No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Ergo saepta pudicitia agunt, nuliis spectaculorum inlecebris, nullis conviviorum inritationibus corruptae. litterarum secreta viri pariter ac feminae ignorant, paucissima in tarn numerosa gente adulteria, quorum poena praesens et mantis permissa: adcisis crinibus nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus ac per omnem vicum verbere agit. publicatae enim pudicitiae nulla venia: non forma, non aetate, non opibus maritum invenerit. nemo enim illic vitia ridet, nee corrumpere et corrumpi saeculum vocatur.
page 469 note 1 Plaut. Bacch. 863, ‘turn illam, quae corpus publicat uolgo suom’.
page 469 note 2 Oxford, 1938, p.113.
page 470 note 1 34.61.16, ‘publicato crimine’.
page 470 note 2 Dial. 3.16.2, ‘primum secreta, deinde publicata’; Ep. 113.32, ‘virtutem’.
page 470 note 3 Dr. Michael Winterbottom informs me that the manuscript Vat. lat. 2964 has ‘enim inpudititie’.
page 470 note 4 Anderson was willing to accept ‘maritum’ by itself as equal to ‘alterum maritum’. Some might favour adding ‘alterum’ before ‘maritum’ in the text, or reading ‘alterum’ instead of it (if ‘mantis … maritus … maritum’ so close together were thought excessive). This might be rash, but I think ‘maritum <iterum>’ would not be a violent alteration, and is worth considering as a conjecture.
page 470 note 5 I am much obliged to Dr. Winterbottom for criticism of an earlier draft of this article and for help in presenting this one.