Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T14:59:30.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neglected Hyperbole in Juvenal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2009

E. L. Harrison
E. L. Harrison
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
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
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1960 , pp. 99 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1960

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 100 note 1 Although some (e.g. Ruperti, Pearson and Strong, Mayor) seem content simply to equate antrum with ‘litter’.

page 100 note 2 Hence of course the alternatives: he does not pretend to know what type of conveyance the lady actually uses. (For convenience I have assumed a litter is involved, in view of the emphasis on its spaciousness.)

page 101 note 1 For the ablative cf. Hardie on Sat. i. 13, and a useful note by Maguire, T., Journal of Philology iii. (1871) 232 f.Google Scholar

page 101 note 2 Pearson and Strong were right in the commentary of the first edition, but in their second changed over to the general interpretation of Liburna.

page 101 note 3 Cf. Torr, Ancient Ships (1895), 16 f.

page 101 note 4 Cf. Cambridge Ancient History, x. 236 f.