  Boethius' Consolatio , 28 are  indeed

25  He is mentioned as the late tenth-century author of a poem on the exploits of Vautier

or Walther, King of Aquitaine, by the Histoire littéraire de la France 1733: 438.

26  Châtelain 1894-1900: vol. 2, 19.

27  Bischoff & Ebersperger 1998-2014: vol. 3, 137, no. 4519. In his handwritten notes on this manuscripts, now published digitally by the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Bischoff  conjectured  its  origin  as  'vielleicht  Fleury':  http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/cgi-bin/digilib.pl?ident=h001460\_37&dir=h&tit=&img=28  (accessed  5  August 2020); see also Munk Olsen 1982-85: 55.

28  According to a note in a later medieval hand on fol. 77v, the volume once contained also Juvenal and Prudentius; its early modern owners include J.-A. de Thou and Colbert; Lejay 1894: LXXXIV .

~ Tarama rimioara dane qu diana

brumanufangume lecabre. Oeng;

VV 11U

V111

-/·

mitabilel turonol arcu fica caftra cobercere·

French, but resist further and stricter classification. 29 Fabio Troncarelli suggests  to  me  that  the  manuscript  may  have  been  housed  at  SaintEvroult, 30 an abbey situated on the border of Normandy which had another copy of Boethius at the end of the ninth century, whose initials are similar to the ones in T . 31 What appears to be an ownership mark in the margin of fol. 61v, now almost entirely covered in ink, presumably by the manuscript's  new  owners,  may  provide  further  confirmation  of  this provenance. The text is written in two columns and surrounded and interweaved, for the first four and a half folios, by a plethora of glosses, which then begin to dwindle; they return at fol. 41r and continue to the end of the work at 49v. The last gathering is damaged (by fire?). Our additional lines were added in the upper margin of fol. 3v in a large, clear French tenth- or early-eleventh-century hand, not much different in age from that of the text hand, but in a higher grade script than the text itself. The cropping of the page has resulted in the loss of line 436. No visible indication in T signals the placing of the lines relative to the text (thus, unless it was explicitly stated in connection with the cropped-off line 436, the position of the lines could not have been gleaned by anyone who copied them from T ).

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 8039, fol. 3v (detail).

<!-- image -->

- 29  I am grateful to Prof. David Ganz, who helped me reach this conclusion, and who pointed me to Bischoff's digitized notes.
- 30  Private communication, 4 August 2020. See also Troncarelli 1987: 176, no. 32.
- 31  Alençon, Bibliothèque municipale, 12. I am grateful to Prof. Troncarelli for sharing this information with me.

120

Hen!

Lo Lapia palettonal uncu connar varenat Telluriquá noucer genfuf quămolta bapfur In  fact,  the  large,  round,  elegant  tenth-  or  early-eleventh-century hand of French pedigree that wrote the added lines on fol. 3v, with tapering descenders and feet devoid of serifs, is similar but not identical to a hand that relieves the main hand and writes part of the text on fol. 22r.

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 8039, fol. 22r (detail).

<!-- image -->

## III

Based on the evidence of M and R , therefore, the position of the lines after 435 seems clear. However, aside from the obvious omission of 440, which is found in no medieval manuscript, the text as transmitted by these three manuscripts display significant differences from how they are conventionally printed.

First, the first three words of 436 are not in fact written Pictones immunes subigunt ,  but  are  found instead in the singular: pictonus immunis subigit ( M and R ; the line, as we saw, is missing in T ). 32 Oudendorp gives as a reason for the change: 'Numquam enim haec gens Pictoni , sed Pictones vocantur.' 33 To be sure, Caesar uses the form Pictones (Gall . 7.4.6), as does Pliny the Elder (nat. 4.108 and 17.47) to describe the men of Poitou, otherwise referred to as Pictaui . Although it is used by Caesar and Pliny, however, the 'emended' reading Pictones is never used, to my knowledge, in Latin epic poetry, probably for the reason that the o is short (while the ending es is long, thus yielding a cretic, impossible in hexameter). Pictonus , by contrast, may be scanned as a dactyl. Given that the words qualifying Pictonus ( immunis and subigit ) are both in the singular, the emendation to the plural is, to my mind, smacking of prurigo coniciendi : is it not more likely that Pictonus is a hapax than that all three words are wrong? I think the poet must be allowed some licence and wordplay in line with the other singular subject in these lines (439 Andus ).

Usually, editors print the form Turones at 437; this is not, however, the reading of the three manuscripts, which all have Turonos . Grotius, Oudendorp (and others) were aware of the manuscript reading but emended it to Turonas ,  claiming  to  follow  Caesar,  whom  they  mistakenly  thought used Turones ('sed Turones semper Caesar'). 34 Caesar in fact writes Turonos in the accusative plural (Gall . 7.4.6). Turoni is used by Tacitus in the nominative plural (ann . 3.41); 35 but Pliny the Elder writes Turones (nat.

