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: 27 February 2009
page 296 note 1 See the valuable remarks of J.C. Bramble in Farrago (Journal of Cambridge University Classical Society), no. 5 (1969), 3–4.
page 296 note 2 Cf. E. W. Leach, ‘Georgic Imagery in the Ars Amatoria’, T.A.P.A. xcv (1964), 154; contra, for the error as the real offence, R. Rogers, ‘The Emperor's displeasure and Ovid’, ibid, xcvii (1966), 373–8.
page 296 note 3 Cf. W. Marg, Atti del convegno internazionale ovidiano, ii (1959), 345–54 (= Ovid [Wege d. Forsch. xcii, 1968], 502–12); Kenney, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. N.S. II (1965), 39–41 (= Ovid. 517–22). I am now disposed to think that Marg may if anything have underrated the animosity displayed towards Augustus.
page 297 note 1 There is not space to go into Williams's discussion of the invocation of Venus (pp. 143 ff.), which I find profoundly unsatisfying. His stylistic judgements of certain limited contexts (pp. 717, 786) are helpful.
page 297 note 2 Williams sees indignation at Odes iii 19. 1–8 (p. 115), ‘outspokenness’, ‘frank sensuality’, and ‘abandon’ at ii. 12. 25–8 (pp. 299 ff.). I confess that I am harder move.
page 297 note 3 This latter poem is said to be among those which ‘take new poetic life’ from the use of peculiarly Catullan imagery; but what is a reader supposed to make of the poem as a whole? One would like to see Rudd's note (T.A.P.A. xc [1959], 338–42) at least mentioned, if only so that Williams (whose silence one does not know how to construe) could refute it.
page 298 note 1 But it is a pity that there is no reference to Kidd's excellent article in AUMLA 20 (1963), 298–308Google Scholar. In general the bibliography seems excessively selective, though one recognizes that in a book of this range some restrictions must be imposed. The German sources that Williams cites will for the most part be a closed book to his student and unprofessional readers, and it would have been a kindness to offer them more secondary English material. To take a single instance, apropos of trajections (pp. 714ff.) it might have been useful to cite Postgate, ‘Flaws in Classical Research’, Proc. Brit. Acad. iii. Cf. the preceding note.
page 298 note 2 One small but to me intensely irritating pin-prick is the spelling ‘Juppiter’, which combines pedantry with incorrectness. Some body at the Clarendon Press should really have put his foot down about this!