Varro: On the Latin Language (De Lingua Latina)

thence a fragment was taken away to Casino, about which we must treat below. In the 14th century, it is certain that Boccaccio first knew these books, and it is likely the same for Petrarch: in whose writings, specifically in the letter to Varro among the letters to ancient illustrious men (epist. de rebus fam. l. XXIV 6 vol. III p. 276 ed. Fracassetti, Flor. MDCCCLXIII), it is thus: 'Yet there exist no remains of your works, or only very mangled ones, of which I saw some long ago, and I am tortured by the memory of sweetness tasted, as they say, with the uttermost lips.' These words certainly seem to look rather to 'Varro's Agriculture' than that he 'was expecting' it from his friend Guglielmo Pastrengico and is thought to have received it from him: cf. epist. de rebus fam. XXI 11 III p. 151 Frac. and P. de Nolhac 'Petrarque et l'humanisme' (Paris 1892) p. 173. 278. 307 sq. But the same thing that he writes to Giovanni da Certaldo, i.e., Boccaccio (epist. de rebus fam. XVIII 4 = II p. 479 Frac.), that he received a 'book from the excellent and truly rare minor works of Varro and Cicero' written by his hand, we draw this more correctly to the books on the Latin language or parts of them, because it is established that Boccaccio also used them at times—who uses ten passages from the fifth book and twice one from the seventh (cf. Hortis 'Studi sulle opere Latine di Boccaccio' [Tergest. a. 1879] p. 435)—and Petrarch himself cites at least one passage from this writing, and from that part which Petrus Diaconus exhibited (v. i.), 'Tuscus vicus' Etruscan district, in such a way that it appears he extracted it himself. It is added that Antonio Loschi seems to have seen this among Petrarch’s books: cf. P. de Nolhac p. 243 and 307 sq. Nor should it be neglected in this question that we read in that letter to Varro: 'Your Cicero, who [wrote] much to you and to whom you [wrote] much...'. And it is memorable that in the year 1401 Leonardo Bruni Aretino published a dialogue 'on the three Florentine poets', in which he produces Niccolò Niccoli and Coluccio Salutati conversing with each other (p. 17 and 19 ed. Wotke): 'N. Do we not see with what an ample and most beautiful patrimony these times of ours have been despoiled? Where are the books of M. Varro, which alone could make men wise, in which was the explanation of the Latin language? etc. S. M. Varro is lost. It is to be lamented, I confess, and to be borne with annoyance' etc. These words of Leonardo Bruni demonstrate that he did not then know of the codex meanwhile transferred to Florence (F), nor did he attribute knowledge of it to others, such as Niccolò Niccoli himself (who was thought by some to have acquired that book like so many others!). A little later, however, Varro’s books began to be described more frequently and diligently at Florence: then finally, the grammarian oppressed by long darkness returned to life.

But although we do not know who contracted the unique codex, it is nevertheless established by an almost certain conjecture whence it came. For the Casinensian codex in