Irony and the text of caesar, bellvm gallicvm 5.31.5

Classical Quarterly 67 (1):307-310 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The sentence that comprises 5.31.5 in Caesar's Bellum Gallicum has long been felt to be problematic. It was deleted entirely by H. Meusel. A. Klotz posited a lacuna after quare. Others sought smaller adjustments. Yet, the defence of the text as transmitted also drew advocates and the debate quietened. The current Teubner edition, by W. Hering in 1987, prints the transmitted text and does not acknowledge the debate in the apparatus criticus. I propose a new solution, one that reinterprets the sentence in context and requires a small textual change from et to nec. I will first set the context and identify problems with the conventional understanding of 5.31.5.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 94,045

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ausonius Opera.R. P. H. Green (ed.) - 1999 - Oxford University Press UK.
The Text of Lucretius 2.1174.Mark Possanza - 1990 - Classical Quarterly 40 (2):459-464.
The Text of Lucretius 2.1174.Mark Possanza - 1990 - Classical Quarterly 40 (02):459-.
An Emendation to Pliny, Panegyric 95.4.Tristan Power - 2022 - Classical Quarterly 72 (2):952-955.
A Collation of Codex Lovaniensis.T. Rice Holmes - 1911 - Classical Quarterly 5 (03):137-.
A Collation Of Codex Lovaniensis.T. Rice Holmes - 1911 - Classical Quarterly 5 (3):137-162.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-04-18

Downloads
13 (#1,043,138)

6 months
4 (#1,006,434)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references