{"title":"埃涅阿斯纪,4.436 & 12.423的推测性修正","authors":"E. Kraggerud","doi":"10.33063/er.v113i.211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":" \nI: A. 4.436 has caused commentators and interpreters serious worries and have done so for two millennia: (1) Which reading is correct, dederit or dederis? (2) Which varia lectio is preferable, cumulatam or cumulatā? (3) What does morte refer to? (4) What is meant by (veniam) remittere? These issues are constantly seeking some form of unified solution. The 19th century made several attempts at conjectures none of which gained ground. After discussing the best among these at length (Philip Wagner’s 1832 proposal) the time has come to move outside the well-trodden paths and make a new try at a solution. II: Taking his point of departure from an error in Hirtzel’s Vergil edition (OCT 1900) the author advocates a new text at A. 12.423, nullā for nullo, finding the resulting ","PeriodicalId":160536,"journal":{"name":"Eranos - Acta philologica Suecana","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conjectural Emendations in the Aeneid, 4.436 & 12.423\",\"authors\":\"E. Kraggerud\",\"doi\":\"10.33063/er.v113i.211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\" \\nI: A. 4.436 has caused commentators and interpreters serious worries and have done so for two millennia: (1) Which reading is correct, dederit or dederis? (2) Which varia lectio is preferable, cumulatam or cumulatā? (3) What does morte refer to? (4) What is meant by (veniam) remittere? These issues are constantly seeking some form of unified solution. The 19th century made several attempts at conjectures none of which gained ground. After discussing the best among these at length (Philip Wagner’s 1832 proposal) the time has come to move outside the well-trodden paths and make a new try at a solution. II: Taking his point of departure from an error in Hirtzel’s Vergil edition (OCT 1900) the author advocates a new text at A. 12.423, nullā for nullo, finding the resulting \",\"PeriodicalId\":160536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eranos - Acta philologica Suecana\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eranos - Acta philologica Suecana\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33063/er.v113i.211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eranos - Acta philologica Suecana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33063/er.v113i.211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
A. 4.436引起了评论员和口译员的严重担忧,这种担忧已经持续了两千年:(1)哪一种解读是正确的,dederit还是dederis?(2)累积式和累积式哪一种选择比较好?morte指的是什么?(4)什么是(威尼斯)汇款?这些问题一直在寻求某种形式的统一解决方案。19世纪曾有过几次猜测的尝试,但都没有取得成功。在详细讨论了其中最好的(菲利普·瓦格纳1832年的提议)之后,现在是时候走出老路,对解决方案进行新的尝试了。II:从Hirtzel的Vergil版本(OCT 1900)中的一个错误出发,作者主张在a . 12.423, nullna为nullo,找到了结果
Conjectural Emendations in the Aeneid, 4.436 & 12.423
I: A. 4.436 has caused commentators and interpreters serious worries and have done so for two millennia: (1) Which reading is correct, dederit or dederis? (2) Which varia lectio is preferable, cumulatam or cumulatā? (3) What does morte refer to? (4) What is meant by (veniam) remittere? These issues are constantly seeking some form of unified solution. The 19th century made several attempts at conjectures none of which gained ground. After discussing the best among these at length (Philip Wagner’s 1832 proposal) the time has come to move outside the well-trodden paths and make a new try at a solution. II: Taking his point of departure from an error in Hirtzel’s Vergil edition (OCT 1900) the author advocates a new text at A. 12.423, nullā for nullo, finding the resulting