AL 916.8-9

[falmouth]

E Beronicaeo detonsum vertice crinem
Retulit esuriens Graecus in astra Conon:

Here, I think there is a textual question of some significance.
Whether [Gallus] is a forger or genuine, these lines would have been
influenced by Cat. 66, lines 7-8 in particular.

idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
e Beroniceo uertice caesariem
(Cat. 66.7-8)

It is my understanding that all manuscripts available before the first
printed editions of Catullus were corrupt here, reading

idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
ebore niceo uertice caesariem
(Cat. 66.7-8)

"ebore niceo" was first deciphered as "e beroniceo", I understand, in
the 1480s or thereabouts. But the exact spelling was and, I think
remains, a matter of conjecture. The only further enlightenment that
we have is the discovery of Fr. 110 of Callimachus' Aetia where at
lines 61-2 the epithet Βερενικειος appears.

φαεσιν εν πολεεσσιν αριθμιος αλλ[α
και Βερενικειος καλος εγω πλοκαμος

There are, it seems to me, three points re "Beronicaeo" at AL 916.7
(this being the original reading so far as I can discern)
(i) whoever the poet/forger, he is not working from a corrupt text of
Catullus containing "ebore niceo" - he's either working from the
emended version (if a late forger) or from an early uncorrupted text
(if Gallus or an early forger). This is some progress but hardly a
massive revelation.
(ii) [Gallus] has "beron..." rather than "beren...". The significance
of this is that if Catullus truly wrote "bereniceo", we would suspect
that [Gallus] was working from a renaissance text of Catullus, reading
"beron...", with the rider that the renaissance editor(s) of [Gallus]
might have themselves been responsible for "beron" as it appears. Did
Catullus write "beren..." or "beron...": obviously, Callimachus, it
seems, had an epsilon not an omicron, but (i) the corrupt "ebore
niceo" might suggest that Catullus did write "beron..." - if there had
been no 'o' would the text ever have got corrupted in this way?; and
(ii) maybe Catullus' reason was to make a connection between Berenice
and his Verona (Skinner, for example, calls poems 65-68b, Catullus'
'Veronese Suite' without making this particular connection)?
(iii) Finally, and perhaps most interesting for me is [Gallus]'
"Berenic*ae*o" rather than e.g. "Beroniceo". So far as I have been
able to discern, no early editor ever suggested deciphering "Ebore
niceo" as "Beronicaeo" - why would they? But why should a renaissance
forger chose this form, believing that Catullus wrote "Beroniceo"? If
"Beronic*ae*o" might be thought to be an acceptable classical Latin
rendering of 'Βερενικειος', this would point towards [Gallus] being
genuine or at least early. Is it acceptable/plausible?

While on these lines:
(i) While I do not find anything which in any way unequivocally
suggests that [Gallus] went to Callimachus, two points may be worth
floating - (a) "detonsum" might be thought to be a decent rendering of
Callimachus' "neotmhton" (110.51); and it is interesting that [Gallus]
uses "astrum", Callimachus uses 'astron' but 'astrum' is a word which
Catullus eschews.
(ii) Since earlier discussing "esuriens Graecus" - when Leofranc
highlighted that this appeared to be borrowed from Juvenal and I
suggested that Hyginus suggests that there may have been a polemical
response to the convenience of Conon's 'finding' Berenice's lock, I
also came accross Ov. Fast. 3.303-4 "nec levis ambitio perfusaque
gloria fuco / magnarumque *fames* sollicitavit opum." - he's talking
about astronomers.

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

Catullus will have written Bereniceo. He could not possibly have brought Verona, with initial w and long e and o, into the matter; but the o, as in Ptolom(a)eus, because standard in later Latin (so that once both Greek B and Latin V consonant had the same sound the Western church could invent St Veronica). As to eus and aeus, few scholars before Housman know, and none stated, which should be used where. However, since neother scholars nor printers in the sixteenth century gelt obliged to respect the orthography of their source, I don't care to rest any argument for authorship upon the errors.

But why worry about Catullus when the esuriens Graecus so obviously comes rom Juvenal?

