At their first meeting Polynices and Tydeus come to blows. They are reconciled by Adrastus, who expresses the hope that their quarrel will lead to loyal friendship between them, as it did. Esse pro fuisse dixit, says Lactantius, more ingenuously than Klotz, who tries to make the same thing more palatable by saying esse est pro imperfecti quodammodo infinitiuo. Some have taken the accusative and infinitive to be a general statement, but Heuvel is clearly right in saying that it is (...) Tydeus and Polynices whom the poet has in mind. The most favoured solution has been Grater's conjecture isse, but that produces an unnatural expression ; Mozley renders it by ‘grew’, thereby translating not what stands in his text but what ought perhaps to stand there, namely esse, a conjecture of Gil, which has been almost entirely overlooked. This contracted form is found in extant literature only at Lucretius 3.683 and Ovid, Met. 7.416 . The first letters of a line are particularly liable to omission; despite Hill, I do not find it at all surprising that at 1.544 perseus lost its first letter and the remnant became aureus. (shrink)
Since S000983880000149X_inline1 is a good Greek word, most scholars have assumed that it must be retained, and that the corruption is confined to the unintelligible letters which precede it. Constans deleted these letters as the remnant of a gloss, Sternkopf emended them to velut; neither solution is satisfactory, since S000983880000149X_inline2 by itself, without an indication of the recipient, is hardly intelligible.
By far the best edition is that of L. D. Reynolds. Other modern editions referred to are those of W. C. Summers ; R. M. Gummere ; F. Préchac et H. Noblot.
In CQ 45, 547–50, S. J. Harrison and M. Winterbottom propose a series of emendations to the text of the recently discovered passage of Donatus which contains his commentary on Aen. 6.1–157. I offer some further emendations.
It is not my purpose to discuss the authorship of this work; I shall only say that I do not believe it was written by Quintus Cicero. The question of authorship cannot be brought into a discussion of the problems raised by the text, because, even if it were the product of Quintus' pen, it would obviously be unjustified to apply to Quintus the same canons of Latinity as can be applied to his brother.
Housman reads assueta euolitans; the former word is a conjecture of his own, the latter a conjecture of Ellis, which I think he would have ignored if the relevant fascicle of the Thesaurus had been available to show that euolitare occurs once in Columella and then not before the sixth century. If assueto is sound, mundi must be changed to mundo or to another noun. Bentley read mundo, and this may well be the right solution: the eagle carries thunderbolts to (...) the sky, “cui scilicet per diuturnas operas assueuerat”. Shackleton Bailey emends to nisu . If emendation were required, I suggest that motu would be palaeographically more satisfactory; the assumed process of corruption is well illustrated by 3.82, motu GL: modum M: mundo LV. (shrink)
The most recent edition of these books is that of R. M. Ogilvie , which should be read in conjunction with his Commentary on these books . The other modern edition to which I have referred is that of W. Weissenborn and H. J. Müller = W.-M.
The following modern editions are referred to: Sillig ; Jan ; Mayhoff ; Bailey, The Elder Pliny's Chapters on Chemical Subjects ; Loeb editions ; Budé editions. Abbreviations include: Urlichs1 = K. L. Urlichs, Chrestomathia Pliniana ; Urlichs2 = K. L. Urlichs, Vindiciae Plinianae ii.
The following modern editions are referred to: Sillig ; Jan ; Mayhoff ; Bailey , The Elder Pliny's Chapters on Chemical Subjects ; Loeb editions ; Budé editions . Abbreviations include: Urlichs1 = K. L. Urlichs, Chrestomathia Pliniana ; Urlichs2 = K. L. Urlichs, Vindiciae Plinianae ii.
Since is a good Greek word, most scholars have assumed that it must be retained, and that the corruption is confined to the unintelligible letters which precede it. Constans deleted these letters as the remnant of a gloss, Sternkopf emended them to velut; neither solution is satisfactory, since by itself, without an indication of the recipient, is hardly intelligible.
