Fol. 61v is notable in demonstrating the damage that the text in AUT suffered, beginning even during Bocc.'s lifetime, and the attempts made to rescue the fading text. Bocc.'s retracing (after 1350) and the retracing by hand C-3 two to three centuries later are both visible on this page. In a few instances, Bocc. and hand C-3 did their retracing on the same lines of the MS. Bocc.'s retracing of the poem is largely visible on the top half of the page (to r. 5.103); he did less retracing of the poem on the lower half of the page (5.103.1-2,4-5) and perhaps some minor retracing of gl. 5.103.1. The lower page must have subsequently suffered significant fading, which required the retracing by hand C-3. Hand C-3 is evident in the poem at 5.103.1-2,4-8 (where Boccaccio's earlier retracing can be seen), at 5.104.1-8, and at gl. 5.103.1. Hand C-3, in fact, rescued the first half of gl. 5.103.1, most of which would otherwise be illegible. The copying of hand C-3 differs in the gloss. For the first nine lines of the 29-line gloss, the underlying text is so faded that C-3 copied in his own hand. Remnants of Bocc.'s copying begin to appear at the tenth line, becoming more apparent with each line until the end of the gloss. As a result, the hand of C-3 changes in the last two-thirds of the gloss, since he must constantly tailor it to the ever more visible remnants of Bocc.'s hand. As elsewhere, however, C-3 has added some readings that require emendation based on examination of AUT under ultra-violet light and collation against NO and the short-commentary MSS.

This appears to have been retraced by Bocc.

et quale C-3,R2,L4,MT ] in quell NO; quell L7. Several emendations have been made in this gloss at those points in the text where Bocc.'s hand is not legible, even under ultra-violet light, where NO and the short-commentary MSS agree against the reading in the hand of C-3, and where the text is inconsistent with Bocc.'s usage. When both C-3 and NO provide acceptable readings, the C-3 text is preserved, but the variant(s) are reported in a note.

percio AUT(C-3),R2,RL,L4,MT] pero NO; per L7.

in AUT(C-3),L7,R2,RL, L4] nel NO,MT.

Bocc.'s spelling often uses ngn instead of gn; for his single use of the word, see AUT gl.10.1.3: giungnio.

infino AUT(C-3),L7,R2] omit NO,L4,MT; the omission is a beta variant.

dice NO,L7,R2, L4,MT,RL] quando AUT(C-3). Hand C-3 uses an abbreviated form that does not appear elsewhere in AUT: q̃ādo.

cioe tanto NO,L7,R2,RL,L4,MT] ⁊ cenith e AUT(C-3). While Bocc. provides a well-developed discussion of Cenìt earlier in bk. 5 (gl. 29.7), the subject does not fit well in the present gloss.

Batt. and Ronc. begin a second gloss here (5.103.2), since the Garamante story becomes the subject for the rest of the gloss. Lim. does not divide the gloss, however, noting that the gloss is not divided in AUT, so a division is arbitrary (881, n 103,1). The gloss is also not divided in NO.

fu uno NO,L7,R2,RL,L4,MT] sie il AUT(C-3).

raccontasi NO,L7,R2,RL,L4,MT] nota AUT(C-3).

The line contains seven words with capital initials: La, Favola, Forma, Che, 'L, Fu, Di. Bocc. does not otherwise use such capitalization, and it was quite likely copied in order to occupy space where C-3 could not decipher the text. Therefore, it is not reproduced.

essendo L7,R2,RL,L4,MT;esendo NO]. Bocc.'s common spelling is essendo.

andare a vedere NO,L7,R2,RL,L4,MT] andarsene ^ in africa ad AUT(C-3): in africa is an interlinear addition; the ^ symbol indicates where to insert the text.

Like the interlinear addition at the above line, the cancellation of in libia at this line is the work of scribe C-3. The Eds. have retained both Africa and Libia.

grande NO,L7,R2,RL,L4,MT] di giungno AUT(C-1). Scribe C-1 added di in the right margin in order justify giungno.

Eds. Oragada. Because of the overtracing, the word is not entirely clear, but bragada is a better reading. Note also Bocc.s reference to the river in De montibus... (De fluminibus s.v. Bragada). Livy, Pliny and other Roman historians of the Punic Wars tell a story, repeated by Bocc. in De montibus, of the slaying of a great serpent by the Roman army encamped on the Bragada. Bocc. does not list a river named Oragada in De montibus....

Although the overtracing continues until the end of the gloss, Bocc.'s original copying is much more visible and the tracing becomes significantly better.

Bocc. also refers to king Giarba in the Filocolo (II.32.10, III.73.1) and the Genealogia XI.ll.