Virgilian orthography

[Bill Walderman]

This may be too trivial a point to comment on, but in reading G 2.172
in the Mynors edition:

imbellem auertis Romanis arcibus Indum

I was struck by the thought that the line would be more effective if
it began with "inbellem," which would frame the verse with two words
beginning with the same syllable. Sure enough, Geymonat prints
"inbellem" and doesn't record any textual variants, though he's
usually careful to note even minor spelling differences, which
suggests that the manuscript authority supports "inbellem." The
apparently normalized spelling of Mynors' edition seems to weaken the
effect. (Of the other two editions readily available to me, Page
prints "inbellem"; Thomas, "imbellem.") Does anyone have any thoughts
on this or is anyone aware of other instances where normalized
spelling does damage to the text?

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

I do not think anyone doubts that the prefix was pronounced [im] before a
labial; the fashion for writing <im> or <in> has varied over the ages, but
affects *only* the spelling.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237