- 32  As we saw above, Accursius, and therefore probably also the manuscript he was using, presented a variant of the singular reading (oddly substituting Pictonis for Pictonus ).
- 33  Oudendorp 1728: 61.
- 34  Oudendorp 1728: 62; Grotius 1651: 339.
- 35  The form Turoni is also used by the anonymous author of the Vita metrica sancti Martini , v. 145-49 (Huygens 2000: 766-90), employing also some of the other forms in the lines here under scrutiny: 'Sed dum omnes obdormiunt / Turoni corpus rapiunt, / per fenestram eiciunt / et aforis suscipiunt. Baiulant suum gaudium, / voces sonant letancium, / evectione navium / intrant Ligeris fluvium. Expergefacti grandibus / Pictavenses sonoribus / delusos se fallacibus / dolent esse soporibus. / Hinc redeunt

4.107). From the context, it is apparent that our text requires Turonos as the accusative object of coercent , of which Caesar's camps is the subject. Thus, the common reading of the manuscripts ought to be correct.

Line 438 Meduana has been a source of some contention among critics. Thus, some editors print Meditana (Canter for example), others Medualle (Poelmann and Bersmann, presumably following Accursius); Meduana , however, is the Latin name for the river Mayenne, a branch of the Loire, as is attested by among others Gregory of Tours, 36 Theodulf of Orléans, 37 and other authors. It is thus from an early date a well-attested name for the Mayenne.

Anjou is the place (city or region) meant by Andus in 439. Since Caesar uses the form Andes to refer to the people of Angers or Anjou ('les Andécaves'),  Grotius  wanted  instead  to  read Andis ,  but Andus is,  again,  a well-attested  form,  used  by  twelfth-century  poets  and  prose-writers,

ad propria / confusi cum mesticia, / Turoni cum leticia / sua revisunt menia. In occursum pontificis / vaditur a  Turonicis  /  tam  clericis  quam  laicis  /  cum  vocibus hymnidicis.' This 'Vita' is from Saint Martin of Pontoise (France, Val-d'Oise). The name of the author used to be in the last quatrain, but it was erased. According to Huygens, it may be supposed that his name was Guido.

- 36  Krusch & Levison 1951: 493, lines 13-15: 'Exercitus vero ipsius, qui prius transierat, metuens per viam illam qua venerat regredi, ne forte mala quae fecerat pateretur, ad Andigavam urbem dirigit, Meduanae torrentis expetens pontem.'
- 37  In at least two poems, one of which has the title De fluuio qui siccatus est , referring not directly to the Mayenne, but to the Sarthe, which joins the Mayenne just north of Angers; the first is found in PL 105: 309B-D: 'Quos habet Andegavis venerabilis ambitus urbis, / Qui pia devota carmina mente canunt. / Quam Meduana morans fovet, et Liger aureus ornat, / Qua rate cum laevi Sarta decora juvat. […] / Plebsque salutiferae procurrit ab aede Mariae, / Huc quam transmittit pons Meduana tuus.' The second is at PL 105: 340D-41A: 'Est fluvius, Sartam Galli dixere priores, / Perticus hunc gignit,  et  Meduana  bibit  /  Fluctibus  ille  suis  penetrans  Cenomanica  rura,  / Moenia qui propter illius urbis abit.'

such as Baudri of Bourgeuil (d. 1130), 38 and Hugh of Fleury (dead not before 1118), 39 who was quoted by Hugh of Saint-Victor (d. 1141), 40 and also by earlier writers, notably by Aimoin, a monk of Fleury (c. 960-c. 1010), in a chapter of his Historiae Francorum libri IV entitled 'De Gallia secundum Caesarem.' 41

Finally, of the three manuscripts preserving the four lines, T alone offers a variant to 438 marcere : it reads maduisse . This fits the metre, turning the spondee of the fourth foot and the dactyl of the fifth into two dactyls. 42 And indeed, maduisse is a word with epic precedent: Ovid and Statius use it (met . 10.45 and Theb . 9.631 respectively), and also Avitus ( Poe-

