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
In the proper punctuation of this passage I have been in part anticipated by Francken, who saw that the apodosis to the conditional clause was to be sought in 235–7. But, as the second edition of the Teubner text still keeps it in its primitive incoherence, I make no apology for dealing with it here.
page 217 note 1 Perhaps this is the object of the semicolon at the end of 221 in Hosius' text, which otherwise I do not understand.
page 217 note 2 Breal's Semantics, English ed. Pref. p. xxxvi.
page 217 note 3 See Class. Rev. xv. (1901) p. 306.
page 218 note 1 I had forgotten the name of the lawgiver and was at a loss until Mr. W. Wyse kindly supplied it with these two sufficient references.
page 219 note 1 Selections from Tibullus and Others, Critical Appendix, p. 212. Compare also p. 89.
page 219 note 1 Compare Heitland, Introduction, pp. lxxxi, Ixxxiii.
page 220 note 2 Cf. 462 ‘ inde maris uasti transuerso uertitur aestu’ and compare Heitland, op. cit. p. xcviii.
page 221 note 1 So, not ‘ busta timebit?’, should we punctuate with Francken