Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:31:06.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on the Thebais of Stativs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. E. Housman
A. E. Housman
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I have not read the Thebais more than three times, nor ever with intent care and interest; and although in putting these notes together I have consulted a large number of editions—Bernartius, Tiliobroga, Geuartius, Cruceus, Gronouius, Barthius, Veenhusen, Beraldus (Delphin), ed. Bipontina, Lemaire (with Amar), Queck, O. Mueller (books I-VI), Kohlmann, Wilkins, Garrod, Klotz, and the translations of Marolles, Nisard, and Mozley (Loeb)—it may well be that profitable matter has escaped me and that some of my comments have been made before.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1933 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1933

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 1 note l In I 246 f. ‘neque enim arcano de pectore fallax | Tantalus… periit’ Baehrens proposed arcani, ‘quod qnominus ad fallax referamus, impedimur collocatione uerborum’ says Mr Klotz. One may steal a horse while another may not look over the hedge.

page 2 note 1 Mr Klotz's kindly willingness to explain what he does not understand is less of a help than a hindrance. Examples follow at II 637 f. and IV 2 f.; and there are others at II 327, IV 318, V 702 (the most amazing of all), IX 19.

page 4 note 1 Wernsdorf proposes a change; Sudhaus imagines the expression to be a personification characteristic of ‘our Stoic author’, and is so completely at a loss for a parallel that he compares Iuu. X 193–5 ‘rugas, | quales… in uetula scalpit iam mater simia bucca’.

page 8 note 1 anhela with tollit is not, as the scholiast says, ‘aestuosa’, but pictures the day panting up the steep of heaven.

page 8 note 2 Lucan's errors in this department, though not so many as Scaliger made them out to be, are sometimes monstrous, and one of them (X 210–8) involves the dogstar.

page 9 note 1 Mr Klotz, with the old editors, reads dominumue, against the best MS; Mueller, Kohlmann, Wilkins, and Garrod are right.

page 12 note 1 What I then said against his explanation of Ovid's BeῙides and Lycurgῑdes was afterwards confirmed by the emergence of κοδρείδης and λαγειδης from papyri of Callimachus.

page 14 note 1 I do not add his punctuation of silu. II i 129, which, though equally vicious, had more excuse until I analysed the sentence in Class. Rev. 1906 p. 41.