No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
(I) In I910 the bookseller Hiersemann of Leipzig bought at Sotheby's a manuscript of Metamorphoses described as a ‘manuscript of the twelfth century, finely written on vellum, bound in oak boards, covered with stamped leathe’ it was one of the many manuscripts of Ovid owned by Sir Thomas Phillipps, Phillippicus 1038. Its whereabouts since 1910 are unknown. Also unknown are the whereabouts of Phillippicus 2709, a thirteenth-century manuscript of Metamorphoses.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1974
References
page 116 note 1 See the catalogue for 8 June 1910. The buyer's name is entered in the copy photographed for the Bodleian, R. Cat. 310 P/II.
page 116 note 2 No. 282 in Munari's, Catalogue of the Mss. of Ovid's Metamorphoses, B.I.C.S. Supp. 4 (1957). None of the pertinent catalogues in the Bodleian bears out Munari's statement that a previous owner was ‘Count MacCarthy (Sale Catal., 1817, lot 829).’Google Scholar
page 116 note 3 Munari no. 283.
page 116 note 4 Degering, H., Sitzungsber. der Preuss. Akad. der Wiss. (1919), 468–76; Lindsay, C.R. xxxiii (1919), 152; Lowe, C.R. xxxvii (1923), 24.Google Scholar
page 116 note 5 Degering, p. 472.
page 116 note 6 C.R.xxxvii (1923), 66.
page 116 note 7 Not ‘Turreno’, as Slater read it. For Georgius Turrianus, ‘medicus Patavinus’ as Heinsius calls him elsewhere, see Grosses Universal-Lexicon, xlv (Leipzig, 1745), col. 1970.
page 116 note 8 Munari no. 174.
page 116 note 9 M.-Th. Vernet-Boucrel, in Mélanges Grat ii (Paris, 1949), 373–5.Google Scholar
page 116 note 10 Degering, p. 472.
page 116 note 11 Both numbers are given in the annotated catalogue to the manuscript sold in 1910 (cf. n. I); and whatever the significance of this, certainly nothing else seems to have been heard of 2709. Duplication of numbers befell a Phillippicus of Tristia, 960= 2767, and Mr. A. R. A. Hobson of Sotheby's kindly writes that ‘Phillipps frequently gave two numbers to the same manuscript by mistake’.
page 117 note 1 So Heinsius's Patavinus in Bodl. Auct S 5 8.
page 117 note 2 This can be verified from a photograph in the possession of the Institut de Recherch et d' Histoire des Textes, Paris. Another photograph shows that the inside of the back cover, unlike the inside of the front cover was bare, so that there is no reason why the controversial fragment of Plautus should no have been detached from it as Hiersemann said; on the contrary, the measurements are, very much in his favour (Ovid 220 x 147 mm., Plautus 210 X 552 mm.). Not that forgery is in doubt: cf. Norden, Sitzungsber der preuss. Akad. 1924 p. 163. Another for gery from the same source was exposed by Degering, Arch. Anz. xxxviii-xxxix (1923–4), 13–22; but either Degering went too far it suspecting the portrait of Virgil (p. 19) or the forger had been at work before 1896, when the manuscript was described in Sotheby's catalogue of Phillippici for sale on the 17th of June (no. 1267: ‘with portrait of Virgil in the first initial letter’).
page 117 note 3 Slater actually reports that it had disappeared before 1760 from the Marciana, but either he or his informant has garbled the truth. No collection of manuscripts from S. Giovanni di Verdara went to the Marciana before 1784: see Valentinelli, Bibliotheca Manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum i (1868), 88. 1760 is the date of a handwritten catalogue that passed to the Marciana, now cod. It. XI 323 (7107), and the manuscript is missing from this catalogue. On the depletion of the library before 1784 see L. Dorez, Mélanges G. B. de Rossi (supplement to Mélanges d' Arch. et d' Hist., 1892), 115–16.
page 118 note 1 After this note had been written, Mr. A. S. Hollis pointed out that qui had already been commended by A. G. Lee in his translation (John Murray, London, 1968), p. 183: ‘quin… introducing a statement in the sense of immo doesn't quite fit here’. With Mr. Lee's permission the note has been left to stand, since it offers a second objection to quin.