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
The vexed question of the exact significance of the name of Mavortius in the old Putean MS. of Prudentius (Par. Put. 8084) has again been called into court in the recent discussions of the Mavortian recension of Horace, and is fully treated in Dr. Bick's Horazkritik seit 1880, pp. 31–35. As Dr. Bick has done me the honour of subjecting my former articles on the question to his criticism, I feel called upon to say something in defence of the view I maintained. I willingly grant him that perhaps I laid too strong a stress on the connection of the question with Horatian criticism; but I do so, I fear, not as a convert to his arguments in favour of the view that Put. is merely a copy of a MS. that had Mavortius' autograph written in it, and that therefore that name is part of a lost subscriptio, but precisely for the contrary reason, that I consider I was too much influenced by former advocates of that view. That there is no ground for assuming the name to be part of a lost subscriptio I am more than ever convinced, and my object here is to endeavour to show that the whole argument based on a false premise.
page 10 note 1 Cf. also F. Vollmer, ‘Die Überlieferungs Ge-schichte von Horaz,’ Philologus, Suppl. Band. x. 317.
page 10 note 2 C.R. xvii. (1903), 203–207; xviii. (1904), 112–115.
page 10 note 3 On the same false reasoning is based the view that the name is M.'s autograph, but that he was interrupted before he finished it—a view rightly condemned by Dr. Bick as ‘unglaublich’.
page 10 note 4 e.g. Noctes Att. vi. II, 3 and 7.
page 11 note 1 In the case of the Montpellier MS. of Persius the subscriptio and notes are apparently taken together from some different MS. from that used for the text (cf. Lindsay, C.R. 1905, p. 465). But there the subscriptio was legible.
page 12 note 1 e.g. I was too much influenced by the prevalent belief in a subscriptio in suggesting that the continuance of the notes past the page containing the name afforded support to the view that Mavortius' labour in Horace extended past the subscriptio at the end of the Epodes. As the name is not a subscriptio, the case is quite different and has no bearing whatever on that Horatian question.