- 38  In a poem on a certain Frodo Andegavensis, who died in England, which ends with the couplet (PL 166: 1190B-C): 'Indigetis corpus jubet Anglis flebilis Andus / Lectores jubeant  coelicolis  animam,'  and  in  another  poem,  on  the  passing  of  a  Gerard Laudunis, which begins (PL 166: 1198D-99A): 'Tantum Gerardus laudes dum laudibus auxit, / Quod dignum magnis laudibus Andus habet.'
- 39  Waitz 1851: 357, lines 9-13: 'Urbes in ea multae et opulentae: Lugdunum, Cabillonis, Edua quae et Augustudunus, Senonis, Autissiodorus, Nivedunus quae et Nevernis, Meldis,  Trecas,  Parisius,  Carnotum,  Gennabus  quae  et  Aurelianis,  Rothomagus, Ebroas;  Oximus  id  est  Sagensis,  Cinomannis,  Luxovium,  Nannetis,  Andus  quae  et Andegavis, Abrincatina, Redonis, Venetus. Quarum Augustudunus et Senonis majoris auctoritatis antiquitus fuere.'
- 40  Dalche 1988: 158, line 695: 'Vrbes in ea multe et opulente Lugdunus, Cabilonis, Edua que et Augustudunus, Senonis, Authisiodorus, Niuedunus que et Niuernis, Meldis, Trecas, Parisius, Karnotum, Gennabus que et Aurelianis, Rothomagus, Ebroas, Oximus id est Sagiensis, Cenomannis, Luxouium, Namnetis, Andus que et Andegauis, Abricatina, Redonis, Venetus, quarum Augustudunus et Senonis maioris antiquitus auctoritatis fuere.'
- 41  Speaking of the rich cities of Gaul, Aimoin says (PL 139: 633A-B): 'Sed ex his praecipuae sunt nostroque aevo plus cognitae: Lugdunum, Cabillonis, Hedua quae et Augustodunus, Senonis, Autissiodorus, Meldis, Trecas, Parisius, Carnotum, Gennabus, ubi nunc Aurelianis, Rothomagus, Ebroas, Oximus, Cenomannis, Lexovium, Namnetis, Rhedonis, Venetus, Abrincatina, Andus quae et Andegavis, Turonis, Bituriges, Niviodunus,  quam  quidam  Nivernis  esse  putant.'  Throughout  the  work,  Aimoin  also makes frequent references to the Liger .
- 42  The metrical scheme for the first four feet of the four (five) lines is: DSDD, DDSD, DDDS (or DDDD if maduisse is read in place of marcere ), SDDD, and DDDS - Oudendorp's disparaging assessment of the lines reported above is thus, at least with reference to their metrical value, exaggerated.

matum de Mosaicae historiae gestis 5.244); and it is a favourite word of Prudentius who, inter alia , uses it in the exact same position as our poet as a bridge between the fourth and fifth foot: Sic Lacedaemonias oleo maduisse palaestras (mam . 365); Sanguine  iustorum  innocuo  maduisse  recordans (c.Symm . 1.516). Because of these precedents, I wonder if maduisse should not be preferred to marcere , both because it is the lectio ( paene ) difficilior , and that it has epic precedent, but, most importantly, because it changes the rather awkward sense of marcere perosus , 'loathing to be weak, languid or lazy,' into 'loathing to be wet' or even 'loathing to be intoxicated.' This seems to be a more fitting description of the effect of living near a river and its foggy banks. Our man of Anjou or Angers, tired of being wet or drunk (or weak) in the mists of the Mayenne, now that Caesar  has  withdrawn his legions, is refreshed by the calm waters of the Loire. Apparently Caesar's troops forced him to stay north of the Loire, whose waters are fresh and clear, along the muddy banks of misty Mayenne. There is some precedent to this interpretation. Pliny the Elder (nat. 4.107) refers to the Loire as flumen clarum . Because of its allegedly rapid flow, Gregory of Tours calls the Mayenne torrens (Franc . 10.9). Theodulf of Orléans, by contrast, in a Palm Sunday poem, calls it morans ; the Loire, on the other hand, is 'golden': Quam Meduana morans fovet, et Liger aureus ornat , / Qua rate cum laevi Sarta decora juvat (PL 105: 309B). Finally, Marbod of Rennes, Vita beati Maurilii , 2.259-60, perhaps harkening back to an old tradition, describes the flow of the Mayenne as 'threatening' and prone to billows, thunder, and uproar: Bella ciet paci motu Meduana minaci . / Consurgunt fluctus, oritur fragor, atque tumultus (PL 171: 1647B).

Although the evidence displayed by these sources is at times conflicting, the consensus opinion seems to be that the Mayenne carries with it negative connotations, whereas those of the Loire are positive. 43 Thus, on the whole, they chime well with the sentiment expressed in our lines. A critically updated version of the lines (not counting 440), taking full account of the manuscript evidence presented above, will read:

43  The much-later poems of Joachim du Bellay (1522-60) seem to echo a similar sentiment (where I suppose Meuana is synonymous with Meduana ), e.g. the poem 'Votum rusticum' 1, 1: 'Quà Ligeris laeta arua secat, iunctús que Meuanae / Pampineos inter colles, syluás que uirentes, / Leniter effusus, placidis pulcherrimus undis, / In mare caeruleum flauentes uoluit arenas.' du Bellay 1919: 450.

Pictonus immunis subigit sua rura, nec ultra instabiles Turonos circumsita castra coercent. In nebulis, Meduana, tuis maduisse perosus Andus iam placida Ligeris recreatur ab unda.

Even if this version is truer to the manuscript evidence, and even if it offers a reasonable interpretation of the lines, the question remains: who wrote these lines, thinking that they would be a suitable addition to Lucan's catalogue of Gallic tribes?

