Estructura del firmware de ArduPilot

As far as the watermarks are concerned, the manuscript has been first analysed by Henry, who detected the following typology: ʽChapeau de cardinal, variante similaire de Briquet 3373 (28,5x43, Florence, 1474/83; var. simil.: Florence 1476; Fabriano 1475; Naples, 1468-71), mis le dessin est un peu plus grand et les puntuseaux son plus écartésʼ.43 _{As a result of his analysis, Henry} proposed the chronology 1468-1483.

29

Figure 11. Watermark: chapeau de cardinal

Ernesto Berti proposed a different chronology (1470-74): in order to confirm it, Berti asked Antonietta Casagrande to analyse the manuscript’s paper and watermarks. Berti reports Casangrande’s analysis in his study: ʽSi distinguono tre tipi di carta, contrassegnati da tre differenti filigrane, tutte italiane, riscontrabili in tre regioni durante tutta la seconda metà del sec. XV (fino a c. 89, cc. 90-194, cc. 195-238 –le filigrane non corrispondono a quelle indicate da Henry) e […] l’osservazione filigranologica non smentisce l’arco 1470-74 da me ipotizzatoʼ.44

However, Berti’s statement needs to be complemented: first, it does not refer to any specific watermark type. Secondly, the reference to Henry’s survey is erroneous, since Henry had previously detected only one watermark type.

With the aim to clarify which watermarks are actually detectable in MS Ambr. F 19 sup., I carried out further analysis of the manuscript’s paper. My direct inspection was performed by using a watermark reader, which enabled me to detect six different typologies, including the one already detected by Henry in the course of his inspection.

30

Figure 12. Direct inspection of MS Ambr. F 19 sup. Watermark reader

I shall now describe their shape and signal their distribution in the manuscript:

-Chapeau de cardinal, exclusively Italian typology, similar to Briquet 3373- (fols 2, 7, 8, 96, 110, 114, 115, 116, 117, 126, 127, 132, 133, 144, 168, 169, 170, 229, 230);

-Ladder, exclusively Italian typology. Two rungs are visible (30x15 mm). Although there are numerous examples of this form, there is no exact counterpart in the repertoires (fols 28, 29, 30, 31, 196, 197, 205, 213, 215, 216, 218);

-Dagger, 40x27 mm. There is no precise correspondence in the repertoires (fols 47, 55, 59, 63, 75, 82);

31

-Four-leaved clover, 25x20 mm. The design is similar to that of other watermarks in the repertoires, but there is no exact match (fols 48, 56, 60, 64, 76, 85);

-Two signs, consistent with the wheels of a cart. However, it is not possible to detect a precise correspondence in the repertoires (fols 97 and 111);

-Traces of a watermark, 30x25 mm, which is not clearly detectable (fols 144, 168, 169, 170, 171, 178, 194)

Figure 13. MS Ambr. F19 sup. Four-leaved clover watermark

My analysis allowed for a more detailed description of the set of watermarks that are detectable in the manuscript. Although watermarks do not constitute an absolute criterion to reach precise date, nevertheless they enable us to determine a relative chronology for this case in particular. Among the watermark types that I detected in the Milan manuscript, two types, such as the chapeau de cardinal and the ladder, are the same as those in MS Riccardianus 92. As stated above, MS Ricc. 92, presumably dates to the early 1470s. Thus we can suppose that Ficino likely started gathering textual material in MS Ambros. F 19 sup. approximately in the same years.

32

I. 3. 4 Quire structure and signature

The quire structure consists of 18 quires. Quires 1, 3-6, 16, and 18 are ottonions. According to Henry’s hypothesis, quire 17, which was originally an ottonion as well, was likely inserted into an additional bifolium; quires 7-12, 14- 15 are senions. Henry also advances the hypothesis that quire 2 was in origin a senion as well and that three folios which contained texts −called by him fols 16 bis, ter, q.ter45

− were removed at a later stage. Through a direct inspection, it is possible to detect traces of letters, which are still visible on the stubs−on 16 bisv, 16 ter and 16 q.terr/v respectively− (Figure 14). Quire 13 is a quinion.

Figure 14. MS Ambr. F 19 sup. Traces of letters on the stubs of fols 16 bis, ter, q.ter

33

Among the 18 quires forming MS Ambr. F 19 sup., quires 5-10 (fols 58- 137) and 12-17 (fols 149-228) are provided with a numbering. The quire signature was written in Arabic numerals in the lower margin of the first folio of each quire.

Quires 5-8 (fols 42-101) bear a signature in the right lower margin (Figure 15): at fols 58r, 74r, 90r, 102r, which are the initial folios of each quire respectively, there are the Arabic numerals 4, 5, 6, and 7 (recorded in blue on Table 2).

Figure 15. Detail of fol. 58r: quire signature

Quires 12-17 (fols 149-228) are signed in Arabic numerals in the centre lower margin (Figure 16): at fols 149r, 161r, 171r, 183r, 195r, 211r, which are the initial folios of each quire respectively, we read the numbers 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (recorded in green on Table 2).

34

Figure 16. Detail of fol. 183r_{: quire signature}

There are also traces of further signatures, which Henry defined as ‛supplémentaire’ (recorded in red on Table II): at fols 58r, 74r, 102r, 114r, 126r, i.e. the initial folios of quires 5, 6, 8-10, we read the numerals 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, drawn in the bottom left-hand corner (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Detail of fol. 74r_{: quire signature, defined by Henry as ‛supplementaire’}

  It is possible to detect the codicological units through a further element, which was not recorded in Henry’s description: at fols 25v_{, 41}v_{, 57}v_{, 73}v_{, 89}v_, 101v, 113v, 125v, 148v, 160v, 170v, 182v, 194v, which are the last folios of quire 2- 9 and 11-15 respectively, in the centre of the lower margin, the incipit of the

35

following quire is written: these words are the so-called reclamantes, or catchwords (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Fol. 41v_{: reclamans; fol. 42}r_{: incipit of quire 4}