The sixth and longest (so far) of my Martial papers for August 2017, titled as above, is here in PDF form.
-
. The POTIS Project
I. Curculio: An Online Journal
II. My Other Sites and Pages
III. My Old Texts
IV. Favorite Sites
V. Blogroll
VI. Other Links
Recent Comments
- Leonardo de Arrizabalaga y Prado on “Government by Clowns”?
- Philological Crocodile on Should an OCT Have a Table of Contents?
- Jeremias Grau on Two More Seneca Commentaries
- aDavid Saunders on Callimachus on Heraclitus
- Alfred M. Kriman on Artemis a Model for Widows?
Thanks. That’s not a proof, just a point in favor of 1-2 being ‘outside the book’. I think the strongest argument, which I believe is a new one, is that the most plausible reason for the impossible order of the manuscripts, with 1-2 between the prose and verse of the Epistle, is that a scribe found them before the prose, thought the prose should come first, and moved them the minimum distance to put them after it. In other words, the second paragraph on the second page is the most important part of the paper.
Interesting. Does the argument in fn1 work against the comment about 1.1, though? toto notus in orbe might be an exaggeration, but it’s a reasonable claim for an author’s fourth book (Spect, XIII, XIV, I), no?.