skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

Amm. 20.8.3–4, Quid Claudius Iulianus, a militibus Augustus appellatus, Constantio II binis litteris ad posteritatem adtentior scripserit

Journal of Latin linguistics, 2022-10, Vol.21 (2), p.187-198 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. ;ISSN: 2194-8739 ;EISSN: 2194-8747 ;DOI: 10.1515/joll-2022-2014

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    Amm. 20.8.3–4, Quid Claudius Iulianus, a militibus Augustus appellatus, Constantio II binis litteris ad posteritatem adtentior scripserit
  • Author: Calboli, Gualtherius
  • Subjects: Abbreviations ; Ammianus ; Constantius II imp ; Iulianus Imp ; Latin language ; Latin literature ; Reading ; Roman civilization ; Roman history
  • Is Part Of: Journal of Latin linguistics, 2022-10, Vol.21 (2), p.187-198
  • Description: I took into account an Ammianus passage, namely 20,8,3–4, where the text edited by all modern scholars has been marked with two crosses to show that the text is not sure. As a matter of fact in every modern edition we read: [ ] † † . Here the adverb causes problems, because the reader expects to find without . A solution is to place after as Pighi and Seyfarth did to substitute with . But such a solution is too arbitrary. Another solution was proposed by Petschening, i.e. to replace with . But the difference between and was too reduced and a similar difficulty occurred also with . However, I considered more attentive the reading of the manuscript Fuldensis, the father of all manuscripts which transmitted Ammianus’ text, and found that the word , which caused the problem, did not exist and was produced by modern editors from the following reading: m1 m2 ( = Fuldensis). Here seems to have been introduced in order to explain the infrequent word : of the first hand of . The word was a gloss, and the reading of the second hand of was produced by dividing and eliminating , the gloss, in this way: , where ( ) was read , considering the great similarity of and in Carolingian script, and added to /. This produced and what remained of ( ) was read which for its part was considered an abbreviation of . On the other hand, I found in Ammianus some other examples of this behaviour employed by the librari, e.g. 22,8,29 // Clark Rolfe Selem Seyfarth Fontaine Viansino m1 m3. In this case and the letter added over and from has produced , with the letter deleted and another placed over, thus arriving finally at the expression: (i.e. ) m3. A clear example how the of worked.
  • Publisher: Berlin: De Gruyter
  • Language: Catalan;English;Latin
  • Identifier: ISSN: 2194-8739
    EISSN: 2194-8747
    DOI: 10.1515/joll-2022-2014
  • Source: AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait