The 'integri' of Cicero's 'Topica.'
In a painstaking new edition of the Topica,(3) Giorgio Di Maria has given us the first apparatus criticus worthy of the name for this work, and provided material on which conclusions about the problem raised by Reeve and about the tradition generally can be based. Di Maria might have shown, more systematically than he does, the way in which the influence of Boethian readings spread; and he could have drawn deductions that he did not clearly draw for the editing of the Topica. I am entirely indebted to his book for information about the readings of the eight non-[Beta] manuscripts that he uses (he classes them together as a). I have not had access to his own (unpublished) text of the Boethian commentary, and my conclusions must remain provisional in that respect.(4)
Di Maria's eight integri are grouped by him into two sets of three, with two over. The first group, which he calls [Gamma], rests on two eleventh-century texts in Bamberg, Class. 14 ([B.sub.1a] and [B.sub.1b]), together with Valenciennes 406 ([V.sub.2]), a little older. The second group consists of Chartres 498 (s. xii; C), Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, S. Marco 166 (s. xii; F) and Vatican, Ottobonianus lat. 1406 (s. xi ex.; O). The two others, `qui, cum nulli alii in editione adhibito praesertim affines sint, lectiones haud spernendas nobis tradiderunt' (p. xxvi), are Einsiedeln 324 (s. x ex.; a) and Berlin, lat. 2[degrees] 252 (s. xii; e, the celebrated collection made for Wibald). Di Maria does not venture any opinion as to the relationship between [Gamma], CFO, a and e, though he does say that a and [B.sub.A] are very alike 'in fontibus' (p. xxvii).(4a) As for [B.sub.A] itself, he regards it as not being in the [Beta] family. He lists (p. xx) readings common to all (or very nearly all) of the a manuscripts in passages where [Beta] is available.(5)
I turn to Boethian influence on the manuscripts of the Topica. Di Maria (p. 75) points to a passage in 27 that suggests strongly that this influence extends to the archetype. The words `earum autem rerum quae non sunt' seem to be imported from Boethius 320, 6-7(6) (where we have vero for autem); there they are entirely in place, as they are distinctly not where all the manuscripts place them in the Topica, before `non esse rursus ea...' Other instances of this sort of thing may lurk, unnoticed and unnoticeable, among the many passages where the text implied or cited by Boethius is the same as that of the archetype of the Topica.
An analysis of cases where Boethian contamination seems certain or very likely in some (not all) of the a witnesses, however, produces interesting results. We need to start from Boethian errors; and these are most easily diagnosed where [Beta] as well as a is available.
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
The picture is clear enough. Apart from a single instance, corrected in the manuscript, a is pure; of the other nine cases, seven appear in O, six in F, four in [Gamma], three in e, one in C.
Nor is the picture different if we turn to apparent Boethian errors outside the passages available in [Beta].
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
Out of these twenty-five cases, one is in the first hand of [B.sub.A], three in its second; one in a (which excels itself at 55, 24 ); but fourteen in F, twelve in O, eleven in C, and eight each in e and [Gamma].
We begin to glimpse that [B.sub.A] and a are virtually free of diagnosable Boethian contamination, while e[Gamma]C and especially F and O are strongly subject to it.
Entirely consistent with this is an interesting series of cases where some, but not all, of the a manuscripts have good readings, not found in [Beta]([B.sub.A]), that could have been imported from Boethius. I merge passages where [Beta] is available with those where it is not, and reserve to a footnote less striking or less clear-cut cases.(13)
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
Again, a before correction is remarkably absent from the list. In other circumstances, one might suppose that these good readings had been vertically transmitted. But in view of the material assembled above, it is tempting to suppose that [B.sub.A], and a owe both their vices and their virtues to a lack of interference from Boethius, while the other a manuscripts, in varying degrees, owe their vices and virtues to a surfeit of it. It is not a question of drawing a stemma, but of recognizing a spectrum of sincerity which starts from [B.sub.A] and a on one side, passes through e[Gamma]C, and arrives at F and O on the other.