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
> E Beronicaeo detonsum vertice crinem
> Retulit esuriens Graecus in astra Conon:
>
> Here, I think there is a textual question of some significance.
> Whether [Gallus] is a forger or genuine, these lines would have been
> influenced by Cat. 66, lines 7-8 in particular.
>
> idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
> e Beroniceo uertice caesariem
> (Cat. 66.7-8)
>
> It is my understanding that all manuscripts available before the first
> printed editions of Catullus were corrupt here, reading
>
> idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
> ebore niceo uertice caesariem
> (Cat. 66.7-8)
>
> "ebore niceo" was first deciphered as "e beroniceo", I understand, in
> the 1480s or thereabouts. But the exact spelling was and, I think
> remains, a matter of conjecture. The only further enlightenment that
> we have is the discovery of Fr. 110 of Callimachus' Aetia where at

> lines 61-2 the epithet Âåñåíéêåéïò appears.
>
> öáåóéí åí ðïëååóóéí áñéèìéï=
> ò áëë[á
> êáé Âåñåíéêåéïò êáëïò åãù ð=
> ëïêáìïò

> rendering of 'Âåñåíéêåéïò', this would point towards =

[falmouth]

Thanks, Leofranc. Without detracting from the caveat re the
transmission of orthography, coming at it cold, as it were, would one
expect a 1st-cent BC poet to have rendered Βερενικειος as 'Bereniceus'
or 'Berenicaeus' - or are either possibilities and, if so, is there
any difference in the likelihoods (or the underlying principle). What
would Housman say?

> > about astronomers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

Housman's rule is that all second- and third-declension nouns make -eus, as do first-declension masculines, which have -eios in Greek except in Aeolic; first-declension feminines make -aeus. However, as he admits some -eios spellings exist, and Berenikeios is one of them; Callimachus wrote kai Berenikeios kalos egw plokamos. But Renaissance editors are all over the place, and their successors often blindly follow them; Phrixeus, the adjective derived from Phrixus, often appears as Phryxaeus, with hyper-correct (i.e. would-be correct but wrong) y as well as ae.

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> Thanks, Leofranc. Without detracting from the caveat re the
> transmission of orthography, coming at it cold, as it were, would one

> expect a 1st-cent BC poet to have rendered Î’ÎµÏ ÎµÎ½=
> ικειος as 'Bereniceus'

> or 'Berenicaeus' - or are either possibilities and, if so, is there
> any difference in the likelihoods (or the underlying principle). What
> would Housman say?
>

> On Oct 21, 12:21Â pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Catullus will have written Bereniceo. He could not possibly have brought =
> Verona, with initial w and long e and o, into the matter; but the o, as in =
> Ptolom(a)eus, because standard in later Latin (so that once both Greek B an=
> d Latin V consonant had the same sound the Western church could invent St V=
> eronica). As to eus and aeus, few scholars before Housman know, and none st=
> ated, which should be used where. However, since neother scholars nor print=
> ers in the sixteenth century gelt obliged to respect the orthography of the=
> ir source, I don't care to rest any argument for authorship upon the errors=
> ..
> >
> > But why worry about Catullus when the esuriens Graecus so obviously comes=

> rom Juvenal?
> >
> >
> >
> > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > E Beronicaeo detonsum vertice crinem

> > > Â Retulit esuriens Graecus in astra Conon:

> >
> > > Here, I think there is a textual question of some significance.
> > > Whether [Gallus] is a forger or genuine, these lines would have been
> > > influenced by Cat. 66, lines 7-8 in particular.
> >
> > > idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
> > > e Beroniceo uertice caesariem
> > > (Cat. 66.7-8)
> >
> > > It is my understanding that all manuscripts available before the first
> > > printed editions of Catullus were corrupt here, reading
> >
> > > idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
> > > ebore niceo uertice caesariem
> > > (Cat. 66.7-8)
> >
> > > "ebore niceo" was first deciphered as "e beroniceo", I understand, in
> > > the 1480s or thereabouts. But the exact spelling was and, I think
> > > remains, a matter of conjecture. The only further enlightenment that
> > > we have is the discovery of Fr. 110 of Callimachus' Aetia where at

> > > lines 61-2 the epithet Âåñåíéêå=
> éïò appears.
> >
> > > öáåóéí åí ðïëÃ=
> ¥Ã¥Ã³Ã³Ã©Ã­ áñéèìéÃ=
> ¯=
> > > ò áëë[á
> > >  êáé ÂåñåíéêÃ=
> ¥Ã©Ã¯Ã² êáëïò åãù Ã=
> °=
> > > ëïêáìïò

