Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:02:25.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restorations and Emendations in Livy I–V

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. S. Conway  and
W. C. F. Walters
R. S. Conway
Affiliation:
Manchester, London.
W. C. F. Walters
Affiliation:
Manchester, London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the last twelvemonth we have been engaged in finally preparing for press the first volume (I.-V.) of our text of Livy in the Bibliotheca Classica Oxoniensis, and we now desire to submit beforehand to the judgement of scholars some of the chief alterations in the current text that we have been led to adopt. It will be seen that some proportion of them consist of little more than a defence of the MS tradition; and where we have proposed changes of our own, we have, we believe, rigorously confined ourselves not merely to such suggestions as can be readily reconciled with the reading of at least one good manuscript, but to such as provide in each case a tenable explanation of the origin of all the variants in all the MSS that we have consulted. In several difficult places we have become persuaded that corruption has arisen through slight and accountable dislocations of order, and in a still larger number from the incorporation of marginal or interlinear glosses not differing in character from those which still appear in great numbers in all the MSS of the 9th to the 12th centuries, but which have not forced their way into the text. A typical example will be found in our note on V. 2. 8.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1910 , pp. 267 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1910

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 On the different hands in this MS, and the importance of the distinction, seeConway, Camb Philol. Sec. Proceedings, November, 1902.

2 On this MS, see Walters, Class. Quart., July, 1908, p. 210.

3 On this MS, see Walters, Class. Revie November, 1904, p. 392.

4 On this MS, see Walters, Camb. Philol. Sac. Proceedings, November, 1902.

page 268 note 1 On this MS, see J. F. Dobson, Class. Quart., 1910, p. 38.

page 269 note 1 So at 29. 33. 6 in Cod. Venet. 364 aut is written in such a way that it might easily be read as que. C. F. W.

page 269 note 2 As we do his pura tollito in I. 24. 5.

page 269 note 3 So I have missed r for s in the name Gyslarx in my article C.Q., Ap., 1910, p. 92.— C. F. W.

page 272 note 1 Or ad praesidium (cf. III. 5. 3). The loss of ad and its replacement might account for the introduction of ad portas.

page 274 note 1 See the P.S. to our note on IV. 1. 2, for further examples.

page 276 note 1 From c. 43. 11 the natural inference is that From c. 43. 11 the natural inference is that Fabius was in command against the Aequi.

page 276 note 2 If it is asked why not in Veientibus to correspond to in Aequis, the answer surely is that Veii is a town, Aequi a large territory.

page 276 note 3 We do not deny that Livy has made mistakes, but we deny absolutely that he has made gross blunders of the character that we here deal with.