* * * * *
If we now turn our attention away from Boethius, we should be especially interested in agreements in error of [Beta] with members, or groups of members, of a. Agreements with a are abundantly documented above and below. But very striking too is coincidence of [Beta] with F, and to a lesser extent with [B.sub.1a]. Thus [Beta] and F agree at: 9, 3(10) om. quae; 75, 4(25) imprudentes (but also Boethius 388, 6); 78, 4(23) reque publica] atque re publica [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] adsentator; 87, 16(3) [is less than]de[is greater than] altero (+[B.sub.1a]: perhaps rightly, cf. Quintilian 7.3.8); 93, 14(18) quoniam] quae [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] honestate (only [Beta][B.sub.1a]; 94, 2(28) laudatur (+e[B.sub.1a]; 94, 2(29) quod [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] oratione (only [Beta][B.sub.1a.sup.pc]). These agreements point clearly to contamination from [Beta] to F and to [B.sub.1a]. (continuing in its second hand), and are a further sign of the insincerity of F. There is nothing so striking in [Beta]'s coincidences with other individual a manuscripts: [Beta][V.sub.2] 22, 21(19) possit; [Beta]O 99, 20(5) om. et (before iracundia). Either of these could be a transmitted error, easily corrected in the other a texts (the former with the help of Boethius 306, 30); but no doubt they are in fact coincidences.
* * * * *
I have tried to show, by a cumulative argument, that [Beta]([B.sub.A])a transmit archetypal readings that in other integri are regularly corrected, or corrupted, by reference to the Boethian commentary. The argument is rounded off by a list of non-Boethian passages(15) where [Beta]([B.sub.A])a are wrong against (some of) the others. If, in these cases, the other a manuscripts seemed to give good readings that could not be the result of conjecture, my whole thesis would be imperilled. In fact, in all the passages I list, correction seems well within the compass of a medieval reader(16) (I at times comment on the ease of the correction). I reserve to a final section a list of passages where the correctness of [Beta]([B.sub.A])a readings, and therefore the text itself, is in doubt.
30, 3(4-5) ne si] nisi [B.sub.A]ae[Gamma]C 32, 2(23) quaerentibus] quaerentique [B.sub.A][a.sup.ac] (-ti C) 33, 15(5) diductio] deductio [B.sub.A]ae[Gamma]CF 43, 9-10(13) nocet] non nocet [B.sub.A]a[Gamma], obvious nonsense in the context 44, 16(19) quae] qua [B.sub.A][a.sup.ac] 45, 4(28) muta [V.sub.2]: multa rell. codd. 49, 6(22) velut] vel [B.sub.A]a[Gamma]C(?) 49, 8(24) alia] illa [B.sub.A][a[Gamma]] CO, perhaps rightly (so Friedrich; see however Di Maria, 88); the correction alia follows the lead of the previous sentence. 55, 18(20-21) conficitur] conficiatur [B.sub.A.sup.ac][Gamma]. For the indicative cf. Boethius 364, 27 colliguntur. 57, 16(12-13) hae quidem] haec quidem [B.sub.A], equidem [a.sup.ac] 58, 21(17) equidem] et quidem [B.sub.a] ae 58, 24(20) non habet sed] habet [B.sub.a][a[Gamma]] C; the context cries out for a negative (Di Maria, 96) 62, 7(24) efficiunt] efficiuntur [B.sub.A][a[Gamma] CFO; efficiant precedes, and prompts the correction to the active. 63, 21(7-8) etiam ea quae fiunt partim sunt] etiam ut ea ... sint (sint also O) [B.sub.A][ae[Gamma]]; the correction is eased by Boethius 374, 25-6. 64, 1(14) quae] om. [B.sub.a][ae.Gamma]] CF. 64, 2-3(15-16) enim et admonitione] et admonitione enim [B.sub.A][a[Gamma]] C, an impossible order. 66, 15(28) arbitrio] arbitro [B.sub.A] a 66, 20(1) oporteret] oportet [B.sub.A] [a.sup.ac] 67, 24(6) ex] e [B.sub.A] a 68, 9(16) spectantur] exspectantur [B.sub.A] [a.sup.ac] [gamma]CFO 72, 22(26) et] om. [B.sup.A][ae[Gamma]] C 80, 17(3) aut (after autem)] om. [Beta]ae[Gamma] CF; the correction brings the clause into line with the previous one. 83, 5(3) et natura] natura [Beta][ae[Gamma]] C (acceptably?) 88, 20(8) adiunctis] adiuncti [Beta][ae[Gamma]] F iis] ei [Beta], ii a (corrected rightly only in O). See for the whole phrase Di Maria, 109-10.