## IV

Questioning the authenticity of the lines, early modern editors have also wondered about their origin. Guyet reported the rumour that the lines, at least the first four, were written by Marbod of Rennes (d. 1123), 44 the well-known  bishop  and  Loire  poet.  Although  this  tradition  has  never been substantiated, critics have posited that the origin of the lines lies in the twelfth century, and that their author was a local patriot of the Loire region. 45 Thus Getty quoted R.W. Hunt as believing that 'the interpolator is probably to be looked for in a school rather in a monastery, that he flourished […] in the valley of the Loire, and that his name might be revealed some day by a study of commentators on Lucan like Anselm (of

- 44  Oudendorp prints Guyet's (François Guyet [Gujetus], French philologist and Latin poet, 1575-1655) notes, which he found written in the margin of Guyet's copy of Grotius'  edition  of  Lucan,  in  appendix  after  his  edition  (Oudendorp  1728:  886-910). Guyet's note on 436 Pictones reads (887): 'In quibusdam libris legitur: Pictonus inmunis subigit .  Nota varietatem lectionis. Hi quinque versus absunt a Vett. Codd. teste H. Grot. & aliis. Horum authorem esse Marbodum Rhedonensem Episcopum ex monacho san . Sergiensi tradunt ante annos quingentos.' See Lejay 1894: 60. The rumour was repeated by, inter alios,  Barth,  as  reported  by  Weber  1828:  120:  'Marbodum Andinum,  Rhedonensem  Episcopum,  fama  est,  ut  patriae  gratificaretur,  hos  de Meduana et Ligeri versus Lucano inseruisse.'
- 45  So for example Lejay 1894: C ; Wuilleumier and Le Bonniec 1962: 81.

Laon?) or Arnulf of Orléans who lived during the twelfth century.' 46 Indeed, Arnulf, otherwise known for his exegesis of Ovid, wrote a comprehensive  commentary  on  Lucan,  the Glosulae  super  Lucanum , 47 and  although no such commentary has been preserved in Anselm's name, the notes on Lucan (alongside those on Vergil and Statius) in the manuscript Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, lat. fol. 34, have been associated with his school. 48 Neither of these scholars, however, seem to have been acquainted with the additional lines: Arnulf does not comment on them in his Glosulae , 49 and the commentary associated with Anselm also lacks mention of the lines. 50

Furthermore, these proposed attributions do not take into account the tenth- or early eleventh century date of the added lines in T , which provides a terminus ante quem for their composition. This terminus would also rule out Marbod's authorship of the verses; he was indeed a Loire poet, but his active years fell in the late eleventh- and early twelfth-century (he died in 1123). The tradition of attributing the verses to Marbod must have arisen from convenience. There is nothing that connects him to these lines other than his use of the words Liger and Meduana , in common with dozens of other poets. Guyet, or whoever it was who first made the claim, most likely suggested Marbod as the author of the lines without having seen T or without being able correctly to date the hand.

Châtelain's suggestion that it was Giraldus, the otherwise unknown donor of R to the library of Fleury, is impossible to substantiate: there are no  surviving  works  by  this  man  with  which  to  compare  the  lines.  It should also be pointed out that the ex-libris inscription bearing Giraldus's  name is written in an entirely different hand than the one that added the spurious lines in R .  In fact, the hand of 'Giraldus monachus' looks rather more like the scribe who wrote the main text in a French eleventh-century hand. 51 In contrast, the addition of lines 436-39 is executed in a hand of the early to mid-twelfth century, spiky and with a crammed ductus. If Giraldus were the author of the lines, would it not be reasonable to assume that he wrote them in the same hand as he added the ex-libris? The least one would expect is that the two scripts dated to the same century.

46  Getty 1940: 135.

47  Marti 1958: 58.

48  See de Angelis 1997: 75-136.

49  Marti 1958: 58.

50  Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, lat. fol. 34, fol. 3v, where the commentary jumps from commenting on 435 Gebennas (written Gehennae in the manuscript) to 441 tu … treuir .

Consequently, it would be prudent to look beyond the suggestions of earlier scholarship to find the author of our added lines. Beginning by reviewing the evidence for where the lines could have originated, let us try to establish the ubi of our investigation.

First, collation of Lucan's text surrounding the additional lines in our three manuscripts (1.392-465) indicates that they are textually closely associated. It should be said at this juncture that Lucan presents one of the most complex textual traditions of the Latin classics, and no critic has been able to successfully bring order into the chaos offered by the manuscripts from the earliest stage in the tradition. 52 Whereas M is a staple ingredient in any critical edition of Lucan, the last editor to call on the  authority  of R and T was  Lejay, 53 who assigns them to  a  different branch of the tradition than M . 54 A recollation of the larger passage in the midst of which the verses are found confirms the strong association between R and T , 55 but also puts Lejay's strict division into some doubt; indeed, it seems that M , at least for this passage, shares some readings with both R and T , 56 and was, at an early stage, corrected against a manuscript with readings similar to those furnished by R and T . 57 The three manuscripts are thus textually closely related.

- 51  Based on palaeographical features, Omont believed that the volume was written in Southern France, 'le Midi'. See Lejay 1894: LXXXIV .

