Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-fw45b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T21:38:10.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Persius MSS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

G. R. Scott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 4 , Issue 6 , June 1890 , pp. 241 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1890

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 241 note 1 E.g. in the two passages, I. 57, III. 78, where I noted in my February article an important difference between ω and β, there is none, but Conington had failed to note ω's reading.

page 247 note 1 Or perhaps ω and β may be (so to speak) brothers; I was inclined to think this impossible, for where ω has been corrected β has almost invariably used the correction. But Mr. W. M. Lindsay suggests to me that this may be so explained: a reviser corrected ω where the scribe had departed from the archetype; β was itself copied from that archetype, and so does not reproduce ω's errors. If so ω is a very exact but unintelligent β an intelligent copy of the same MS.

page 247 note 1 It is possible that this Τοεξιϲ was originally a corruption of .