No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2012
917 torrat OIQ: torret Oa.c. : terra FC : torreat Gifanius : torres Lachmann: tortet Romanes : torqueat Wakefield : torrant Bockemüller aridus torror Housman
The sole difficulty of this passages lies at the close of 917. If atque introduces a second (necessarily subjunctive) verb, torrat of the paradosis would be an unparalleled third-conjugation form and is therefore highly improbable; the ungrammatical torret in O pre-correction can be readily dismissed. I find little attraction in Lachmann's and Housman's introduction of nominal forms, particularly since 918 implies that the reference in 917 is to a single torment (i.e. sitis). Romanes (1934) 25 conjectured tortet, which is supported neither by Lucretian usage nor the corpus of extant Latin.
I am most grateful to Prof. E. J. Kenney, Dr M. Deufert and the anonymous readers for CCJ for their helpful remarks throughout.