Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:23:35.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Noctes Statianae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ken Dowden
Affiliation:
University College, Cardiff

Abstract

These lines, which I cite according to Hill's forthcoming edition, have caused scholars some difficulty of interpretation. Trabibus has generally been taken to refer to battering-rams and thus, for instance, we find in the Delphin edition as an interpretation of trabibusqueloco the words ‘et strepenti ariete loco extrudunt lapides firme constrictos’’. Certainly, if they drive stones from their place with a ram, it is the ram that is the best candidate for the epithet sonorus – a candidature every ω manuscript rejects, except two alleged by Barth. P, however, has et ariete, replacing the rather uninformative adjective artata and providing an explicit noun for sonoro to agree with; and P was followed by the early editors Lindenbrogius and Cruceus. ‘Infeliciter’’, says Barth. Infelicitously indeed: et is deleted by P in the first hand and would not scan; without et the sentence does not construct and the line still does not scan – for the word is ariěte (see Hill ad 2.492).

Type
Shorter Notes
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1979

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

1 Discussion of which with the author has led to these jottings.

2 Mr. D. E. Hill observes that Klotz, Dilke, and others have wished to retain arietibus at 2.492.