Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:16:30.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Martial Again

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Alan Ker
Alan Ker
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I Wish to reply to some of the objections raised by Mr. A. Hudson-Williams in Class. Quart., vol. xlvi (1952), p. 27, to my notes on Martial in vol. xliv. In two places, on pp. 17 and 22, he corrects an error of mine, and in one or two other of his remarks he may well be right; but in many cases he does nothing more than repeat the traditional interpretation of a passage without commending it any more effectively than the editors do. I do not think there would be much profit in restating my view on all these passages, but there are some points I wish to make in reply.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 3 , Issue 3-4 , December 1953 , pp. 173 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 173 note 1 The reason for this lies no doubt in the meaning of moneo. Rogo, meaning ‘I ask leave to’, can naturally be used with the infinitive; cf. rogat ponere, ‘asks leave to lay aside’ (12. 18. 25); Stat. Theb. 10. 591, Silv. 2. 1. 222; Luc. 9. 1102, Val. Flacc. 7. 379. L. and S. is particularly unhelpful in this matter; see especially s.v. moneo .

page 174 note 1 The purely affirmative enim is not found in Martial either; and I should hesitate to regard evidence from Plautus and Terence as strong. At Pers. i. 63, cited by H.-VV., enim does not answer a question at all.