^{page 331 note 1} Coluccio knew no Greek to speak of. It is curious to note that, though he knew Pliny's Letters, he appears never to quote them (p. 246). No doubt Pliny appeals most to ages of declining and self-conscious clas-sicism (cf. Dill, S., Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, pp. 351–352;Google ScholarChadwick, N. K., Poetry and Letters in Early Christian Gaul, pp. 308, 312)Google Scholar, but the omission is striking. One would have thought that Pliny provided indispensable material for a humanist's correspondence. I suspect that he was too classical for Coluccio.

^{page 331 note 2} He thought the Octavia spurious, and as Seneca was one of his favourite authors (the only extant manuscript copied by his own hand is one of the Tragedies) this may be allowed to have been a considered opinion. His annotations to Ovid's amatory works (Pierpont Morgan M. 810 = Ullman 111) may be worth investigation.

^{page 332 note 1} As Ullman remarks (p. 47 n. 2) allegory is now fashionable. Modern interpretations of the Aeneid have a surprising amount in common with Coluccio's in spirit: cf. Büchner, K., P. Vergilius Maro, col. 433Google Scholar, on the ‘Drama des Sichfindens in der Aufgabe’.

^{page 332 note 2} ‘Coluccio's reputation as a philosopher seems to have been based on his willingness moveto answer letters about problems that troubled his correspondents’ (p. 88). One could substitute the name of Joad in this sentence without exciting remark. Coluccio even engaged in one controversy which bears a marked resemblance to the battle of the ‘Two Cultures’ (p. 31).

^{page 332 note 3} It would be more complicated than it sounds, since to be really enlightening it would have to take account of the moveto ments of the humanists, i.e. it would have to be geographical as well as personal.