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
So in this outburst of Cornelia should line 104 be punctuated. For the poenas crudelis compare VII. 431 ‘quod semper saeuas debet tibi Parthia poenas’ and Verg. A. 6. 501 quis tam crudelis optauit sumere poenas? whence, or from ib. 585, ‘uidi et crudelis dantem Salmonea poenas’ we may suppose Lucan derived it. The feeble vulgate punctuation which puts the comma after crudelis, supposed to be vocative, well exemplifies the mischievous influence of propinquity.—I now find the correct punctuation in W. E. Weber's Corpus, but with the needless alteration of crudel e s.
page 100 note 1 ‘Matutinepater seu “lane” libentius audis’; so for the modern's benefit should the words be printed. There is really no reason against this vocative any more than against that in the fragment of Callimachus Schol. Par. ad Apoll. Rh. 2. 866 άνTι γάρ έKλήθ ‘“Iµβρασε’ παρθενιε. Francken, IV. 316 sqq. ‘tune herbas frondesque ternnt et rore madentis destringunt ramos, ac si quos palmite crudo arboris aut tenera sucos pressere medulla.’ The Dutch editor proposed to interchange the places of si quos and sucos But the truth appears to be that the pronoun has, more Graeco, been attracted into the case an antecedent in the main clause.
page 100 note 2 Here may be mentioned incidentally a use of si quis which, uncommon as it is, seems to have escaped the notice of all editors but
page 103 note 1 Cf. e.g. Dial. 1. 20. 4. ‘Snllano scias saeculo scriptam.’