Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:23:59.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

First thoughts on the Hamiltonensis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

E. J. Kenney
E. J. Kenney
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , December 1966 , pp. 267 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1966

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 267 note 3 Its existence was no secret, but it was disregarded by editors (habetis confitentem reum) because the only published catalogue dated it as written in the fourteenth century instead of the eleventh.

page 267 note 4 Art. cit., 6, 13, 20, 24.

page 267 note 5 Of the eleventh/twelfth century: Munari, p. 19.

page 267 note 6 I do not say ‘confirms’, since this is not necessarily the case: Goold, , A.J.P. lxxxvi (1965), 90–91.Google Scholar

page 268 note 1 Not Kenney: Goold, art. cit. 90.

page 268 note 2 It is worth recording that vestiges of the correct orthography of such words as this are preserved elsewhere by Ovid's manuscripts, though generally unregarded by his editors: Her. iii. 65 pthiis pG; xvi. 345 erecthida P. Cf. Am. iii. 7. 23 chlide Y.

page 268 note 3 Notes i, ii = Kenney, , ‘Notes on Ovid’, ‘Notes on Ovid: II’, C.Q. lii (1958), 54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ibid, liii (1959), 240–60.

page 268 note 4 But see Addendum.

page 268 note 5 e.g. (I confine myself to passages from Ars i) 83 amore, 244 in uinis〉 iuuenis uel inuenis, 518 docta, 620 subilur.

page 269 note 1 Cf. now Hanv. Stud. lxix (1965), 52.

page 269 note 2 Heinsius misreported P, en passant, as reading dvm.

page 270 note 1 Cf. Hilberg, I., Die Gesetze der Wortstellung im Pentameter des Ovid (1894), pp. 447 ff.Google Scholar

page 270 note 2 In error: i. 3. 21 numen PYH; i. 4. 20 teges PSYHN; i. 4. 60 separer PF(?)H; i. 8. 51 aere ni tentus P: aera nitentus Y(?): ere renitenti HPh1; i. 10. 51 a diuite〉 ad uiteę, P; ad uitte HN;ii. 19. 31 cupit〉 libet PY: (de qua) libet H; ii. 19. 52 concessa PYH; iii. 8. 6 quod PH1 iii. 9. 57 doloris PYAbH; iii. 10. 29 ardere PYHVa. In good readings: i. 3. 24 uara PHN; i. 6. 1 indignum PSYHOb; i. 6. 17 ut uideas PHYW, unde uti uideas Ehwald; i. 7. 48 ad PYH; iii. 3. 1 hic crede PSYH, unde i crede Heinsius; iii. 4. 41 quo PSYDH; iii. 6. 102 indigne PSYFH; iii. 7. 19 quo PSYHVa; iii. 7. 49 quo PYH … quo PSH (de Y incert.); iii. 8. 50 facis PSYF (u.l.) H2, exc. Seal.

page 270 note 3 One cannot build much on Ap. Rhod. i. 740–1 Ἀμφ⋯ων δ᾽ ⋯π⋯ οἱ χρυσ⋯ῃ φ⋯ρμιγγιλιγα⋯νων / ἤιε, δ⋯ς τ⋯σση δ⋯ νετ᾽ ἴ χνια ν⋯σσετοπ⋯τρη.

page 270 note 4 I am grateful to Dr. Wolfgang Schmitt for kindly supplying me with a copy of this publication.