I come finally to a discussion of passages where one might hesitate between the readings of [Beta]([B.sub.A) a and those of some or all of the other a manuscripts. In many of them Di Maria has arguably been too favourable to the claims of what he himself regards as `contaminated' witnesses. 2 non tam vitandi laboris mei causa quam quia tua id interesse arbitrarer causa FO: om. [B.sub.A][a[Gamma]]C A genitive gerundive of cause (without causa etc.) is said not to be found in Cicero (though the referee points out Rep. 1.16), but there is a possible case in Caesar, Bell. Gall. 4.17.10, cited by Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr, p. 75 (in the wake of Terence, Adelph. 270 `ne id adsentandi mage quam quo habeam gratum facere existumes'). The correction will in any case have been eased by Boethius 272, 8-9. 9 sed ad id totum de quo disseritur tum definitio adhibetur quae quasi involutum evolvit id de quo quaeritur quae [Gamma] O: qua ae: quo C: om. [Beta]F evolvit [Gamma]: evolvitur [Beta]eaCFO The passive construction qua(17) ... evolvitur seems possible. Boethius's paraphrase at 287, 31-7 (cf. 287, 47-288, 1 and also 291, 1-3) could have prompted [Gamma]'s quae ... evolvit, but does not ensure that Cicero wrote this; and compare 319, 29-30 `nam si definitio est qua explicatur id quod definitur quid sit'. 11 Cicero's list of affecta includes `alia ex adiunctis'. Only eO give adiunctis: [Beta][a[Gamma]] CF have coniunctis. Di Maria prefers the former `quod antiquius sit' (p. 67); but, as he admits, Cicero's (and Boethius's) usage varies. Here con- is transmitted (and supported(18) by Boethius 293, 11); and that Cicero should have used con- here and adat 18 is no odder than his retrospective use of con- at 53. 21 quod enim semel testamento alicui datum est, id ab eo invito cui datum est auferri non potest alicui [a.sup.vl]eCFO: cui [Beta][a[Gamma]] cui does not seem impossible as an indefinite in a relative clause (Kuhner-Stegmann, i.634), though its position is not idiomatic. But we should probably delete it as an anticipation of cui below (also before datum est). 27 quarum rerum nullum subest quasi corpus, est tamen quaedam conformatio insignita et impressa intellegentiae quam notionem voco intellegentiae FO: intellegentia [Beta][ae[Gamma]]C Boethius (320, 20-2 `sed quaedam earum rerum incorporalis animi conceptio est atque intelligentia, quam notionem vocavit') will have read the nominative (cf. also 332, 33-4), and rightly so (cf. Cic. De finibus 3.21 `cepit intellegentiam vel notionem potius'), for notiones are imprinted on the animus (cf. e.g. Acad 1.42), not on the intellegentia. But all is still not well. There may be a lacuna: `conformatio <et in animo> insignita et impressa intellegentia.' 36 Servius noster, ut opinor, nihil putat esse notandum nisi post, et liminium illud productionem esse verbi vult illud [Gamma][V.sub.2][B.sub.1a.sup.pc.CFO]: post illud [B.sub.a1][B.sub.1b]: potest (then deleted) illud a: post et liminium (et liminium in ras.) [B.sub.A] illud is unexceptionable. But if we could be sure that post et liminium was in [B.sub.A]'s exemplar, one would delete the three words as a dittography of what precedes. As it is, the original reading of [B.sub.A] is uncertain: it too could have been post illud. Boethius 336, 42-3 does not settle the matter either way. 37 Scaevola autem P. filius iunctum putat esse verbum putat esse CFO: esse putat [B.sub.a][ae[Gamma]] esse pulat is not impossible, and puts (perhaps) a desirable stress on iunctum(19) (contrast Servius's view of the word as post plus a termination). CFO could be influenced by Boethius 337, 3-4, itself affected by Boethius's striving for rhythm. 37 ut quae a nobis alienata cum ad hostem pervenerint ex suo tamquam limine exierint, hinc cum redierint post ad idem limen postliminio redisse videantur hinc CFO: et ea [B.sub.A] [aeB.sub.1a] [B.sub.1b] (et huc ea [V.sub.2]) hinc is mere conjecture, not even supported by Boethius's paraphrase (337, 6-8), and we should read ea without et (erased in [B.sub.A]). hinc ea (Friedrich) is an unwarranted conflation. 