 |
You are not currently logged in. Are you accessing the unsecure (http) portal? Click here to switch to the secure portal. |
Difference between revisions of "Page:MS Latin 11269 27r.jpg"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Kendra Brown (talk | contribs) |
Kendra Brown (talk | contribs) |
||
| Page body (to be transcluded): | Page body (to be transcluded): | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:<section begin="27r-b"/>{{par|b}} In cruce p{{dec|u|re}}validus p{{dec|u|ro}}priu{{dec|u|m}} tibi carpo mucrone{{dec|u|m}}.<br/>Hinc te iam mestu{{dec|u|m}} cesura cuspide sive<br/>P{{dec|u|er}}cutia{{dec|u|m}}. spät{{dec|u|a}}eq{{dec|u|ue}} manus attolle{{dec|u|re}} dicor<br/>Conträriu{{dec|u|m}}<ref>These umlaut-like dots appear on a few other pages, where they indicate words that should be read as a pair. Here the marked words are both part of a phrase naming a technique, similar to other times the dots appear. Interestingly, on this page it looks like the dots were written by the original scribe (for example, the dots over the a in spataeque have the same faded look as the a). However, appearing on so few pages, these dots don't seem to be part of the overall orthographic style of the manuscript.</ref>. et valeo tua m{{dec|u|em}}bra ferire patent{{dec|u|er}}.<br/>Tange{{dec|u|re}} nec pot{{dec|u|er}}is ullis violatib{{dec|u|us}} ense{{dec|u|m}}.<section end="27r-b"/> | :<section begin="27r-b"/>{{par|b}} In cruce p{{dec|u|re}}validus p{{dec|u|ro}}priu{{dec|u|m}} tibi carpo mucrone{{dec|u|m}}.<br/>Hinc te iam mestu{{dec|u|m}} cesura cuspide sive<br/>P{{dec|u|er}}cutia{{dec|u|m}}. spät{{dec|u|a}}eq{{dec|u|ue}} manus attolle{{dec|u|re}} dicor<br/>Conträriu{{dec|u|m}}<ref>These umlaut-like dots appear on a few other pages, where they indicate words that should be read as a pair. Here the marked words are both part of a phrase naming a technique, similar to other times the dots appear. Interestingly, on this page it looks like the dots were written by the original scribe (for example, the dots over the a in spataeque have the same faded look as the a). However, appearing on so few pages, these dots don't seem to be part of the overall orthographic style of the manuscript.</ref>. et valeo tua m{{dec|u|em}}bra ferire patent{{dec|u|er}}.<br/>Tange{{dec|u|re}} nec pot{{dec|u|er}}is ullis violatib{{dec|u|us}} ense{{dec|u|m}}.<section end="27r-b"/> | ||
| − | <section begin="27r-c"/>{{par|r}} Te iacio i{{dec|u|n}} ter{{dec|u|r}}am magno/ que{{dec|u|m}} p{{dec|u|re}}cipis / actu<br/>Nec su{{dec|u|m}} | + | <section begin="27r-c"/>{{par|r}} Te iacio i{{dec|u|n}} ter{{dec|u|r}}am magno/ que{{dec|u|m}} p{{dec|u|re}}cipis / actu<br/>Nec su{{dec|u|m}} deceptus ense{{dec|u|m}} t{{dec|u|ibi}} ponere collo.<section end="27r-c"/> |
Latest revision as of 19:12, 2 January 2024
This page needs to be proofread.
- ¶ In cruce prevalidus proprium tibi carpo mucronem.
Hinc te iam mestum cesura cuspide sive
Percutiam. spätaeque manus attollere dicor
Conträrium[1]. et valeo tua membra ferire patenter.
Tangere nec poteris ullis violatibus ensem.
¶ Te iacio in terram magno/ quem precipis / actu
Nec sum deceptus ensem tibi ponere collo.
- ↑ These umlaut-like dots appear on a few other pages, where they indicate words that should be read as a pair. Here the marked words are both part of a phrase naming a technique, similar to other times the dots appear. Interestingly, on this page it looks like the dots were written by the original scribe (for example, the dots over the a in spataeque have the same faded look as the a). However, appearing on so few pages, these dots don't seem to be part of the overall orthographic style of the manuscript.
