No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
I Consider first line 58, though its interpretation cannot be separated from that of the ensuing lines. The editors put a comma after iuuenem and must therefore intend propiorque iubenti to be taken with conticuit. It seems more natural, however, to take it with what precedes. The obvious function of propior in such a case is to qualify or amplify an idea already stated, as in Stat. Ach. 2. 94–95:
page 163 note 1 Virg. Georg. 4. 387; Ov. Met. 11. 249; Luc. 10. 510; Stat. Ach. 1. 136; Sil. 7. 421 (cf. the whole ensuing passage in Silius).
page 163 note 2 Cf. also Ciris 391–6.Google Scholar
page 166 note 1 Cf. Turnebus's note on Manilius, , loc. cit., quoted by Housman.Google Scholar