42 haec ex pluribus perveniens quo vult appellatur inductio, quae Graece [Greel words omitted] nominatur appellatur [e[Gamma]]CFO (nuncupatur Boethius 340, 33): appelletur [B.sub.A] a The subjunctive is choicer, and probably correct. Cf. 93 'refutatio ... accusationis..., quoniam Graece [Greek words omitted] dicitur, appelletur Latine status'. It is true that there Cicero is coining the word for the first time, whereas he has used inductio before at inv. 1.51. But he had disowned the De Inventione (de orat. 1.5) as an unworthy work of his youth. Friedrich's argument (JClPh 139 , 290) that the subjunctive would require quoniam (as at 93) rather than quae seems not to be decisive.(20) 43 quem ad modum, fines qui magis agrorum videntur esse quam urbis, si in urbe de finibus controversia est, finibus regendis adigere arbitrum non possis, sic si aqua pluvia in urbe nocet, quoniam res tota magis agrorum est, aquae pluviae arcendae adigere arbitrum non possis. So [B.sub.A][ae[Gamma]]C (barring minor details here suppressed). FO transpose si ... est to follow quem ad modum (so Wilkins and Di Maria). They are thus led on to delete fines, as well as (correctly) to change qui to quia (cf. Boethius 341, 10). The transposition brings the two halves of the period more closely into line, but it is not necessary, and spoils a choice variation. The discussion in Boethius 341, 1 seq. does not throw light on the issue either way. 47 haec quae ex eodem genere contraria sunt appellantur adversa. adversa FO: diversa [B.sub.A][ae[Gamma]]C The same manuscripts have diversa at the reprise in 48, and it is more likely that FO have corrected from Boethius (344, 13) than that the others strayed twice. Rhythm favours the more obvious adversa here, but is not decisive in this text. 52 praeterea restinctus ignis, gladius cruentus, ceteraque quae suspicionem facti possunt movere. ceteraque [B.sub.A.sup.pc.CFO: cetera [B.sub.A] a: et cetera [e[Gamma]] The two different remedies applied to the asyndetic cetera strike the eye. For the asyndeton cf. inv. 2.177 `honos, pecunia, ... potentia, cetera quae simili esse in genere intellegentur' (with the inevitable variants). [B.sub.A][a[Gamma]] F also give possint, a tolerable (generic) subjunctive. 54 cum autem aliqua coniuncta negaris, <aliam negationem rursus adiunxeris> et ex iis primum sumpseris ut quod relinquitur tollendum sit, is tertius appellatur conclusionis modus. primum FO: unum(21) aut plura [B.sub.A][ae[Gamma]] C unum aut plura is transmitted, and should prevail; it (inoffensively) leaves open the possibility of a multipartite choice (contra Di Maria, 94). The referee comments: `primum is presumably imported from above.' 55 non quod omnis sententia proprio nomine [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] non dicatur, sed ut ... quod omnis eFO: qui nominis [B.sub.A.sup.ac.a]: quia non omnis [B.sub.A.sup.pc.[Gamma]] C non eFO: om. [B.sub.A][a[Gamma]] C non quod... non no doubt strays in from Boethius 364, 24-5. non quia non omnis is preferable (as bringing non next to omnis) and legitimate (cf. e.g. Tusc. 1.1). But the old reading non quin omnis (cf. at least Att. 7.26.2) would be nearer still to what was transmitted. 58 harum (sc. causarum) exempla ... paulo ante posui equidem ex iure civili; sed haec patent latius. causarum igitur genera duo sunt; unum ... alterum ... igitur FO: enim [B.sub.A][ae[Gamma]] C Di Maria defends igitur (pp. 95-6), but it is a mere conjecture, with no palaeographical probability. Both particles have been deleted in their time. But we should perhaps read autem, comparing 26 `definitio est ... definitionum autem duo genera prima: unum ... alterum ... (also 80-1). For the confusion of autem and enim, caused by similar compendia, see P. Lehmann, Philologus 27 (1914-16), 543-8. 