On the Text of Maximus Tyrius

George Leonidas Koniaris

doi:10.1017/S0009838800044694

On the Text of Maximus Tyrius

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

George Leonidas Koniaris

Show author details

George Leonidas Koniaris: Affiliation:
Marquette UniveristyWis., U.S.A.

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The present paper consists of emendations in the text of Maximus Tyrius. For convenience in citing the text I shall refer by page and line to Hobein's edition.

All the known codices of Maximus, as M. Mutschmann and F. Schulte have shown, most probably (many say certainly) derive from the Parisinus 1962 which belongs to the tenth or the eleventh century. In Hobein's edition and in the present paper the codex is indicated by the letter R.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , May 1970 , pp. 130 - 134

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800044694 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 130 note 1} Hobein, H., Maximus Tyrius (Lips. Teubn., 1910).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 2} Mutschmann, H., ‘Die Überlieferungs geschichte des Maximus Tyrius’, Rh. Mus. lxviii (1913), 560–83.Google Scholar His stemma, ibid. 583.

^{page 130 note 3} Schulte, F., De Maximi Tyrii codicibus, Dissertatio Inauguralis (Götting., 1915), 1–76.Google Scholar His stemma, ibid. 73.

^{page 130 note 4} A description of R may conveniently be found in the above-mentioned edition by Hobein, , praef., pp. xxi–xxxii.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 1} In Maximus the adv. precedes its case only once, p. 12, 8 It is then possibla that is a gloss on and we should write One might suggest that ought only to be deleted without any further addition. In such a case we would construe But either as prosopopoeia of (= the life of ) or in the sense of (= ) is not very likely to represent the original text. Such prosopopoeia, apart from being farfetched in prose, finds no parallel in Maximus (and I have checked all instances of ). On the other hand is not very meaningful, because it exemplifies ‘human life’ with an example of human life ( of human life).