The text of Cic. ac. 1.33, corrupted in the manuscripts, is today unanimously published in the version Haec forma erat illis prima, that dates back to O. Plasberg (1908). After an analysis of the manuscript transmission and the conjectures proposed so far since the 18th century, this article argues that Plasberg’s amendment should be rejected because it does not correspond to Cicero’s semantic usus. Although placed in a context that is not particularly clear (perhaps showing the effects of the hasty composition of the second version?), the passage is best remedied by shifting and expanding the integration with Haec erat illis pri ma.
La prima forma della philosophia secondo Varrone (una congettura a Cic. ac. 1.33)
Ermanno Malaspina
2023-01-01
Abstract
The text of Cic. ac. 1.33, corrupted in the manuscripts, is today unanimously published in the version Haec forma erat illis prima, that dates back to O. Plasberg (1908). After an analysis of the manuscript transmission and the conjectures proposed so far since the 18th century, this article argues that Plasberg’s amendment should be rejected because it does not correspond to Cicero’s semantic usus. Although placed in a context that is not particularly clear (perhaps showing the effects of the hasty composition of the second version?), the passage is best remedied by shifting and expanding the integration with Haec erat illis pri ma.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Malaspina_147_Athenaeum_2023.pdf
Accesso aperto
Descrizione: prima forma
Tipo di file:
PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione
123.13 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
123.13 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.