Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:10:26.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Metamorphosis of Ovid - P. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoseon Libri XV., Lactanti Placidi qui dicitur Narrationes Fabularum Ovidianarum. Recensuit apparatu critico instruxit Hugo Magnus. Accedunt Index Nominum et tres Tabulae Photographicae. Berolini apud Weidmannos, MDCCCCXIV. I vol. 9″ × 6″. Pp. xxxiv + 766. 30s. net.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

D. A. Slater
D. A. Slater
Affiliation:
Bedford College, London, N. W.
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
Reviews
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , March 1915 , pp. 56 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1915

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 57 note 1 See the list enumerated in Loers, Praefatio.

page 57 note 2 See Chatelain, Paléographie des Classiques Latins, Planche xcv.

page 57 note 3 Cf. Anth. Pal. V. 132 … ; Ovid, de Arte Am. I. 53, III. 191, etc.; and for Andromedā, Lachm. Lucretius, p. 405. At Met. XIII. 523 the MSS. waver between ‘dofabere’ and ‘dowabere.’

page 58 note 1 Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series, i. 5 (1885). There is a facsimile in Chatelain, op. cit., Planche 97. 1.

page 58 note 2 The Beneventan Script, p. 354.

page 58 note 3 For this use of auctor cf. Tristia, IV. 4. 26 and 34; Met. VI. 172.

page 58 note 4 Two other misstatements in M's note on this line need correction. N has qua (not quo), and M's reading is quite uncertain, ‘qu/02 (a eras) M,’ says M. Signor Rostagno examined the manuscript with me, and agreed that the letter erased is quite as likely to have been an æ diphthong as an a. M makes such play with his recollation of M and N that one might reasonably have expected him to quote their readings at any rate correctly throughout.

page 59 note 1 So also in the text of the poem at X. 215. There again M overlooks the cedillas.

page 59 note 2 The corresponding line of the poem (IX. 779) is corrupt. Punior is not Ovidian, and Plan, seems here, as elsewhere, to be translating a gloss, . The variants suggest something like—Quod uidet haec lucem, quod non ego conscia plector.

page 59 note 3 Paris. 8001 was identified by Loers (praef. ad init.) with the Codex Berneggerianus Heinsii. Yet (e.g.) at I. 530 M gives us the note ‘deo I flamma est cc Bernegg. et Par. 8001’— So also at V. 343. There, however (at the dictates of prudence), the number 8001 is dropped; but see Lemaire. Similarly at I. 69 φ is the Liége fragment. Delete from the note either φ or ‘frg. Leodinense.’

page 59 note 4 See Madvig, Aduersaria Critica, ii. 83 (the reference is given in the not. Crit.).

page 59 note 5 Merkel is cited as in favour of the reading; but Merkel (p. xxxii) begins by describing the construction thus: ‘Manifestos, quantum puto, barbarismus et sine exemplo.’

page 59 note 6 There are excerpts and collations of thirtyfour MSS., mostly ‘notae inferioris.’