Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:12:32.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , March 1915 , pp. 47 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1915

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

1 This instance should probably be omitted. It occurs in the second of a series of fifty-two short pieces of hexameters (mostly) on mythological subjects, obviously all by the same author. He frequently omits the augment, and can equally well be read and this division of words is actually adopted by Stadtmueller.

2 Lines with extremely licentious and irregular caesuras.

3 It is unlikely that this list is complete; but the very few more examples that might be found by a closer inspection would not affect the contention as to the very great rarity of this break.