No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The first excitement consequent upon the discovery of an ancient manuscript generally leads to an exaggeration of its importance. This was especially the case with the Veronese Palimpsest, first, because it is the only MS. of the first decade of Livy earlier than the ninth century, and secondly, because it is the only extant MS. for that part of Livy, which is not derived from the Nicomachian recension. Mommsen was naturally prejudiced in favour of the Veronese Palimpsest, which he collated and published, and, when the two families of MSS. differ from one another, he usually decides for the Palimpsest. He used only MPL for his comparison, which is consequently very inadequate. It is possible now, however, with our wider and moreaccurate knowledge of the Nicomachian MSS.,thanks to the patient research of Professor Flamstead Walters and Dr. Conway, more justly to estimate the importance of the Veronese Palimpsest in Livy's first decade.
page 166 note 1 See Proc, of Camb. Phil. Soc., Nov. 1902, and Classical Quarterly, July, 1908, and Jan. 1910.
page 167 note 1 This was also a common mistake of the scribe of M, who was responsible for I. (1–9) and III. (71. 8) to IV. (21. 8). See Proc. of Comb.Phil. Soc, November, 1902.
page 173 note 1 See Classical Quarterly, 1910, p. 269.
page 180 note 1 See Classical Quarterly, January, 1911.