52  Gotoff 1971 is a start.

- 53  Neither of these manuscripts was used by Housman or Shackleton Bailey.

54  Lejay 1894: LXXXIX .

- 55  398  Lingonas]  lingones RT ;  416  ducat]  tollat RT ;  423  Suessones]  sessones RT ;  329 foedere] sanguine RT ; 433 raptum] raptim RT ; 453 datum] datum est RT

56  397 Vosegi] uogesi RTM ; 463 Belgis] bellis RTM

- 57  419 late] lates RTM p.c. ; tum] tunc RTM p.c. ; 420 Atyri] satyri RTM p.c. ; 435 cana pendentes] canas pendenti RTM a.c.

Second, the three manuscripts belong to the same geographic region. As was seen above, M was written in a script typical of ninth-century Orléans. Even if it is not known that R was written at Fleury, from an early date it belonged to that abbey. T is also French and may actually have been written at Fleury. If this is correct, all three manuscripts converge on a very specific area of north-western France, the region around Orléans on the Loire, Fleury being less than 35km upstream from Orléans. The additional lines are all about tribes, rivers, and towns in that region, the Loire valley. The source of the additional lines is likely to be found in the same area.

As to the date at which the lines were composed, the quando , it was seen above that T offers a terminus ante quem : the date of the lines cannot be more recent than the date of the hand that wrote them in T , that is the tenth- or possibly the early eleventh century. They could, of course, have been composed earlier - as early as Lucan's own time - and not entered into an extant manuscript until the tenth century. But this we can never know. Let us therefore continue to examine the quid - the contents of the lines and their possible source.

Lucan's main source for his catalogue of Gallic tribes was Caesar's De bello Gallico : seventeen of the twenty tribes mentioned by name are found in this work. 58 Although names of Gallic tribes are scattered among all seven of Caesar's books of De bello Gallico , at one point in book VII Caesar furnishes a list of eight tribes that he joins to himself in the fight against Vercingetorix ( Gall. 7.4.6): 'celeriter sibi Senones, Parisios, Pictones, Cadurcos,  Turonos,  Aulercos,  Lemovices,  Andes  reliquosque  omnes,  qui Oceanum attingunt, adiungit.' 59 Interestingly,  the  three  tribes  specifically mentioned in our four spurious lines - the Pictones , the Turoni , and the Andes -  occur  in  the  exact  same  order  in  Caesar's  narrative  (with other tribes interspersed, of course). Since, furthermore, as was pointed out above, Turonos is the form preferred by Caesar (and not Turones ), and since Turonos is the form found in the manuscripts, it is likely that the composer of the verses had access to this form through Caesar. These two features could hardly be coincidental: our mysterious author was surely acquainted with Caesar's text.

58  Roche 2009: 279.

59 Andes and Turonos are also found together also in Gall. 2.35: 'Carnutes, Andes, Turonos, quaeque civitates propinquae his locis erant, ubi bellum gesserat, legionibus in hiberna deductis in Italiam profectus est.'

Is there a poet with a connection to the abbey of Fleury in the tenth century, who knew Caesar?

## V

There was no shortage, as a matter of fact, of Latin poets at Fleury: Abbo (d. 1004) and Haimo (d. 1118) are the two most famous. Whereas Haimo's dates are too late for our poet, Abbo's would fit; but, judging by his writings, Abbo does not seem to have had a particular predilection for Caesar. 60 A much likelier candidate is Aimoin of Fleury, whom we have already encountered. Aimoin, who died in around 1010, not only wrote a history of the Frankish people, 61 but included in it a chapter entitled 'De Gallia secundum Caesarem,' in which the form Andus , central to the spurious lines, is used. 62 Dedicating his work to his abbot Abbo, he prefaces it with the following words:

Admonitionis itaque tuae non immemor, qua saepissime hortatus es ut situm Germaniae vel Galliae, in quibus haec quae referentur acta sunt, non praetermitterem, ea quae in auctoribus Julio, Plinio ac Orosio invenire potui colligens, huic opusculo inserendo voluntati sublimitatis tuae satisfacere commodum duxi. His igitur adjunxi quae Julius de Germanorum Gallorumque moribus ac institutis in libro suae interserit Historiae (PL 139: 627B).

Aimoin thus not only had access to Caesar and was able to read him; he actively used and emulated him. Indeed, the well-stocked library of the abbey of Fleury, one of the most celebrated Benedictine monasteries in France, possessed a copy of De bello Gallico which, as a matter of fact, contains ample notes in Aimoin's own hand. 63 Unfortunately, comparing Aimoin's notes with the hand in T (or M and R for that matter) does not even yield a potential match: the hands are utterly different.

60  See Manitius 1911-31: vol. 2, 664-72. On Abbo's poetry, see Gwara 1992: 203-35.

61  On Aimoin and his work, see Manitius 1911-31: vol. 2, 239-46; Werner 1960: 69-103.

62  See note 40 above.

Aimoin's hand in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5763, fol. 71v (detail).

