Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:08:53.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restorations in Livy 9.40: A Reassessment*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

S. J. Northwood
S. J. Northwood
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1918 Conway and Walters published a restoration of Livy 9.40.3. The passage in question describes how the Samnite army of 310 was composed of two differently equipped corps.

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , May 1996, pp. 309 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 ‘Restorations and Emendations in Livy VI-X’, CQ 12 (1918), 98–105; for Livy 9.40 see 103–4.Google Scholar

2 Conway and Walters were not the first to consider restoring this fragment to Livy 9.40. M. Hertz (1862) suggested adding a supplement after the fragment and placing the whole after ‘adderent’: ‘galeae cristatae, quae speciem magnitudini corporum adderent. {auratae vaginae, 〈aurata baltea illis erant〉 〈 〈argentatae vaginae, argentata baltea his,〉 〉 tunicae auratis militibus versicolores, argentatis linteae candidae’. The lack of clear antecedents for ‘his’ and ‘illis’ (and perhaps also the position of ‘his’) render this unsatisfactory. Georges, K. E. (1884) placed the fragment after ‘duo exercitus erant’: ‘duo exercitus erant: 〈auratae vaginae, aurata baltea illis erant〉 scuta alterius auro, alterius argento caelaverunf’. Here we should expect ‘iis’ for ‘illis’, and the prominence given to baldrics and scabbards is unlikely. L., Miiller (1885) joined the fragment quoted in Nonius with ‘erant et equorum inaurata tapeta’ and prefacing this with a conjectural supplement placed the whole after ‘adderent’: ‘galeae cristatae, quae speciem magnitudini corporum adderent. 〈 〈sed maxime equitum facies oculos in se convertit:〉 〉 〈auratae vaginae, aurata baltea illis erant et equorum [in]aurata tapeta〉 tunicae auratis militibus versicolores, argentatis linteae candidae’. However, the free composition is highly conjectural, and again we find ‘illis’ when we should expect ‘iis’. Objections to the addition of ‘erant et equorum inaurata tapeta’ are presented below. For discussion and references seeGoogle ScholarMuller, H. J., ‘Zu den Fragmenten des Livius’, NJPhP 34 (1888), 485–8.Google Scholar

3 TLL 6.3.2715.40ff.; Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A., Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (Munich, 1965), 182.1 owe these references to Dr J. Briscoe: see his note on Livy 37.51.2–3.Google Scholar

4 ‘ablatiuo…codex Lavantinus’ (i.e. St Paul in Carinthia Stiftsbibliothek 2.1) in Keil's apparatus is, of course, merely a reference to the commentator on Donatus.