The distinction between substantive and non-substantive variants is a principle generally followed by the editors of early medieval German texts. A different approach has been proposed, among others, by Bumke but it can be productive only for texts in which there is a high rate of the so-called epische Variation. Starting from these premises, this essay focuses on the Old Saxon poem Heliand, to underline how the Behaghel edition fully accept Sievers’ evaluation regarding the substantive preminence of the Codex Monacensis. Finally, it is observed that even the supposed formal superiority of the Codex Cottonianus is probably to be re-considered in the light of some linguistic evidence.

The present paper examines theoretical and practical principles for identify- ing codices descripti presented in manuals of Classical and Romance philology, as well in recent theoretical work on the topic. I then discuss the strengths, but also the limits, of the principles put forward in some identi?cations proposed. I point out a widespread methodological short circuit in the identi?cation of descripti, and its impact on the study of copying mechanisms which rely on the examination of the differences between an exemplar and its descriptus.

The recent Handbuch coordinated by Florian Hartmann and Benoît Grévin constitutes for scholars of ars dictandi also a methodological synthesis relating to the problems that the editing and processing of these materials entails. This contribution is part of the debate by analyzing, in the following short para- graphs, some examples found during the study and edition of dittal texts of the twelfth century. The cases proposed want to illustrate both the dif?culties that the publisher has to face and the peculiarities of this textual category, such as tex- tual versions in an open tradition, the elaboration of compendia, the structural organization of artes dictandi and a re?ection on impact that the necessary inclusion of dictal texts in digital archives causes editorial choices.

The article discusses, from a methodological point of view, the contribution of quantitative methods to the field of authorship attribution studies. After offering an updated survey of them, with a particular focus on Old Italian, this study attempts to provide a new approach to texts of unknown authorship that allows to exploit the potential of both large textual databases and new compu- tational stylistic techniques in a careful and reasoned way, leaving the ?gure of the philologist to be the protagonist.

The paper focuses on analysing the different forms of presentation that have been adopted for editing the signs and notes entered by Petrarch in the mar- gins of books that he read. It also illustrates some kinds of evidence useful for identifying copies that transmit annotations from lost autographs of his and re?ects on the opportunities and dif?culties that the critical editing of such annotations creates

Petrarch attended to write the De vita solitaria from 1346 to 1366, when he sent the dedication copy to Philippe of Cabassole; urged by the abbot of Camal- doli, he later resumed the work on this treatise and added the literary portrait of saint Romualdus. Notwithstanding the impressive number of man- uscripts of the De vita solitaria, the discovery of the dedication copy sent to Philippe of Cabassole (Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, 9633) solved the many problems to be faced in view of the constitutio textus. Anyway, some other manuscripts have to be taken into consideration: Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 3357, which was written during Petrarch’s lifetime and whose marginal notes witness a dialogue between the author and an anonymous keen reader (perhaps Donato Albanzani), and Firenze, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. 26 sin. 8, copied by Tedaldo Della Casa. Moreover, a careful analysis of Petrarch’s sources is of paramount importance in establishing proper textual choices for the critical edition.

The essay ?rst of all discusses whether we can speak of a speci?c ‘philology of the Classics’, that is, if the texts of the Classics require their own and particular ecdotic procedures, and what they consist of. It then examines the case of the pri- vate letters of Niccolò Machiavelli, which, unlike the other works by this author, have not had a critical edition to date, and focuses above all on the textual, exe- getical, linguistic and graphic problems that the new edition (currently in press as part of the National Edition of Machiavellian works) has had to deal with.

The essay discusses the textual problems of the Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata; the ?rst part presents the proposals for the critical text, and in particular those elaborated by Luigi Poma at the end of the twentieth century; the second part discusses the characteristics of some important manuscripts, and also exam- ines a series of new elements, envisaging the possibility of a different solution for the edition of Tasso’s poem.

Even if almost no printing manual mentions it, there is a lot of evidence that books, since the period of the incunabula, and in the most various latitudes of Europe, have been printed for a long time according to the technique of setting by formes, and not in the sequential order of reading. This has important impli- cations not only for the history of the book, but also for philologists who deal with textual bibliography. Instead, the Institución y origen del arte de la imprenta y reglas generales para los componedores by Alonso Víctor de Paredes (1680-1682) offers meticulous and precious details on this fundamental printing technique