No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2009
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.