<!-- image -->

Nevertheless, in annotating De bello Gallico in Paris, BnF, lat. 5763 Aimoin  takes  particular  interest  in  the  names  of  the  Gallic  tribes  mentioned by Caesar, especially on fol. 71r and 71v, where the Turoni and the Andus , amongst others, are mentioned, and he even repeats some of them in the margins. Although this is far from certain proof of the authorship of our spurious lines, it nevertheless provides testimony to Aimoin's interest in Gallic tribes, an interest that perhaps could have led to the composition of four occasional lines added to a copy of Lucan. Clearly, the fact that the lines are not written in Aimoin's hand in any of the surviving manuscripts does not exclude their composition by him. A more substantial  objection  would  be  that  Aimoin  has  no  reputation  as  a  poet. Nonetheless, he did write poetry, although most of his works are written in prose. Aimoin concluded his history of the Franks with a poem, translatio patris Benedicti , which, written in dactylic hexameters, confirms his skills in prosody. 64

63  Paris, BnF, lat. 5763, s . IX, from Fleury. It is BF1062 in Mostert 1989: 208; the volume also carries notes in the hand of Heiric of Auxerre; see Werner 1960: 83; Manitius 1911-31: vol. 2, 240. See also Brown 1979: 122-23.

Thus, while, technically speaking, any monk attached to the abbey school could have composed the lines, as an exercise in poetic composition if nothing else, the connection to Caesar tips the scale: Aimoin knew Caesar like no one else at Fleury in the tenth century. This leaves us with, if not a definite answer to the question quis , at least a plausible author of the four first spurious lines, who fits all the necessary criteria. It now remains to return to the question of where Accursius found the lines, and where 440 came from.

## VI

Given the existence of 440 and the other differences between the text as transmitted by the manuscripts and as it was printed by Accursius, his codex peruetustus is not identifiable with any of the three surviving witnesses to 436-39. Indeed, aside from M , R ,  and T ,  none of the seventysomething manuscripts collated for this study transmit the additional lines. They do appear, however, in a copy of the editio princeps of Lucan kept at the Vatican Library, 65 not as part of the printed text, but added by an annotator. Until the end of Book 5 (fol. 54v), the volume is heavily glossed in a variety of cursive humanist hands, using both black and red ink. On fol. 9v, there is an insertion mark after 1.435 Gebennas , which is picked up by a note written in the lower margin in what appears to be a fifteenth-century humanist cursive hand (a different hand from the one that wrote most of the other glosses):

64  The Translatio is printed in PL 139:797-802 at the very end of Aimoin's Historia Francorum .

65  The edition was prepared by Giovanni Andrea Bussi and printed by Conrad Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz at Rome in 1469 (ISTC il00292000; GW M18850). The copy is Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Inc. II. 15. On the text of the editio princeps , see Díaz Burillo 2019: 257-72.

00

mednallos in caris Joris ono font

Paitones ao ocram s portant (np Instables Tincoros currúfita castra cohercent

<!-- image -->

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Inc. II. 15, fol. 9v (detail). © 2021 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

## Transcribing the note yields a familiar text:

In antiquo codice erant hæc carmina alia Pictonus immunis subigit sua rura: nec ultra In nebulis Medualle tuis marcere perosus Instabiles Tricoros circumsita castra cohercent Addus iam placida ligeris recreatur ab unda Inclyta Cæsareis Genabus dissoluitur alis.

Indeed, the note proffers the lines in almost exactly the same way as Accursius prints them. All five lines are included, arranged in the same order as Accursius published them (with the inversion of 437 and 438): it has Medualle for Meduana , Tricoros for Turones , Addus for Andus . The only difference is that the note has Genabus for Accursius' Menabus . This latter form, however, appears as an interlinear gloss written in red ink just above Genabus ; this could have been Accursius' source, and he could have picked the reading Menabus from the gloss.

The hand adding the lines has been identified as Pomponian, that is belonging either to Pomponius Laetus, a student of Lorenzo Valla, who founded  an  antiquarian  and  philological  academy,  the  Accademia Romana, at his house on the Quirinal, or to one of his many emulators, the so-called 'Pomponiani'. As far as we know, however, Accursius was

volus ind never a member of Pomponius Laetus' first Accademia Romana, 66 but he may very well have been a second-generation follower of Pomponius or otherwise inspired by their movement.

At this juncture, a few options seem possible. Either Accursius wrote the note himself, 67 copying the lines as he had discovered them in a codex peruetustus or antiquus , the whereabouts of which are still not traceable. Or he could have first found the lines already written in the incunable, and merely repeated the opinion of the scribe that they were found in codice antiquo , not having seen them himself but trusting the veracity of the reporter. A third option is that Accursius had nothing at all to do with this gloss, which could have been written by someone who had access to the same or a similar codex in which Accursius saw the lines, and wrote them down in the margin of the incunable.