62 habitu, ut qui facile et cito irascitur irascitur eCO: irascatur [B.sub.A][a[GAmma]] F Boethius 370, 39 also has the subjunctive, but he has changed the construction so that irascatur is parallel to his substitutes for Cicero's timeat above. Unless we are to emend to ut si quis or to ut quis, making irascatur parallel to timeat above or crescat below, we are left with the explanation of a potential subjunctive in a defining relative clause. Despite Friedrich, ibid. 292, irascitur is not ensured by legis above, where the construction is different. 69 specie autem comparantur ut anteponantur quae propter se expetenda sunt iis quae propter aliud et ut innata atque insita adsumptis atque adventiciis ... The second (inelegant) atque is given only by FO; et, the reading of [B.sub.A] [ae[Gamma]] C, is confirmed by Boethius 380, 36. 70 quae se ipsis contenta sunt meliora quam quae egent aliis ipsis eCFO: ipsa [B.sub.A][a[Gamma]] Di Maria (p. 103) concedes that ipsa is possible. Indeed it is choicer and should be accepted, especially as ipsis could come from Boethius 382, 1. Cf. Phil. 5.35 `qua etiam si careat (sc. virtus), tamen sit se ipsa contenta', where the rhythm shows that ipsa is nominative. See generally Kuhner-Stegmann, i.632. 71 si consilio iuvare cives et auxilio aequa in laude ponendum est, pari gloria debent esse ei qui consulunt et ei qui defendunt. consulunt [e[Gamma]] ECFO: consuluntur [B.sub.A] a (and probably [B.sub.1a][B.sub.1b] before correction) Boethius (383, 7-8) seems correct to take the two alternatives as the help given by iurisperiti and orators respectively (for consilio iuvare of lawyers see off. 2.65, where the words gloss (del. Muther) in iure eavere, and perhaps Plin. ep. 1.22.6). For the passive of lawyers e.g. Quinct. 53. Conversely, consulo does not mean `advise'. The active is doubtless taken over from Boethius 383, 9. 71 Cicero goes on, according to Di Maria: `at quod primum, est; quod sequitur igitur.' This is the (shorthand) text implied by Boethius (383, 10-11), but it is at least possible that we should follow [B.sub.A][aB.sub.1a] in reading `et ita fit quod primum est par ei (id [aB.sub.1a] C) quod sequitur', igitur then being taken with the following sentence. 72 ita a principio (8) divisimus ut alios locos diceremus in eo ipso de quo ambigitur haerere,... alios adsumi extrinsecus. [B.sub.A] a give ambigetur, and we should perhaps be encouraged by this to follow [V.sub.2] C in reading ambigeretur rather than the ambigitur of the other manuscripts. Compare ageretur at Boethius 385, 41. 76 excellit] excellet [[Beta]a.sup.ac.[Gamma]](?); this may be right (see TLL s.v. excello 1212, 65 seq.), despite excellunt transmitted at 73. It is true that Friedrich regards excellet as assimilated to valet above (ibid., 293).
(1) See L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission (Oxford, 1983), 125.
(2) Ibid., p. 130 n. 31.
(3) Marci Tulli Ciceronis Topica edidit, commentario critico instruxit Georgius Di Maria (Palermo, 1994). I use his manuscript sigla (not that they are very convenient), and cite the Topica by section and Di Maria's line, adding in parentheses a line-reference to A. S. Wilkins's shoddy but more easily accessible Oxford Classical Text (1903).
(4) I cite the commentary from M. Tullii Ciceronis Scholiastae, ediderunt Io. Casp. Orellius et Io. Georgius Baiterus (Zurich, 1833) (= Orelli-Baiter V.i), 270-388, citing by page and line. The commentary as we have it extends only to Top. 76.
(5) The supplementing folios [B.sub.A] cannot, if only on grounds of date, have been copied from a, though they could have been copied from a's exemplar. a is not a copy of B as completed by [B.sub.A] (see Di Maria's list of errors unique to AB on p. xvii).
(5) A parallel list of errors common to [B.sub.A] (in the absence of [Beta]) and the other integri would not be instructive, because such errors might go back to the archetype that lies behind a and [Beta]
(6) They do not seem to come from Top. 26, Di Maria's alternative explanation.
