No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Phaedriana
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
For this Fable both Ademar and the Weissenburg MS. (Wissemburgensis) fail us. We have, however, the representatives of R, which Thiele groups under his Recensio Gallicana, and one (the Codex Vindobonensis lat. 303) which he places in his Recensio Vetus; of the other two one does not contain it, and the third, the Erfordtensis at Berlin, has a wholly independent version, which Thiele most strangely regards as imported from ‘Phaedrus in prose,’ although neither in diction nor in remnants of metre has it anything to suggest such an origin. His ‘restoration’ (Einleitung, p. ccxxi) may accordingly be neglected.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1919
References
page 82 note 1 Gladium ambulans uiator ut uico inuenit would be nearer to the letter of the paraphrasts' version, but Thiele appears to be right in saying that ‘dum ambularet, etc.’ is a ‘superfluous addition of Romulus.’
page 83 note 1 What are we to say of Herr Thiele's theory that in this and many other instances such correspondences prove interpolation from Phaedrus? What does he suppose interpolators are after? Nonsense?
page 83 note 2 rege (l. 1) P, and lauare (l, 6) PR (Havet in No. 91, where also the bulk of the material from the paraphrasts is given).
page 86 note 1 ‘Die Konsultation wird mit äahnlichen Ausdrücken in der Aegritudo Perdicae 169 beschrieben womöglich nach gemeinsamer Vorlage,’ p. 241.
page 86 note 2 Cf. Pers, S. 3. 107 sq. ‘tange miser usnas.’