Whatever the precise origins of this reference, the text in the three manuscripts that preserve the additional lines indicate that the manuscript, if there ever was one, in which Accursius saw the lines, contained a version that had already expanded on the tradition. The absence of 440 from the manuscript tradition, as well as the inversion of lines 437 and 438 make this clear. But without the later emergence of other evidence, this is where the trail runs cold. Whether or not Accursius penned the notes in the Vatican incunable, there is still no trace of his codex peruetustus , and the origin of line 440 will remain a mystery. The only thing that can be said for certain is that 440 was never part of the medieval tradition of the spurious lines as they are found transmitted by the Loire manuscripts. Anyone who saw the first four lines in one of the extant French manuscripts (or in a manuscript that has subsequently been lost) could have made up the fifth line and added it in his own copy. He or

- 66  See the online Repertorium Pomponianum : https://www.repertoriumpomponianum.it/pomponiani/pomponiani.htm (accessed 26 October 2020). See Piacentini 1984. I am grateful to Marco Petoletti and Maurizio Campanelli for advising me in this direction.
- 67  At this time, I have not been able to track down a sample of Accursius' handwriting, with which I could compare the hand(s) in the Vatican incunable. The handwritten copy of Accursius' 'Testudo,' his defence against allegations of plagiarism, found in the manuscript München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 377, and dated to 1520 is copied in a too calligraphic hand to allow for comparison with the cursive hand(s) displayed by the incunable.

someone else could have taken this copy with him to Italy, where it was later discovered by Accursius and/or the unidentified scribe in the Vatican incunable. 68 Whether he saw them in the Vatican incunable or elsewhere, Accursius printed the five lines in his notes on Ausonius, whence Poelmann picked them up and printed them at the place where they, eventually, acquired their conventional numeration. With the exception of the Hulst manuscript (whatever this was) and the codex peruetustus of Accursius (whatever this was), it seems clear that the four or five spurious lines were never regarded as authentic in the medieval period; in the manuscripts in which they are extant they are always copied outside of the main text, never as part of it. It was early modern scholars who were responsible for adding them to Lucan's text.

Summing up the evidence brought forth in the preceding pages, let me conclude: lines 1.436-39 are first recorded, and were probably crafted, sometime in the tenth or eleventh century, in the area around Orléans, probably at Fleury, by someone who found Lucan's list of Gallic tribes lacking. Perhaps he was a local patriot who wanted to add the tribes in his own immediate vicinity - the men of Poitou, Touraine, and Anjou to  Lucan's  original  Bituriges,  Nervii,  Arverni,  Sequani,  Suessones  and others. Alternatively, and more probably, he wanted to complete Lucan's catalogue - which relied on Caesar's account - by supplying the 'missing' peoples from Caesar, with whose text he was intimately familiar. Perhaps it was a combination of both. And perhaps the poet was Aimoin. To the four 'original' lines were added, at some other unknown point in time, line 440, perhaps by a native of the Orléanais Cenabum is the Latin name for  Orléans; 69 this  'extended'  version,  however,  was  never  part  of  the French tradition, but was either brought to or composed in Italy, where the lines were discovered some three or four hundred years later and became part of the tradition of Lucan's De bello civili .

68  The only thing we know about the incunable's earlier provenance is that at one point it was owned by Fulvio Orsini (1529-1600), but none of the hands writing the notes

surrounding the text appears to be his.

69  Caesar, Gall. 7.11.5.

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

Accursius, M. 1524. Diatribae . Rome.

- de Angelis, V. 1997. 'I commenti medievali alla Tebaide di Stazio: Anselmo di Laon, Goffredo Babione, Ilario d'Orléans' in N. Mann & B. Munk Olsen (eds.) Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship. Proceedings of the Second European Science Foundation Workshop on the Classical Tradition in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance . Leiden, 75-136.
- du Bellay, J. 1919. Poematum libri quatuor quibus continentur elegiae, uaria epigrammata, amores, tumuli , ed. E. Corbet. Paris. (Reproducing in minute detail the Paris edition printed by Frédéric Morel in 1558.)
- Bersmann, G. (ed.) 1589. M. Annaei Lucani De bello ciuili uel Pharsaliae libri X . Leipzig.
- Bischoff, B. & B. Ebersperger 1998-2014. Katalog der festländischen Handschriften  des  neunten  Jahrhunderts  (mit  Ausnahme  der  Wisigotischen) ,  3 vols. Wiesbaden.
- Brown, V. 1979. 'Latin Manuscripts of Caesar's 'Gallic War'' Palaeographica,  Diplomatica  et  Archivistica:  Studi  in  honore  di  Giulio  Battelli s,  2  vols. Rome, vol. 1, 105-57.
- Canter, W. 1571. Nouae lectiones . Antwerp.
- Châtelain, É. 1894-1900. Paléographie des classiques Latins,
- 2 vols. Paris.
- Clavier, É. 1602. Claudii Claudiani poetae in suo genere principis opera . Paris.
- Díaz Burillo, R.M. 2019. 'La editio princeps de la Farsalia de Lucano (Roma 1469): identificación y transmisión de la forma textual (1469-1483)' Cuadernos de Filología Clásica: Estudios Latinos , 39.2, 257-72.
- Duff, J. D. 1928. Lucan: The Civil War (Pharsalia). Cambridge, MA.
- Gagliardi, D. (ed.) 1989. M. Annaei Lucani belli civilis liber primus: Testo critico, introduzione e commento . Napoli.
- Getty, R.J. (ed.) 1940. M. Annaei Lucani De bello civili liber I. Cambridge.
- Gotoff, H.C. 1971. The Transmission of the Text of Lucan in the Ninth Century . Cambridge, MA.
- Gwara, S. 1992. 'Three Acrostic Poems by Abbo of Fleury' The Journal of Medieval Latin 2, 203-35.
- Grotius, H. (ed.) 1614. M. Annaei Lucani Pharsalia siue De bello ciuili , 1st ed. Lyon.

