Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T22:39:34.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Neglected MS. of Martial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

W. M. Lindsay
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 6 , July 1902 , pp. 315 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1902

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 315 note 1 Through the courtesy of the Danish Librarian I have had the opportunity of inspecting this in the Bodleian Library.

page 315 note 2 In L these epigrams are entered on the fly-leaf, but by a much later hand, not the hand of the (twelfth century) scribe. I should add that the insertions in Q and f are not always the same. Q has inserted things not found in f; f has insertions not found in Q.

316 1 The disorder is heightened in f by the fact that the corrector of f's original had inserted in the margin I xxii., which has the same heading; so that in f this epigram occurs twice, once after I. xiv. and again at its proper place. At its first occurrence the epigram comes from the ‘Italian’ text and should be ignored. Schneidewin's f-reading in v. 3, seruamur, belongs to this first occurrence.