Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T12:16:58.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Textual Criticism of the Pro Milone, the Orations Before Caesar and the Philippics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Original Contributions
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1900

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

page 399 note 1 This MS. consists of two parts bound up together. That which contains the pro Milone belongs to the fourteenth century, while the Philippics were written in the thirteenth.

page 399 note 2 I refer to my analysis of these MSS. contained in pp. xxxviii-xliii of my edition,

page 399 note 3 Anecdot. Oxon. vii. p. xviii.

page 400 note 1 Minor points, in which I have diverged from my previous edition, are: § 16 domi (with HE) for domui (T), § 18 Appiae (with ET) for Appiae viae (H), § 39 omnia (with Madvig, Op. Ac. 1, 180) for omnia turm (MSS.), § 66 suscepta (with MSS.) for susceptam (Gulielmius), § 69 salvis (with Ant. Augustinus) for † salutaribus (HE), § 88 sibi (with Lambinus) for quasi (MSS.) and devinctum (P): for devictum (cett.). I have also removed the bracketsc placed round § 45 fuit, § 69 proximorum, § 79 ab inferis, though in the last two cases very doubtfully.

page 400 note 2 Cl. R. p. 253.

page 400 note 3 Anecdot. Oxon. vii. pp. xxix-xxxix.

page 400 note 4 This was erroneously given as anexeo without ne Cl. R. p. 253.

page 401 note 1 γ read Ligarium ex Africa non venisse med. omissis.

page 402 note 1 C1. R. p. 39.