12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In my previous article I argued that certain of the later MSS. of the Metamorphoses of Apuleius, and especially those which I call Class I., are to a large extent descended from a lost copy of F, made before the rent was torn in Book VIII., and therefore before the writing of ϕ; and I inferred that it was likely that the evidence of these MSS. would prove a valuable addition to that of ϕ in places where F is now illegible. In the following pages I shall prove that this hope has been fulfilled.
page 85 note 1 Class. Quart. XVIII. 27–42.
page 85 note 2 Butler (Apologia 1914) noted the close connexion in Apol. and Flor. between AI, BI, LI, and V2, and stated that these four, and also E. were not much indebted to ϕ.
page 86 note 1 The Beneventan Script, p. 286.
page 86 note 2 Throughout this article the ascription of a reading to AI implies its presence in BI also, unless the contrary is stated.
page 88 note 1 For the sake of clearness, I have slightly modified the punctuation of some of these notes.
page 91 note 1 , ApuleiPsyche et Cupido rec. Jahn5 cur. Ad. Michaelis Lips. 1905Google Scholar.
page 91 note 2 Perhaps F had dicareque.
page 91 note 3 After coming to this conclusion, I found that Michaelis, (op. cit.) also reads praeminantes, with nolentes .
page 94 note 1 Except that in his 1913 edition Helm changes ‘Sauppe’ to ‘Seyffert’, rightly up to a point: the article to which Vliet referred (a review of Eyss. in Phil. Anzeigir, 1871) was in fact by Seyffert.
page 94 note 2 I am glad here to have Lowe's support in agreeing with Vliet against Helm in the matter of ϕ's supplemented lacunae.
page 95 note 1 In B3 the abbreviation for ser is remade in erasure, but it seems at first to have had miser in full.