> >
> > > There are, it seems to me, three points re "Beronicaeo" at AL 916.7
> > > (this being the original reading so far as I can discern)

> > > (i) Â whoever the poet/forger, he is not working from a corrupt tex=

> t of
> > > Catullus containing "ebore niceo" - he's either working from the
> > > emended version (if a late forger) or from an early uncorrupted text
> > > (if Gallus or an early forger). This is some progress but hardly a
> > > massive revelation.
> > > (ii) [Gallus] has "beron..." rather than "beren...". The significance
> > > of this is that if Catullus truly wrote "bereniceo", we would suspect
> > > that [Gallus] was working from a renaissance text of Catullus, reading
> > > "beron...", with the rider that the renaissance editor(s) of [Gallus]
> > > might have themselves been responsible for "beron" as it appears. Did
> > > Catullus write "beren..." or "beron...": obviously, Callimachus, it
> > > seems, had an epsilon not an omicron, but (i) the corrupt "ebore
> > > niceo" might suggest that Catullus did write "beron..." - if there had
> > > been no 'o' would the text ever have got corrupted in this way?; and
> > > (ii) maybe Catullus' reason was to make a connection between Berenice
> > > and his Verona (Skinner, for example, calls poems 65-68b, Catullus'
> > > 'Veronese Suite' without making this particular connection)?
> > > (iii) Finally, and perhaps most interesting for me is [Gallus]'
> > > "Berenic*ae*o" rather than e.g. "Beroniceo". So far as I have been
> > > able to discern, no early editor ever suggested deciphering "Ebore
> > > niceo" as "Beronicaeo" - why would they? But why should a renaissance
> > > forger chose this form, believing that Catullus wrote "Beroniceo"? If
> > > "Beronic*ae*o" might be thought to be an acceptable classical Latin

> > > rendering of 'ÂåñåíéêåéÃ=
> ¯Ã²', this would point towards =

[falmouth]

I see (... I think...)

So according to Housman's rule - although not formulated as an exact
one - one would *expect* in Callimachus (or another Greek poet)

Βερενικαιος which would be most readily rendered in classical Latin
Berenicaeus

But what one *has* in Callimachus is

Βερενικειος, which would be most readily rendered in classical Latin
Bereniceus?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

The rule prescribes Berenicaeus, but since Berenikaios is not found in Greek and Berenikeios is, even in the very poem that Catullus was translating, and since ai and ei are musch less likely to be correupted into each other at any stage of the Greek language than -aeus and -eus after the classical period, we may be confident that he wrote Bereniceo. And so would Gallus; but even if he were the author of this piece, that would not stop its being corrupted to Beronicaeus; the o indicates ignorance on the part of the transmitter, forger or no.

adria...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> I see (... I think...)
>
> So according to Housman's rule - although not formulated as an exact
> one - one would *expect* in Callimachus (or another Greek poet)
>

> Î’ÎµÏ ÎµÎ½Î¹ÎºÎ±Î¹Î¿Ï‚ which wo=

> uld be most readily rendered in classical Latin
> Berenicaeus
>
> But what one *has* in Callimachus is
>

> Î’ÎµÏ ÎµÎ½Î¹ÎºÎµÎ¹Î¿Ï‚, which w=

> ould be most readily rendered in classical Latin
> Bereniceus?
>

> On Oct 21, 2:25Â pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Housman's rule is that all second- and third-declension nouns make -eus, =
> as do first-declension masculines, which have -eios in Greek except in Aeol=
> ic; first-declension feminines make -aeus. However, as he admits some -eios=
> spellings exist, and Berenikeios is one of them; Callimachus wrote kai Ber=
> enikeios kalos egw plokamos. But Renaissance editors are all over the place=
> , and their successors often blindly follow them; Phrixeus, the adjective d=
> erived from Phrixus, often appears as Phryxaeus, with hyper-correct (i.e. w=

> ould-be correct but wrong) y as well as ae.
> >
> >
> >
> > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Leofranc. Without detracting from the caveat re the
> > > transmission of orthography, coming at it cold, as it were, would one

