Unlike other books of the Laurentian Library (including all the Plutei), this rather famous manuscript has not been reproduced digitally so it's not easy to see specimens of it.

Laur. Conv. soppr. 627 (usually shortened as F) is a well known Greek manuscript of the late XIII century. The reason for its fame is twofold: it contains four of the five "Greek novels" (the only exception being Heliodorus), being codex unicus for Xenophon of Ephesus and Chariton, the only witness to the φ-family of Achilles Tatius (according to Vilborg), and a primary witness to Longus (according to Reeve).

The second reason is that, despite its pocket-size (17.3 x 12.8 cm: smaller than the Cambridge Green-and-Yellow format, roughly the size of an OCT edition), F contains no less than twenty-two items in 140 folios, written in an almost microscopic handwriting by a single copyist who regularly managed to fill fifty lines per page. The most notable pieces of literature herein are the four Greek novels, compressed and almost "hidden" in the span of a little more than 50 folios (ff. 22r–79v).

There also is a third reason for the manuscript's fame: the so-called «affaire Courier». Albeit known to scholars since the times of Politianus (who read Longus and Xenophon Eph. on this ms. before 1489) and Stephanus (who collated Achilles Tatius in 1547–55), F had been forgotten and, more importantly, never been closely inspected. Montfaucon and D'Orville knew the manuscript and signalled that it also contained Longus, but did not collate its text, even if Montfaucon had dated the handwriting to the XIII century (thus, earlier than the other known witnesses).

Paul-Louis Courier (1772–1825) "rediscovered" F in December 1807 and collated it more carefully in November 1809, finding that the text of Longus as it is transmitted by F does not suffer from the lacuna (1.12.5 τῆς ταινίας – 1.17.4 αὐτῆς) that distinguishes the other branch of tradition, represented by B (vat. gr. 1398). He published his finding in the same 1809, a complete translation of the novel in 1810 (limited ed. of sixty copies, advertised as "traduction complète d'après le manuscrit de Florence"), and shortly after the "new" Greek text with Latin translation and the complete text of Longus. Courier's editions are not memorable in terms of constitutio textus, but were unawarely based on the correct sources, for he had travelled to Rome and collated a Roman manuscript that is now identified with Vat. gr. 1398, that is B, the archetype of the other branch of transmission. In short, the transmission is bifid (and contaminated), and the two branches trace back to B and F which is, however, the only complete manuscript.

While Courier was printing his edition(s) of Longus, the librarian of the Badia fiorentina, Francesco del Furia, had found that the page of F bringing the 'new' text of Longus (f. 23v) had been damaged by a large blot which made the text illegible. The cause of this have never been established: Courier attributed it to a piece of paper that he had used as a bookmark, which got impregnated with ink and made it leak it on the manuscript; Del Furia (and Cobet), on the other hand, suspected that Courier had deliberately provoked the damage so that nobody else could claim the discovery. Only on 22 January 1811, fourteen months after the incident, Courier mailed his transcription to the Laurentian library. The document was immediately archived and lied forgotten, until Rosario Pintaudi rediscovered it in 1978.

Del Furia immediately published a pamphlet attacking Courier, Lettera della scoperta et subitanea perdita di una parte inedita del primo Libro de' Pastorali di Longo (1809). In its present state, the page is largely illegible, although modern photography and digital editing have permitted small progresses. There exist, however, a transcription made by Courier (aided by Del Furia and the vice-librarian Gasparo Bencini), later revised by Courier alone; and another transcription, made by Bencini and Del Furia, immediately after the damage had been found. Thus, for the "found and lost" Longus, we do not only depend on Courier's edition (which is emended ope ingenii, according to the practice of the time).

Reproduced are:

1. f. 76v, 59 lines, containing Xenophon Eph. V 1.1–12.
2. ff. 31v–32r, 40 lines each, containing Longus III 18.3–27.4.

