No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
Ellis, in his Prolegomena to Catullus (pp. iv sqq., 1867), is at some pains to refute the opinion of J. J. Scaliger that the Archetype of our MSS. of Catullus was written in ‘Lombardic’ characters, and gives reasons—some of which require qualification—for presuming a ‘Merovingian’ original. He would have saved himself a good deal of trouble if he had stopped to ask what Scaliger meant by ‘Lombardic.’
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1919
References
page 51 note 1 The Egyptian ⋯πογραΦ⋯ took place once in fourteen years. Professor Elmore does not say that this was the interval at Rome, but his treatment of the non recensi implies that the recensus recurred at infrequent intervals.
page 52 note 1 Verona Illustrata, I. ii., ch. XI., p. 549, Milan, , 1825Google Scholar.
page 52 note 2 My references are throughout to the pages of Scaliger's first edition (Paris, 1577).
page 52 notes 3 In this connection Scaliger calls attention to the fact that the Catullian Archetype confused the letters C and G (p. 86), E and I (pp. 67, 81, al.), u and b (p. 59), X and C (p. 105). All these confusions he regards as evidences antiquity. So too such spellings as loedere (p. 15), lucei (p. 43), rusum (p. 58).
Comparing what is quoted above from Scioppius and Salmasius, it is obvious that the antiquity of the Lombardic script was a dogma of the time. The typical Beneventan hand is, in fact, not older than the typical Caroline hand.