> > > expect a 1st-cent BC poet to have rendered Βε=
> à εν=
> > > ικειοà â=
> €š as 'Bereniceus'

> > > or 'Berenicaeus' - or are either possibilities and, if so, is there
> > > any difference in the likelihoods (or the underlying principle). What
> > > would Housman say?
> >

> > > On Oct 21, 12:21Â pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > Catullus will have written Bereniceo. He could not possibly have brou=
> ght =
> > > Verona, with initial w and long e and o, into the matter; but the o, as=
> in =
> > > Ptolom(a)eus, because standard in later Latin (so that once both Greek =
> B an=
> > > d Latin V consonant had the same sound the Western church could invent =
> St V=
> > > eronica). As to eus and aeus, few scholars before Housman know, and non=
> e st=
> > > ated, which should be used where. However, since neother scholars nor p=
> rint=
> > > ers in the sixteenth century gelt obliged to respect the orthography of=
> the=
> > > ir source, I don't care to rest any argument for authorship upon the er=
> rors=
> > > ..
> >
> > > > But why worry about Catullus when the esuriens Graecus so obviously c=
> omes=
> > > Â rom Juvenal?

> >
> > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > E Beronicaeo detonsum vertice crinem

> > > > > Â  Retulit esuriens Graecus in astra Conon:

> >
> > > > > Here, I think there is a textual question of some significance.

> > > > > Whether [Gallus] is a forger or genuine, these lines would have bee=

> n
> > > > > influenced by Cat. 66, lines 7-8 in particular.
> >
> > > > > idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
> > > > > e Beroniceo uertice caesariem
> > > > > (Cat. 66.7-8)
> >

> > > > > It is my understanding that all manuscripts available before the fi=

> rst
> > > > > printed editions of Catullus were corrupt here, reading
> >
> > > > > idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
> > > > > ebore niceo uertice caesariem
> > > > > (Cat. 66.7-8)
> >

> > > > > "ebore niceo" was first deciphered as "e beroniceo", I understand, =

> in
> > > > > the 1480s or thereabouts. But the exact spelling was and, I think

> > > > > remains, a matter of conjecture. The only further enlightenment tha=

> t
> > > > > we have is the discovery of Fr. 110 of Callimachus' Aetia where at

> > > > > lines 61-2 the epithet ÂåñÃ=
> ƒÂ¥ÃƒÂ­ÃƒÂ©ÃƒÂªÃƒÂ¥=
> > > éïò appears.
> >
> > > > > öáåóéÃ=
> ­ åí ðïëÃ=
> =
> > > ¥Ã¥Ã³Ã³Ã©Ã­ Ã=
> ƒÂ¡ÃƒÂ±ÃƒÂ©ÃƒÂ¨ÃƒÂ¬ÃƒÂ©Ãƒ=
> =
> > > ¯=
> > > > > ò áëë[á
> > > > >   ÃªÃ¡Ã© Â=
> åñåíéêÃ=
> ƒ=
> > > ¥Ã©Ã¯Ã² êáÃ=
> ƒÂ«ÃƒÂ¯ÃƒÂ² åãù Ã=
> ƒ=
> > > °=
> > > > > ëïêáìÃ=
> ¯Ã²

> >
> > > > > There are, it seems to me, three points re "Beronicaeo" at AL 916.7
> > > > > (this being the original reading so far as I can discern)

> > > > > (i) Â whoever the poet/forger, he is not working from a corrup=

> t tex=
> > > t of
> > > > > Catullus containing "ebore niceo" - he's either working from the

> > > > > emended version (if a late forger) or from an early uncorrupted tex=

> t
> > > > > (if Gallus or an early forger). This is some progress but hardly a
> > > > > massive revelation.

