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
That 
after that 
is just too ghastly. Jebb's citations are no parallels; the difference is that 
(‘as to which things’—J.) and 
(‘that prospect’—J.) have both precisely the same reference. Read 
‘which reflections … time-honoured as they are’. In this well-known construction a term (often substantive, sometimes adjective) which logically belongs to the antecedent is deferred and inserted in the relative clause—‘for emphasis’ (M. Tierney, rightly, on E. Hec. 771).
1 Generally rather late, as here; but sometimes in the forefront of (yet syntactically within) the rel. clause, as at Tr. 283; and this is the simple explanation of Virgil's (Aen. 1. 573) urbetn quam statuo, uestra est; add it therefore to Jebb's parallels for O.T. 449.
1 Denniston, , op. cit., p. 162,Google Scholar under 
says that the sense ‘and’ preponderates where no 
precedes, and in such cases there is no essential difference between 
and 
Jebb's ‘but’ here has to be buttressed, in his note by an English supplement ‘but (all the more)’, in his translation by the misleading ‘accurst’ for 
2 ‘Its primary function is to bring home to the comprehension of the person addressed a truth of which he is ignorant, or temporarily oblivious’ (Denniston, , op. cit., p. 537).Google Scholar
3 Only two critics have seen that
is the source of the trouble, Blaydes (Addenda) and Herwerden; the latter (where?) proposed
; but
denotes feeling, not behaviour; and I do not believe that 
could ever be ‘
’ in this sense.
1 One answer to his defence (C.R. xxxix (1925), 3) is that a parenthetic 
is not the same thing as a parenthetic 
vous voyez is not vous regardez. Another is that in the passages quoted the parenthesis has real point; e.g. there is an object to be pointed out, or an object lesson to be enforced.Google Scholar
1 He cites Eur. H.F. 1005 
but corr. Nauck 
1 I dealt with this briefly in a paper (Oxford Philol. Soc., 1931Google Scholar) summarized in Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc. clx (1935), 5; but I hope to discuss the point more thoroughly later. A neat case is Thuc. 6. 25. 2 
; but read, with Krueger, 
Google Scholar
3 So Jebb; similarly Cat. 61. 58–59 is not literal.
4 Witness footnote 2 on page 82 of my 1953 ed. of Horace, Odes.
1 Except, naturally, 
Eur. Tro. 146.
2 Or 
?
3 Or 
? Augments are omitted at 499. 515, 516.
4 As in the summary referred to (p. 21 n. 2).
5 P.S. I have just noticed that Blaydes in his Addenda wrote: ‘The 
is evidently not required here.’
1 In making the old man address to the young this breezy British exhortation, Jackson does not seem to have given a thought to the reproachful and despairing tones of all three of the speaker's previous admonitions.