which merits some consideration since it avoids the element of redundancy in 
, however suitable 
, may otherwise seem; 8.17.3.19 
(W sec. Russo) is of course right against the augmented optative 
(W sec. Vilborg), and we hardly needed a manuscript to tell us that.
p.40 n.1 Salmasius did not merely add 
p.46 n.1 mirrors the strangeness of Vilborg's apparatus; p.48 n.1 Hercher believed that the manuscripts had 
arranged and gives the wrong impression that 
is not in the a text and that Jacobs wanted to delete it.
see Comm., p.22. 
cf. 4.18.6.8.
, and blood: in Ach. Tat. the blood in the cheeks of Leucippe, in Homer the blood on the thighs of Menelaus, is compared to the dye used for a cheek-piece. 
is clearly the colour of blood in Ach. Tat. 2.11.5–7.
suitable than the Homeric 
, a word with strong connotations of defilement that he would not want to suggest in this context. Heliodorus, probably echoing the same passage of Homer, has (10.15)
.
cf. 1.5.6.9 
.
in sense (see 
.
of the kind we have here, with asyndeton, is always at (or, in the case of 1.3.5.17 and 2.1.3.11, as near as possible to) the beginning of its sentence: in the first two books see 1.2.1.2; 4.1.23; 5.3.7; 8.2.19; 19.1.4; 2.1.3.11; 5.1.1; 6.1.13; 6.3.20; 10.2.9; 14.6.4; 15.1.4; 19.2.23; 19.6.11; 22.7.16; 27.3.1; 28.3.15; 31.1.18. Specially relevant to 1.7.2–3 are these places, in which the demonstrative refers to a person just introduced (or, as in 1.3.5.17, revived for his role in the plot): 
2.4.2.14; 13.1.19; 20.1.13. Cf. the use of 
at the beginning of its sentence and referring to a place just introduced: 1.1.2.6; 4.12.8.18.
The fut. is wrong and probably due to wrongly taking 
.
is ‘Headlam’s correction for MSS. 
Warmington reproduces this inaccuracy.
question of Ach. Tat.'s use of 
with the potential optative is a vexed one. At 8.6.15.17 a recently discovered papyrus 
reading is perhaps 
.
M. The emphatic pronoun seems necessary: there is a contrast between Clitophon, who received Melite's attention, and the food, which she neglected.
and 
(see 
3.1.4.14; 5.5.4.12 
(Villoison: 
codd.).
also at 4.6.3.26; 8.9.3.15; 10.5.7.(after Aeschines 1.61), always of persons.
.
) occurs in Thuc. 5.13.2; 5.14.1; 5.44.
with adv. (without gen.
.
1.6.6.17; 6.5.5.19; 11.2.25.
is found at 3.22.4.7. For 
Pl. Smp. 176 C.
refers primarily to mental disposition, it might seem unsuitable for use with 
, but there is a contrast here between 
and 
.
7.12.5.19.
1.6.3.25; 16.2.9; 18.5.1; 6.2.6.19; 7.7.8.6; 8.10.2.18.
. Emendationen and Interpretationen zu griechischen Prosaikern der Kaiserzeit. V, 
refers to an actual physical ‘attempt’ to have intercourse with the girl; the third 
would signify ‘an approach’, ‘an attempt’ to win her over of quite the opposite kind.
, the only ones in Ach. Tat. at all relevant, is very secure in itself.)
apodosin excidisse apparet’, and he does not suggest any supplement. To join 
with what precedes, as Salmasius and Boden did, is obviously inept.
, wrongly.
is fairly common in Ach. Tat. (e.g. 1.6.1.17; 2.21.3.2; 3.3.2.18; 4.1.6; 19.3.13; 20.6.3). 
, however, does not occur elsewhere and 
) is not found in apodosi. The corruption of 
and vice versa is, of course, very frequent: see e.g. Ach. Tat. 1.3.4.10; 3.6.21; 4.1.26; 2.4.1.8; 4.3.16; 11.2.2; 11.3.7; 20.3.21; 35.2.11; 3.1.3.8; 4.3.14.
of previous editors has no manuscript authority. Anyway 
would be entirely unsuitable as an antithesis to 
.
is a little strange. It hardly refers irrelevantly to literary authorship. The lover is the protagonist and is probably thought of as improvising to meet the circumstances as he goes along.
with the sense ‘ruin’ in Ach. Tat. see 1.8.9.18; 2.24.1.18 
.
in view of 
a couple of lines above. Note Smith's ‘still’.
should most naturally have the same subject as 
, viz. the boy, horses, and ships occur as the objects, never the subjects, of active forms of 
and its compounds except at Hdt. 7.183.2 
one. (Read 
see 
. It should be noted that the manuscripts that omit 
are among those that have 
, anyway.
with aor. inf. without iiv see E. Fraenkel's commentary on A. Ag. 675–6.
with a past tense indicative in the next paragraph, 1.14.1.
meaning ‘light’, 
.
…); D. 18.224; 18.258; 19.312; Th. 1.11; Ach. Tat. 2.20.1.13; 4.13.4.9; 6.1.3.13; 8.9.8.10) of 
, of course, common. Usually a simple verb and its compound in tw- have substantially different meanings, one of which would be evidently unsuitable in a particular passage, and this goes to determine the word 
(8.4.1.11), 
(3.2.2.13; cf. Eust. 1885.19), and 
(6.18.5.26). On p.173 of his edition Vilborg marks 
(5.8.3.1) too as 
, but see LSJ s.v.
.
.
than copulative) is entirely unnatural.
acc. in Pl. Ti. 57 d (cf. X. H.G. 1.3.7; id. Cyr. 7.4.11; Arist. Mete. 354a1).
in mingled (chequered) shade' as is clear from the contrast with 
‘in a dense shade’ LSJ, wrongly. Anyone who needs an example of 
really meaning ‘dense’ will find one in Plu. Caes. 717 f 
(of the Nervii).
and acc. expressing response to, correspondence with, cf. 
.
alone.
(as a gloss on 
) would create hiatus. Besides, it does add something to the description. It is not impossible that the context in Phdr. 239 c suggested 
to Ach. Tat. here: the shadow, like the boy, is beautiful but (and because) pale. The omission of Kai is a frequent error: see, with app. crit., e.g. 
.
.
.
clause preparing for what follows it see 5.3.4.24 
In the following places a parenthesis with 
interrupts the structure of the clause to which it refers and at least the main substance of what is referred to follows the 
.
in Ach. Tat. elsewhere only at 8.17.3.22 
the contrary, … (see 
(subst.) as subject with 
as complement would, of course, in the resulting sense be more or less to put the cart before the horse. Perhaps at least the scribe to whom the order in G is owed (see 
before a vowel: 2.21.4.6; 34.5.22; 5.17.6.3. Cf. 2.22.7.14 
.
In: 2.21.4.6 (om. G); 5.26.12.30 (om. a); 7.5.2.6 (om. β); 8.5.5.14 (om. G).
in a forward position separated from the word it modifies:
.
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Kanavou, Nikoletta
2022.
TEXTUAL NOTES ON ACHILLES TATIUS.
The Classical Quarterly,
Vol. 72,
Issue. 1,
p.
347.