Diese Abhandlung betrifft nicht die handschriftliche Überlieferung der kurzen Gedichtreihen (die sog. kleineren anthologiae) und der einzelnen ‘verstreuten’ Texte, die in der kritischen Edition von A. Riese enthalten sind (Anthologia Latina I 1-2, Leipzig 1894-1906, gilt heute als Referenzausgabe), sondern bezieht sich auf die beiden großen kompakten Gedichtsammlungen namens Salmasiana und Vossiana, die fast komplett im ersten der beiden Bücher stehen und gewöhnlich mit dem Gesamttitel Anthologia Latina bezeichnet werden. Mit dem Ziel, diese Gedichtsammlung vollständig neu zu edieren, hat das Forschungszentrum für die Anthologia Latina in Perugia bisher die neuen kritischen Editionen und die Abhandlungen in den Reihen “Anthologiarum Latinarum I (1 Anthologia Vossiana), II (1 Anonymi versus serpentini, 2 Vnius poetae sylloge, 3 Coronatus)” und “Anthologiarum Latinarum parerga I-V” herausgegeben und die Jahrgänge I-VII, 2010-16 von “AL. Rivista di studi di Anthologia Latina” publiziert. Im Anhang findet man eine Untersuchung über den Umlauf des Codex plenior (rekonstruiert im Lichte der noch unveröffentlichten Briefe, die dessen Besitzer, Claude de Saumaise, und sein Freund Isaak Voss kurz vor der Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts miteinander wechselten), die auf das Thema der Abhandlungen Apographa Salmasiana 1 und 2 (Hildesheim 2004 und 2010) Bezug nimmt. This essay does not concern the manuscript transmission of the short series of poems (the so-called minor anthologiae) and of the single ‘wandering’ texts contained in the critical edition by A. Riese, Anthologia Latina I2 1-2, Lipsiae 1894-1906 (which is today generally considered a reference edition), but regards the two large compact anthologies called Salmasiana and Vossiana, standing almost totally in the first of the two books, and normally designated with the overall title Anthologia Latina. Aiming at their total re-edition, the School on the Anthologia Latina of Perugia has so far edited the new critical editions and the essays contained within the series “Anthologiarum Latinarum I (1 Anthologia Vossiana), II (1 Anonymi versus serpentini, 2 Vnius poetae sylloge, 3 Coronatus)” and “Anthologiarum Latinarum parerga I-V”, and published the issues I-VII, 2010-16, of “AL. Rivista di studi di Anthologia Latina”. In the appendix there is the study on the circulation of the codex plenior (reconstructed in the light of the still unpublished letters which its owner, Claude de Saumaise, and his friend, Isaac Voss, wrote to each other a few years before the mid-seventeenth century) which refers to the subject of the essays Apographa Salmasiana 1 and 2 (Hildesheim 2004 and 2010 respectively).

The cento-tragedy Medea usually attributed to Hosidius Geta was transmitted in the Codex Salmasianus (now Codex Parisinus 10318). This is a comprehensive study and reevaluation of the text against the background of the ancient cento tradition, also providing a new English translation. After developing a new definition of the ancient conception of the cento in general, Geta’s cento technique and his use of the Vergilian text as well as his relation to the Greek and Roman models for his Medea are examined. It is shown that his play is innovative and sophisticated in both technique and content.

Presenting a range of Neo-Latin poems written by distinguished classical scholars across Europe from c. 1490 to c. 1900, this anthology includes a selection of celebrated names in the history of scholarship. Individual chapters present the Neo-Latin poems alongside new English translations (usually the first) and accompanying introductions and commentaries that annotate these verses for a modern readership, and contextualise them within the careers of their authors and the history of classical scholarship in the Renaissance and early modern period. An appealing feature of Renaissance and early modern Latinity is the composition of fine Neo-Latin poetry by major classical scholars, and the interface between this creative work and their scholarly research. In some cases, the two are actually combined in the same work. In others, the creative composition and scholarship accompany each other along parallel tracks, when scholars are moved to write their own verse in the style of the subjects of their academic endeavours. In still further cases, early modern scholars produced fine Latin verse as a result of the act of translation, as they attempted to render ancient Greek poetry in a fitting poetic form for their contemporary readers of Latin.

John Caius (1510-75) enjoyed a European reputation as a Galenist physician. This study, based on his marginalia preserved in Eton and Cambridge, describes Caius' immense efforts to see and collate medical manuscripts in Italy and England over almost two decades. His reports are important for a modern editor of Galen, since many of these 'codices' are, apparently, now lost, and some were of high quality. Caius' notes also shed light on the growth of medical humanism, on the accessibility of Greek books and manuscripts in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and on the methods of Renaissance editors of Greek technical prose texts. Caius' evidence also prompts a reassessment of the 1525 Aldine Galen, and of the activities of two of its editors, John Clement and Edward Wotton. This study is of importance to students of both ancient medicine and the transmission of Greek learning in the West.

The Oxford History of Classical Reception in English Literature (OHCREL) is designed to offer a comprehensive investigation of the numerous and diverse ways in which literary texts of the classical world have stimulated responses and refashioning by English writers. Covering the full range of English literature from the early Middle Ages to the present day, OHCREL both synthesizes existing scholarship and presents cutting-edge new research, employing an international team of expert contributors for each of the five volumes. OHCREL endeavours to interrogate, rather than inertly reiterate, conventional assumptions about literary 'periods', the processes of canon-formation, and the relations between literary and non-literary discourse. It conceives of 'reception' as a complex process of dialogic exchange and, rather than offering large cultural generalizations, it engages in close critical analysis of literary texts. It explores in detail the ways in which English writers' engagement with classical literature casts as much light on the classical originals as it does on the English writers' own cultural context. This first volume, and fourth to appear in the series, covers the years c.800-1558, and surveys the reception and transformation of classical literary culture in England from the Anglo-Saxon period up to the Henrician era. Chapters on the classics in the medieval curriculum, the trivium and quadrivium, medieval libraries, and medieval mythography provide context for medieval reception. The reception of specific classical authors and traditions is represented in chapters on Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, Statius, the matter of Troy, Boethius, moral philosophy, historiography, biblical epics, English learning in the twelfth century, and the role of antiquity in medieval alliterative poetry. The medieval section includes coverage of Chaucer, Gower, and Lydgate, while the part of the volume dedicated to the later period explores early English humanism, humanist education, and libraries in the Henrician era, and includes chapters that focus on the classicism of Skelton, Douglas, Wyatt, and Surrey.