- Grotius, H. (ed.) 1626. M. Annaei Lucani Pharsalia siue De bello ciuili , 2nd ed. Amsterdam.
- Grotius, H. (ed.) 1651. M. Annaei Lucani Pharsalia siue De bello ciuili , 3rd ed. Amsterdam.
- Hosius, C. (ed.) 1913. M. Annaei Lucani belli civilis libri decem. Leipzig. Huygens, R.B.C. (ed.) 2000. Vita metrica sancti Martini . Turnhout, 766-90. Housman, A.E. (ed.) 1927. M. Annaei Lucani belli civilis libri decem , 2nd ed. Oxford.
- Krusch, B. & W. Levison (ed.) 1951. Gregorii episcopi Turonensis: Historiarum libri X , 2nd ed. Hanover.
- Lejay, P. (ed.) 1894. M. Annaei Lucani de bello civili liber primus. Paris.
- Luck, G. (ed.) 1985. Lukan: Der Bürgerkrieg . Berlin.
- Manitius, M. 1911-31. Geschichte der lateinische Literatur des Mittelalters , 3 vols. Munich.
- Marti, B. M. 1958. Arnulfi Aurelianensis Glosule super Lucanum . Rome.
- Mendell, C. W. 1942. 'Lucan's Rivers' Yale Classical Studies 8, 3-22.
- Mostert, M. 1989. The Library of Fleury: A Provisional List of Manuscripts . Hilversum.
- Munk Olsen, B. 1982-85. L'Étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles , vols. I-II: Catalogue des manuscrits classiques latin copiés du XIe au XIIe siècle . Paris.
- Oudendorp, F. (ed.) 1728. M. Annaei Lucani Pharsalia sive Belli Civilis. Leiden. Pellegrin, É. 1986. 'La tradition des textes classiques latins à l'abbaye de Fleury-sur-Loire' Revue d'histoire des textes , bulletin n°14-15 (1984-85),
- 155-67.
- Piacentini,  P.S.  1984.  'Note  storico-paleografiche  in  margine  all'accademia romana', Le chiavi della memoria: Miscellanea in occasione del I centenario della scuola vaticana di paleografia, diplomatica e archivistica, a c. della associazione degli ex-allievi . Città del Vaticano, 491-549; reprinted in C. Cassiani & M. Chiabò (eds.). 2007. Pomponio Leto e la Prima Accademia Romana: Giornata di studi, Roma, 2. dicembre 2005 . Rome, 87-141.
- Poelmann, T. (ed.) 1576. M. Annaei Lucani De bello ciuili libri X . Antwerp. Roche, P. (ed.) 2009. Lucan: De bello ciuili: Book I . Oxford.
- Shackleton Bailey, D.R. (ed.) 1988. M. Annaei Lucani de Bello Civili . Stuttgart.
- Modelli  grafici  e  fortuna  manoscritta
- Troncarelli,  F.  1987. Boethiana  aetas: della 'Consolatio philosophiae' tra IX e XII secolo . Alessandria.

Turnebus, A. 1599. Aduersariorum tomus secundus . Strasbourg.

- Waitz, G. 1851. Opera omnia Hugonis Floriacensis . Hanover.
- Weber, C.F. (ed.) 1828. Marci Annaei Lucani Pharsalia cum notis Casp. Barthii, Ioh.  Frider.  Christii,  Gottl.  Cortii,  Ioh.  Frider.  Gronovii,  Nicol.  Heinsii,  Ioh. Aloys. Martyni-Lagunae, Dan. Wilh. Trilleri aliorumque , 3 vols. Leipzig.
- Werner, K.F.  1960.  'Die  literarischen  Vorbilder  des  Aimoin  von  Fleury und die Entstehung seiner Gesta Francorum ' in W. Bulst, H.R. Jauss & D. Schaller (eds.) Medium Aevum Vivum. Festschrift für Walther Bulst .  Heidelberg, 69-103.
- Williams, G. 1978. Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Roman Empire . Berkeley.
- Wuilleumier P. & H. Le Bonniec (eds.) 1962. Lucain: Bellum civile, liber primus. La pharsale, livre premier. Paris.