> > > > > (ii) [Gallus] has "beron..." rather than "beren...". The significan=
> ce
> > > > > of this is that if Catullus truly wrote "bereniceo", we would suspe=
> ct
> > > > > that [Gallus] was working from a renaissance text of Catullus, read=
> ing
> > > > > "beron...", with the rider that the renaissance editor(s) of [Gallu=
> s]
> > > > > might have themselves been responsible for "beron" as it appears. D=

> id
> > > > > Catullus write "beren..." or "beron...": obviously, Callimachus, it
> > > > > seems, had an epsilon not an omicron, but (i) the corrupt "ebore

> > > > > niceo" might suggest that Catullus did write "beron..." - if there =
> had
> > > > > been no 'o' would the text ever have got corrupted in this way?; an=
> d
> > > > > (ii) maybe Catullus' reason was to make a connection between Bereni=

> ce
> > > > > and his Verona (Skinner, for example, calls poems 65-68b, Catullus'
> > > > > 'Veronese Suite' without making this particular connection)?
> > > > > (iii) Finally, and perhaps most interesting for me is [Gallus]'
> > > > > "Berenic*ae*o" rather than e.g. "Beroniceo". So far as I have been
> > > > > able to discern, no early editor ever suggested deciphering "Ebore

> > > > > niceo" as "Beronicaeo" - why would they? But why should a renaissan=
> ce
> > > > > forger chose this form, believing that Catullus wrote "Beroniceo"? =

> If
> > > > > "Beronic*ae*o" might be thought to be an acceptable classical Latin

> > > > > rendering of 'Âåñå=
> íéêåéÃ=
> > > ¯Ã²', this would point towards =

> > > > > [Gallus] being
> > > > > genuine or at least early. Is it acceptable/plausible?
> >
> > > > > While on these lines:
> > > > > (i) While I do not find anything which in any way unequivocally
> > > > > suggests that [Gallus] went to Callimachus, two points may be worth

> > > > > floating - (a) "detonsum" might be thought to be a decent rendering=
> of
> > > > > Callimachus' "neotmhton" (110.51); and it is interesting that [Gall=
> us]
> > > > > uses "astrum", Callimachus uses 'astron' but 'astrum' is a word whi=

> ch
> > > > > Catullus eschews.
> > > > > (ii) Since earlier discussing "esuriens Graecus" - when Leofranc
> > > > > highlighted that this appeared to be borrowed from Juvenal and I

> > > > > suggested that Hyginus suggests that there may have been a polemica=

> l
> > > > > response to the convenience of Conon's 'finding' Berenice's lock, I
> > > > > also came accross Ov. Fast. 3.303-4 "nec levis ambitio perfusaque

> > > > > gloria fuco / magnarumque *fames* sollicitavit opum." - he's talkin=

[falmouth]

Thanks that is helpful. My overheated imagination had been
entertaining the possibility that a later Greek poet might have
'corrected' Callimachus - I had in mind, in particular, one well
familiar with what the adjectival form of '-nikh' should be.

One thing that I have not been able to tie down is whether the
physical codex in which these poems were said to have been found
actually made its way to Aldus (if indeed there ever was one) or
whether the alleged forger sent transcriptions or indeed whether the
whole hoax originated with Aldus himself. Or whether any of that is
discoverable at all...

On Oct 21, 3:30 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> The rule prescribes Berenicaeus, but since Berenikaios is not found in Greek and Berenikeios is, even in the very poem that Catullus was translating, and since ai and ei are musch less likely to be correupted into each other at any stage of the Greek language than -aeus and -eus after the classical period, we may be confident that he wrote Bereniceo. And so would Gallus; but even if he were the author of this piece, that would not stop its being corrupted to Beronicaeus; the o indicates ignorance on the part of the transmitter, forger or no.
>
>
>
> adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > I see (... I think...)
>
> > So according to Housman's rule - although not formulated as an exact
> > one - one would *expect* in Callimachus (or another Greek poet)
>

> > Βεà  ÃŽÂµÃŽÂ½ÃŽÂ¹ÃŽÂºÃŽÂ±ÃŽÂ¹ÃŽÂ¿Ã ‚ which wo=

> > uld be most readily rendered in classical Latin
> > Berenicaeus
>
> > But what one *has* in Callimachus is
>

> > Βεà  ÃŽÂµÃŽÂ½ÃŽÂ¹ÃŽÂºÃŽÂµÃŽÂ¹ÃŽÂ¿Ã ‚, which w=

> > ould be most readily rendered in classical Latin
> > Bereniceus?
>

> > On Oct 21, 2:25Â pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > Housman's rule is that all second- and third-declension nouns make -eus, =
> > as do first-declension masculines, which have -eios in Greek except in Aeol=
> > ic; first-declension feminines make -aeus. However, as he admits some -eios=
> >  spellings exist, and Berenikeios is one of them; Callimachus wrote kai Ber=
> > enikeios kalos egw plokamos. But Renaissance editors are all over the place=
> > , and their successors often blindly follow them; Phrixeus, the adjective d=
> > erived from Phrixus, often appears as Phryxaeus, with hyper-correct (i.e. w=
> > ould-be correct but wrong) y as well as ae.
>
> > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Thanks, Leofranc. Without detracting from the caveat re the
> > > > transmission of orthography, coming at it cold, as it were, would one

