Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:38:24.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Manuscript Tradition of Livy's First Decade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. M. Ogilvte
R. M. Ogilvte
Affiliation:
Clare College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Little progress has been made in classifying the manuscript tradition of Livy's First Decade since Frigell published his Livianorum Librorum Primae Decadis Emendandae Ratio (1875). This laid the foundations of a serious analysis of the manuscripts, but was hampered by the fact that full evidence was not available at that date. The deficiency was made good by the Oxford editors, who, however, failed to make use of their evidence to explore in detail the inter relation of the manuscripts. Walters indeed disclaims its importance (C.Q. ii [1908], p. 213): ‘Further in stemmata-making I decline to go, for “stemmata quid faciunt?” except much stereotyped mischief.’

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 1-2 , January 1957 , pp. 68 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1957

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 68 note 1 I should like to express my debt thanks to Dr. A. H. McDonald for his encouragement and criticism of this paper, to the Trustees of the Craven Fund for enabling me to examine most of the manuscripts abroad, and to Mr. k. Cavander

page 72 note 1 MS. 2 z T; see Billanovich, , op. cit., p. 148 n.Google Scholar I am most grateful to the Keeper of Manuscripts of Det Kongelige Bibliotek and his assistants for preparing special photographs of the fragments for me.

page 72 note 1 The Prague fragment (Univers. Bibl. 1224 (VII. A. 16); see Lowe, , Scriptura Beneventana, Ixvii;Google ScholarBillanovich, , op. cit., p. 147,Google Scholar n. 5) belongs to this group: like B, it omits natu sit munus and consensu at 3. 35. 7.