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
This is the reading of the manuscripts with the punctuation given it in the Delphin, Loeb, and Teubner editions. But the future (adfore) does not give the sense required. Adrastus is gazing with horror at the two young men who have arrived on his doorstep, realizing that they are the lion and the boar of Apollo's oracle (cf. 395–7 ‘cui Phoebus generos … fato ducente canebat saetigerumque suem et fulvum adventare leonem’). The whole force of the blow lies in the fact that they have actually arrived. The Delphin editor solves the problem by saying that adfore means adesse, the Loeb by translating ‘that they had come’. Gruter suggested ac fore, and Garrod accepted this, putting a comma after ductos. But I do not see how this helps. I suggest that the reading of the manuscripts is correct, provided that we take adfore with quos … ediderat; i.e. put a comma after ductos and supply esse. The presence of three verbs, adfore, portendi, and ediderat, may seem a little clumsy, but each has its point; and the future is now natural, depending upon portendi: ‘he realized that the clear will of heaven had brought to his house the sons-in-law of whom Apollo had announced that their future arrival was destined by fate.’
page 175 note 1 For hiems of wind cf. 8. 426.
page 176 note 1 For this sense of sidus in S. cf. 5. 459.
page 176 note 2 For this habit of supplying the object from some way back cf. 3. 447, 4. 783, 5. 480, 7. 487; Ach. 1. 141, 274, etc.
page 176 note 3 P evidently omitted lines 184 and 185 through the homoeoteleuton in 183 and 185.
page 177 note 1 Klotz reports differently from Garrod on the readings here, but the differences are unimportant. Klotz regards Il. 184 and 1853s spurious, evidently because he assumes P is right.
page 177 note 2 I do not think we need alter, with the young Lachmann, to illi; still less should we accept D's ille (O.C.T.).
page 178 note 1 Cf. 4. 716, 6. 272, 375, 7. 418, 8. 547, 9. 135, 11. 407; Ach. 1. 31; Silv. 5. 1. 252.
page 178 note 2 Cf. 8. 639–40 dependet languida cervix exterior clipeo.
page 179 note 1 The verb is taken so at Silv. 5. 2. 39, but there exserto is only a conjecture for exorto (M) or ex orto (A).
page 180 note 1 Cf. 12. 59 exsule umbra, ‘the exile ghost’.
page 181 note 1 I omit three passages which seem at first sight to be, but may not in fact be, cases oi aposiopesis: at 1. 465 we should supply sumus with egentes (or read egemus); at 3. 312 we may punctuate metus, quando … datur, cum; and g. 63–64 should perhaps be treated as an exclamation, like 8. 623–4. At 12. 385 I think haec prior means ‘So spake Antigone before (Argia could intervene)’. (In 1. 384 read pudet heu,).