No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2009
page 117 note 2 Strictly, LF and another comparatively unimportant MS. which he calls L4.
page 118 note 1 Thilo, in the paper referred to later on, rejects the exx. given by Blass (p. 233)—only four in all. Certainly, to charge F with interpolation in i. 166 (quem postquam—uidit Deformem leti famulus clam corripit ensem) is most unjust. For leti F has lateri. Leti was written laeti in its archetype (cp. iv. 633, where LFOV have iacto for leto), and F made laceri or lateri of it: cp. v. 138, illacerabile OV illetabile L, F at first as OV, then corrects to L; ix. 504, MSS. laetatur, laceratur; xi. 45, MSS. laeta, latea, lacera. F2's interpolations hardly affect F itself—if, as is implied by Blass (p. 231), they are distinguishable as later additions.
page 118 note 2 Is it certain that Blass was not rebutting the theory he referred to in Textesquellen, that F was S itself?
page 118 note 3 Cp. the inscription on F: haec legens apes imitare.
page 118 note 4 L3 = Bauer's L, Q = Blass' (and Bauer's) O. With G we are not here concerned.
page 118 note 5 But it hardly explains why he wrote mainly not in Gothic?
page 119 note 1 In i. l.c. LF2 have sonorum for FOV's senonum (Blass, p. 232).