No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Neglect of the ‘codices deteriores’ has caused the ascription of a considerable number of readings in Cic. De Diuin. to the conjectures of scholars of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and later centuries, though manuscript evidence, in some cases of a much earlier date, is to be found. Even if the presence of such readings in the manuscripts is due to conjecture and to no other cause, credit for priority should be given to the manuscripts. The following notes are restricted to the evidence of the London MSS.
page 153 note 1 The symbols OINLM are taken from Swainson's, J. H. collation of the English manuscripts of the De Nat. Deor. printed in Mayor's, J. B. edition (1880)Google Scholar.
page 153 note 2 It bears the date 1404.
page 153 note 3 They are all briefly described by A. S. Pease in his edition (1920, 1923); see pp. 604–19 for his list of all the known manuscripts.
page 153 note 4 The ascriptions of readings to scholars are drawn chiefly from the critical notes of Pease and of W. Ax (Teubner, text of De Diuin., De Fato, Timaeus, 1938)Google Scholar.
page 153 note 5 Davies writes on princeps: ‘nos … Pal. secundi lectionem sumus amplexi, quam clariorem uerioremque merito iudicauit Gruterus; ego sane earn certissime ueram pronuntio.’
page 153 note 6 Davies writes ‘sic ex Pal. sec. dedit Gruterus’.
page 153 note 7 Davies writes ‘mihi sequendus uidetur Med. qui sic dat ut edidimus’.
page 154 note 1 Clark, A. C., The Descent of Manuscripts, p. 361Google Scholar, also omits the word as probably absent from the archetype.
page 154 note 2 Aethiopas et Syros in Moser's ‘codd. dett.’; according to Davies et appeared before Aethiopas in ‘Med. Ball. Cantab. Ven. 1471, Vict.’
page 154 note 3 The readings of the MSS. SPM are taken from the following works: Kiessling, A.Schoell, R., Q. Asconii Pediani Orationum Ciceronis Quinque Enarratio (1875)Google Scholar, Clark, A. C., Q. Asconii Pediani Orationum Ciceronis Quinque Enarratio (1907)Google Scholar, Stangl, T., Ciceronis Orationum Scholiastae (1912)Google Scholar, Giarratano, C., Q. Asconii Pediani Commentarii (1920)Google Scholar. References throughout are to Clark's pages.
page 154 note 4 Giarratano, , Praefatio, p. xiiiGoogle Scholar, writes ‘reliquiautem codices (i.e. besides SPMσ) uel a Clarkiouel a Stanglio uel a me collati sunt omnes adunum’.
page 155 note 1 Praef., pp. xxiii–xxviii.
page 155 note 2 I codici fiorentini di Asconio Pediano (1906), and Riv. di Filol. (1906), pp. 477–82.
page 155 note 3 Riv. di Filol. (1913), pp. 579–86.
page 155 note 4 Laur. liii. 15. Clark's n is Neapol. V. B. 20.