Quote:I have also found that there is an alternative version/transcription with “fixae” instead of “fixi”.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The first source simply refers to the Wiesenbach's article
The second one refers to the same Vat. Lat. 644.
But everyone can look and see that the MS says "fixi", not "fixe" or "fixae". While "e" in "rote" has a tail which probably serves for the abbreviation of "ae", in "fixi" it is clear "i", and not "e". Although medieval writers and scribes did not always exhibit 100% perfect Latin, I see no reason why one needs to imply "fixae". "Fixi" is the perfect of "figo", either 1st person singular active, or plural passive (see Verbix). There's no 1st or 2nd person here, so we turn to the plural 3rd person. "Rotae" is probably precisely that, because other declensions of "rota" ending with "ae" would be genitive or dative, which do not fit the context in which "crux" is also inflected.
So the reading of the 2nd line seems to mean that "thus <hoc> the wheels <rotae> of the Christ's cross <crucis Christi> have been fixed <fixi> in the clock <in orologio>".
Quote:I interpret “fixae” as a singular genitive linked with “crucis”.
So in this reading "fixae" is a noun? Which one?