The most recent and by far the best edition of this work is that of H. M. Hine , to which I refer for full bibliographical information. Many passages of the text are most helpfully discussed in the same scholar's Studies in the Text of Seneca's Naturales Quaestiones . ut nubes infici possint, … sol ad hoc apte ponendus est; non enim idem facit undecumque effulsit, et ad hoc opus est radiorum idoneus ictus. Seneca is dealing with rainbows. Hine shares (...) Axelson's suspicion of ictus, but is unhappy both with Axelson's situs and with my tractus, ‘direction’ ; very tentatively he suggests angulus. Much more credible palaeographically and still yielding good sense and a good clausula would be i etus, a noun which is very common in this work of Seneca's. Hostius fuit Quadra obscenitatis in scaenam usque perductae. (shrink)
Most modern editors adopt one or other of two readings: quot gradibus domus ista Remi se sustulit! olim / unus erat etc.; qua gradibus domus ista Remi se sustulit, olim / unus erat etc. It is true that a large number of steps leading up to a temple is an indicationof its magnificence; cf. Ovid, Pont. 3. 2. 49 f. templa manent hodie vastis innixa columnis, / perque quater denos itur in ilia gradus. Nevertheless in this context qua is more (...) probable than quot, in view of the local relative clauses in line 1 and line 3. (shrink)
The pseudo-Ciceronian Epistula ad Octavianum enjoys the unmerited distinction of being preserved not only in most of the manuscripts which contain the Ad Atticum letters but also in some of those which contain the second half of the Ad Familiares letters; the former tradition is usually designated Ω, the latter I shall designate X. It was on the Ω tradition that the earliest printed texts were based. In the sixteenth century Cratander and Turnebus introduced a number of readings from the (...) X tradition; some of these were incorporated in the vulgate, but the printed editions from that of Lambinus to that of Purser still continued to be based mainly on Ω. In 1913, in an article in Eranos, xiii. 136–46, Sjögren set himself to prove that the value of Ω had been overrated in the establishment of the text, and that greater importance should be attached to X than to Ω; and in accordance with this view, in his 1914 Teubner text, Sjögren follows X, as against Ω, about twice as often3 as Purser does. This view of Sjögren's, I believe, will not stand examination, and to disprove it is the purpose of the present article. (shrink)
In CQ 45 , 547–50, S. J. Harrison and M. Winterbottom propose a series of emendations to the text of the recently discovered passage of Donatus which contains his commentary on Aen. 6.1–157. I offer some further emendations.
At their first meeting Polynices and Tydeus come to blows. They are reconciled by Adrastus, who expresses the hope that their quarrel will lead to loyal friendship between them, as it did. Esse pro fuisse dixit, says Lactantius, more ingenuously than Klotz, who tries to make the same thing more palatable by saying esse est pro imperfecti quodammodo infinitiuo. Some have taken the accusative and infinitive to be a general statement, but Heuvel is clearly right in saying that it is (...) Tydeus and Polynices whom the poet has in mind. The most favoured solution has been Grater's conjecture isse, but that produces an unnatural expression ; Mozley renders it by ‘grew’, thereby translating not what stands in his text but what ought perhaps to stand there, namely esse, a conjecture of Gil, which has been almost entirely overlooked. This contracted form is found in extant literature only at Lucretius 3.683 and Ovid, Met. 7.416. The first letters of a line are particularly liable to omission; despite Hill, I do not find it at all surprising that at 1.544 perseus lost its first letter and the remnant became aureus. (shrink)
Agr. 2.53. ‘Te volo curare ut mihi Sinopae praesto sis auxiliumque adducas, dum eos agros quos tuo labore cepisti ego mea lege vendam.’ an Pompeium non adhibebit? in eius provincia vendet manubias imperatoris?
By far the best edition is that of L. D. Reynolds . Other modern editions referred to are those of W. C. Summers ; R. M. Gummere ; F. Préchac et H. Noblot.
