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
In the Classical Quarterly, vol. ii. No. 2, reviewing Breiter's recent text of the Astronomica, together with Housman's edition of Book i, I made a number of suggestions of my own on some of the principal difficulties in the text and interpretation of Manilius. I did not, however, bring my notes down beyond Book i. In the present paper I propose to traverse some of the more thorny places of ii. and iii. I shall try to make what I have to say to some extent a continued review of Breiter (and even of Housman).
page 176 note 1 eximo quod became eximioq., and the -q was then omitted metri gratia; eximiam followed, for which eximium is a mere blunder. Reviewing this passage I now think that eximum perhaps stands for consilium = csilium = exilium. Cf. consilium in 4. 900 (a closely parallel passage).
page 178 note 1 In that passage, too, some of the difficulties may come from omissions. One or more lines beginning mitto quod may very well have dropped out.
page 181 note 1 Bentley's (or Huet's: cf. Ellis ad loc.) correction decuma at 5. 53 is just such another mathematically demonstrable emendation.