Sources

• A. Cajumi, Courier, Paul-Louis, in Enciclopedia Italiana (1931) [Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani].
• N. Festa – E. Rostagno, Indice dei codici greci Laurenziani non compresi nel catalogo del Bandini, «SIFC» 1 (1893), 129–232: 172–6 [Google Books].
• A. Guida, Qualche novità dalla pagina macchiata del codice Laur. Conv. soppr. 627 di Longo, in A. Casanova – G. Messeri – R. Pintaudi (eds.), e sì d'amici pieno. Omaggio a Guido Bastianini II (Firenze, 2016), 495–504.
• R. Merkelbach – H. van Thiel, Griechisches Leseheft zur Einführung in Paläographie und Textkritik (Göttingen, 1965), pl. 21 (p. 68), for f. 76v.
• R. Pintaudi, La polemica Courier-Del Furia a proposito del Laurenziano Gr. Conv. soppr. 627. Documenti di archivio, «Atti Accad. Colombaria» 43, n.s. 29 (1978), 201–38.
• G. Vitelli – C. Paoli, Collezione fiorentina di facsimili paleografici greci e latini (Firenze, 1897), pl. 23, for ff. 31v–32r [digi-hub.de].

Reference editions

• J. N. O'Sullivan (ed.), Xenophon Ephesius, De Anthia et Habrocome Ephesiacorum libri V (München – Leipzig, 2005) [Bibl. Teubner.]
• M. D. Reeve (ed.), Longus, Daphnis et Chloe (3rd ed., Stuttgart – Leipzig, 1994) [Bibl. Teubner.]
• E. Vilborg (ed.), Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon (Göteborg 1955); Commentary (Göteborg 1962). — This edition was groundbreaking for it used almost all the known manuscripts and determined the textual transmission, but for a better critical text and more precise apparatus one should make use of J.-Ph. Garnaud (ed.), Achille Tatius, Le roman de Leucippé et Clitophon (Paris 1991; 2nd ed. 1994) [Budé].

Pinakes: 15899 (with further bibliography).

Lupin III: Dead or Alive was released thirty years ago. It's the sixth animated feature film of the Lupin III franchise and the first (and only) directed by Monkey Punch himself—although he shared directorial duties with a number of assistants, and personally only directed the prison break prologue.

Pros

The movie's biggest pro are Monkey Punch's unwilling, but firm supervision; the aesthetics; and the Lupin-girl Oleander.

Punch's stylistic supervision is best seen in the only section on which he directly worked, that is the prison break prologue. All things considered, it looks like a more-or-less direct re-enactment of Richard Connell's The Most Dangerous Game (1924), and it probably is the closest that the animated franchise has ever come to a faithful manga adaptation. But there is more. Monkey Punch imposed that Zenigata not be the movie's comic relief and a more manga-like characterisation. He is probably at the most competent he has ever been in any Lupin movie. He is strong, determined, and in his personal segment he stomps his attackers.

Other rules which MP imposed were the darker, more serious tones—reflecting on Lupin's shirt, which is rather black than blue; and that the gang must actually take the treasure home in the end. The OST also reflects MP's influences, with the first chase across Drifting Island alluding to the Looney Tunes style that directly inspired him.

Finally, despite his well-known criticisms of Miyazaki's authorial formula for Cagliostro, Monkey Punch did not entirely reject it. DoA Lupin is ruthless, thieving-focused (overthrowing Headhunter's regime is a mean or a consequence, not the main scope, of his plan: his objective is always the treasure), even plays quite a dirty trick on Ole. But he still has that "heroic drive" that Miyazaki insists on all his stories: he tricks Ole and uses Panish's "return" for his scopes, but also avenges the late prince by killing the two men directly responsible for his death, finally giving Ole some relief—and freeing Zufu from the oppressive regime. And while Fujiko, Ole, Emerah, the biker girl—all of them have the pin-up silhouette that is practically synonymous with Lupin-girl, there is hardly any nudity in the whole movie. Yes Ole has a crop top and a mini skirt, and the biker girl looks like she has just finished her shift in a strip club; but never even one negligee shot is seen in the film, and even Fujiko avoids using her sensuality to her own advantage.

Aesthetics are another point where the movie goes off to a flying start. The tones are generally cold, dark—typically dark for a 90s anime movie. Ole has tanned skin tone and wears a dark green jacket (in line with female anime brawlers of the time). Lupin's shirt is black. Much of the movie actually takes place in the dark—a dark and stormy night, a room with the curtains shut, a basement, the caves inside Drifting Island.

