Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:53:52.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More about Almeloveen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Michael Winterbottom
Michael Winterbottom
Affiliation:
University College London
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 14 , Issue 3 , December 1964 , pp. 243
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1964

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

1 But no emendations. Francius was prolific in these, and thereby incurred the heavy sarcasms of Spalding. Perhaps they were known to Burman via another item in the Francius catalogue, no. 751, the Quintilian ‘P. Aerodii Paris. 1563 cum not. mss. viri docti’, or 837, the Leyden edition of 1665 ‘cum plur. annot. mss. P.F,’

2 One point is cleared up by my disinde covery. At v. 14. 10 Burman quotes the Codex Aim. as omitting quod intenditur, as H does not (see my previous article). In fact, Stephanus omitted the words, and Francius (and doubtless Almeloveen also) inserted them from H thus: ∧ quod intenditur C. Burman's, then, is the error. He took this to mean that the codex omitted the words. In fact, it included them.