> > > > expect a 1st-cent BC poet to have rendered Βε=
> > à  ÃƒÅ½Ã‚µÃŽÂ½=
> > > > ικειοà â=
> > €š as 'Bereniceus'

> > > > or 'Berenicaeus' - or are either possibilities and, if so, is there
> > > > any difference in the likelihoods (or the underlying principle). What
> > > > would Housman say?
>

> > > > On Oct 21, 12:21Â pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > > Catullus will have written Bereniceo. He could not possibly have brou=
> > ght =
> > > > Verona, with initial w and long e and o, into the matter; but the o, as=
> >  in =
> > > > Ptolom(a)eus, because standard in later Latin (so that once both Greek =
> > B an=
> > > > d Latin V consonant had the same sound the Western church could invent =
> > St V=
> > > > eronica). As to eus and aeus, few scholars before Housman know, and non=
> > e st=
> > > > ated, which should be used where. However, since neother scholars nor p=
> > rint=
> > > > ers in the sixteenth century gelt obliged to respect the orthography of=
> >  the=
> > > > ir source, I don't care to rest any argument for authorship upon the er=
> > rors=
> > > > ..
>
> > > > > But why worry about Catullus when the esuriens Graecus so obviously c=
> > omes=

> > > > Â rom Juvenal?

>
> > > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > E Beronicaeo detonsum vertice crinem

> > > > > > Â  Retulit esuriens Graecus in astra Conon:

>
> > > > > > Here, I think there is a textual question of some significance.
> > > > > > Whether [Gallus] is a forger or genuine, these lines would have bee=
> > n
> > > > > > influenced by Cat. 66, lines 7-8 in particular.
>
> > > > > > idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
> > > > > > e Beroniceo uertice caesariem
> > > > > > (Cat. 66.7-8)
>
> > > > > > It is my understanding that all manuscripts available before the fi=
> > rst
> > > > > > printed editions of Catullus were corrupt here, reading
>
> > > > > > idem me ille Conon caelesti in limine uidit
> > > > > > ebore niceo uertice caesariem
> > > > > > (Cat. 66.7-8)
>
> > > > > > "ebore niceo" was first deciphered as "e beroniceo", I understand, =
> > in
> > > > > > the 1480s or thereabouts. But the exact spelling was and, I think
> > > > > > remains, a matter of conjecture. The only further enlightenment tha=
> > t
> > > > > > we have is the discovery of Fr. 110 of Callimachus' Aetia where at

> > > > > > lines 61-2 the epithet ÂåñÃ=
> > ƒÂ¥ÃƒÂ­ÃƒÂ©ÃƒÂªÃƒÂ¥=
> > > > éïò appears.
>
> > > > > > öáåóéÃ=
> > ­ åí ðïëÃ=
> > =
> > > > ¥Ã¥Ã³Ã³Ã©Ã­ Ã=
> > ƒÂ¡ÃƒÂ±ÃƒÂ©ÃƒÂ¨ÃƒÂ¬ÃƒÂ©Ãƒ=
> > =
> > > > ¯=
> > > > > > ò áëë[á
> > > > > >   ÃªÃ¡Ã© Â=
> > åñåíéêÃ=
> > Æ’=
> > > > ¥Ã©Ã¯Ã² êáÃ=
> > ƒÂ«ÃƒÂ¯ÃƒÂ² åãù Ã=
> > Æ’=
> > > > °=
> > > > > > ëïêáìÃ=
> > ¯Ã²

>
> > > > > > There are, it seems to me, three points re "Beronicaeo" at AL 916.7
> > > > > > (this being the original reading so far as I can discern)

> > > > > > (i) Â whoever the poet/forger, he is not working from a corrup=

> > > > > > rendering of 'Âåñå=
> > íéêåéÃ=
> > > > ¯Ã²', this would point towards =