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: 16 February 2009
1 Defined (p. 2) as those whose ‘composition is generally determined by the Roman view of rhetoric that largely mirrors Hellenistic rhetorical doctrine’
2 Defined (p. 2) as those whose ‘composition…relies more on the tradition and generic determination of epic speech composition’.
3 I.e. speeches within speeches.
4 I.e. where ‘two or more speakers engage in conversation’ (p. 16).
5 I.e. where Statius refers to a ‘speech’ but does not quote its contents in any form.
6 I.e. where the poet refers to the content of a ‘speech’ but not in Oratio Obliqua, e.g. 3.669–70.
7 P. 30. D.'s general understanding of statistical method is minimal. For instance, it is meaningless to say that the average length of a speech in the Thebaid is 13 lines when the three longest are 449 5/6, 115 5/6, and 75 7/12 lines long (p. 277), and the four shortest are one word each (p. 7, where D. erroneously claims that there are five such; I pass over the question of whether there is such a thing as a one word speech).
8 P. 31.
9 D.'s ‘247–282’ is an error. A stranger error is that some gremlin has converted every ‘Aepytus’ to ‘Aegyptus’.
10 1.1–4.645; 4.646–6.94; 7.1–12.819.
11 P. 41.
12 P. 210.
13 Pp. 245–6.
14 P. 247. Note that of those 20 lines only 9 end in -es or -is and that, of the four that end in -is, one has a short vowel.
15 P. 263.