(7) [B.sup.s1] is said to have elia, but this will not have been in the exemplar. That e has aelia sancia before rather than after lex could be a sign of the contamination. [a.sub.mg]'S giving the Boethian reading is not untypical of the behaviour of a's corrector; a's original text is, as I shall show, consistently sincere.
(8) The reading is perfectly sensible after ab effectis rebus at the start of the section and similar phrases earlier (it could even be right); and this, like some of the other readings given, could be a correction made independently of Boethius.
(9) And F has fortuitarum (rather than the neuter), without rerum. O's phrase may be right: cf. rerum fortuitarum at 73 (the right order, as in Boethius?).
(10) Perhaps a coincidence.
(11) But the constructions differ.
(13) e[Gamma]CFO 38, 25-1(9) coniugatione (coniunctione [B.sub.A][aB.sub.1b.sup.ac]), cf. 337, 26-8 (and Top. 12 above); 44, 15(19) venisset (venissent [B.sub.A][a.sup.ac]), cf. 341, 19 (as well as the context); 54, 5(7) igitur (autem [B.sub.A]a), cf. 361, 12; 54, 12(14) ut (aut [B.sub.A.sup.ac] [?]a), cf. 364, 18; 64, 26(13) magis quam (magisque [B.sub.A][a.sup.ac] and perhaps C) = 375, 4; 66, 17 (30) quid (before socium) (quis [B.sub.A] [a.sup.ac] [?]), cf. 378, 43. eFO 43, 9(13) [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]: the corrector saw that this comes from 44 below, a good perception eased by the Boethian discussion at 341, 1 seq. C 43, 9(12) adigere (adicere [B.sub.A]ae[Gamma]F, addicere O) = 341, 10. CO 23, 24(22) huius (eius [Beta]ae[Gamma]F), cf. 307, 37 `hoc modo'; 39, 10(18) propiore (propriore [B.sub.A][aV.sub.2][B.sub.1b.sup.ac] F: e has a further error), cf. 338, 42 `genus proximum'. At 75, 4(26) for Staieno [Beta] has statiaeno. Only eC have the right reading, but a has staleno, and this (or staieno) will probably have been the reading of a. But the correction could have been made from 388, 7.
(14) It is a striking testimony to the sincerity of [B.sub.A] that before correction it had the accusative.
(15) That is, passages where Boethius does not hand a corrector the reading on a plate, or where he does not help at all: I mention some where he might have helped somewhat. I naturally exclude passages like 86, 8(27) propositi, where the correction was only made in modem times.
(16) As will be seen, the correction is often made in only one or two (often later) manuscripts; this perhaps makes the likelihood of conjecture (rather than contamination from some unknown source) stronger.
(17) Boethius 287, 31-2 tunc ... quando rests on a misunderstanding of Cicero, for whom tum definitio correlates with tum partium enumeratio in 10.
(18) The converse of my hypothesis that coincidence with Boethius weakens the authority of readings of [e[Gamma]] CFO against [Beta]([B.sub.A])a is that when [Beta]([B.sub.A])a and Boethius agree against the others they should be giving us the truth.
(19) But Professor J. N. Adams, whose monograph Wackernagel's law and the placement of the copula esse in classical Latin (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. Vol. 18, 1994) inspired this remark, points out to me that his examples 153-9 (pp. 30-31) support the order putat esse. He also remarks on the likeness of 53, 19-20(28-9) `reperiendi argumenti locus est simplex, tractandi triplex' to his example 320 (p. 62, from Cic. de orat. 3.67). That order (printed by Di Maria) is found only in C and one of the [Gamma] manuscripts. simplex seems to have been omitted in the transmission (om. [B.sub.A][a.sup.ac]), but to have been added in different places in the MSS by conjecture or from Boethius 360, 21-2.
(20) Boethius in fact gives quod, apparently with the meaning `because'.
(21) It is interesting that Boethius 364, 17 confirms unum, without adding
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Classical Quarterly|
|Date:||Jul 1, 1996|
|Previous Article:||The fragments of Furius Antias.|
|Next Article:||Hirtius and the 'Bellum Alexandrinum.'|