Another typically 90s feature of this movie, is that the plot quickly steers towards the realms of science fiction. The Nano-machine is a prodigious micro-engineered, semi-sentient weapon. Lupin uses computers (frankly to the point of suspension of belief). In hindsight, the Nano-machine is a Positivistic, Frankenstein-like take on supposed almightiness and potential horrors of technology: its tentacles (a possible and quite frankly very not subtle take on, well, tentacle hentai) are near-instant assemblers, similar to the popular portrayal of nano-machines of the time.

Finally, Oleander. She is the movie's Lupin girl and, not entirely typically, a brawler-type: short hair, tan skin, physical skills beyond the foreseeable, as she demonstrates disarming both Lupin and Jigen and, later, fighting the thugs in her "solo" scene. She's competent, but still a girl in the growing. She needs Lupin's help, but won't directly ask. She's strong and a valuable, albeit voluntary/non-voluntary ally, but still retains her femininity and vulnerability.

I personally like her story arc, her willingness to help "Panish" overthrow Headhunter despite knowing that he is not really him, and her last scene, where she throws the locket in the sea, finally accepting Panish's fate and letting him go. She's tragic in a sense, but heroic in the sense that she accepts her own tragedy. And yes, I'm sure is had been a beautiful dream.

Cons

There are some cons, though, and plot order is the biggest issue. Some points are confusing to say the least:

• The prologue is basically detached from the first third of the movie and, quite frankly, looks like it was meant to close of the first act. It's not after the first visit to Drifting Island that we're told that Spunky knew about the machine, so why Lupin infiltrates the prison that early? The other escapees appear as members of the "revolutionary army" attacking the palace. So Lupin had it all planned since the beginning? But it seems that he has learnt about Zufu only at the beginning of the movie. How much time does he actually spend in the country?
• Emerah's lore is confusing. Officially and publicly, she knows about the treasure's location. Why doesn't she tell Headhunter? But it's revealed that not only she actually isn't his daughter at all, she doesn't even know anything about the treasure. Admittedly, Headhunter is not aware of the second part, but since he believes that she knows, how come Mr Knife Enthusiast cannot come up with a way to force her to speak?
• Ole's relationship with Panish is a major point of her lore, but it's very poorly explained why Crisis wanted her into Secret Police. I mean, it's clearly hinted what his thoughts about her are, but this is never linked to him intervening to have her in his corps. Also, with all his research about the machine, how come Headhunter (apparently) did not know about Ole's locket? It feels to me that Emerah and Ole were originally the same character that was split in two distinct people, but leaving one (Emerah) aside and making the other the Lupin girl.
• Before the final showdown, Headhunter connects himself to the Nano-machine, apparently taking control of it. But as soon as Lupin's disguise as Panish breaks, the Nano-machine detects that Panish is no more in sight and attacks. So Headhunter was going to fuck up his own plan anyway?

But all considered, Dead or Alive serves as a good introduction to the animated franchise, and in many aspects it is actually closer to the manga and gives an idea of what the characters were before the anime series' clownishness. I believe this movie did not express its full potential, though, but this is to mostly be linked to the very close deadline the production was given. It is also why Monkey Punch "unwillingly" directed the movie: Toei failed to find another director, so Punch was co-opted to do the job. He admitted having hated it, and said that he would have never directed a movie again.

I also think that, in order to give all characters their space (Headhunter is quite canonically the big serious bad guy, Crisis is slimy, but underdeveloped) and the plot enough space to unravel, it could have been turned into a mini-series, say of two or three long episodes. But that was not really the norm, in 1996 anime industry.

DoA also the sixth Lupin movie to receive a theatrical release, after The Mystery of Mamoo (1978), The Castle of Cagliostro (1979), The Legend of the Gold of Babylon (1985), The Fuma Conspiracy (1987), and Farewell to Nostradamus (1995). It would take seventeen years for Lupin to appear again at the movie theatre, with Lupin III vs. Detective Conan: The Movie (2013). It was a shame, because DoA showed that the gentleman thief's adventures could still be successfully adapted to the big screen.

>One day we'll rise again
on wings of hope to be free