Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:57:05.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Lucan IX

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

W. B. Anderson
W. B. Anderson
Affiliation:
The University, Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hosius and others have suspected v. 87 on the ground that it is omitted by most of the good MSS. But the omission, as Weber saw, is due to the similar endings of vv. 86–87 (cura-hora). It is difficult to see how a student of Lucan could convince himself that any other person is the author of v. 87, which not only improves the passage, but is wholly in keeping with the gloomy fatalism of Pompey as represented by Lucan in many other places. Francken's objection that the emphatic me should have a pronoun contrasted with it may be sufficiently answered by a reference to vv. 396–398 of the same book; many instances from other authors could be added.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 1916 , pp. 151 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1916

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

page 152 note 1 For this use of nos addressed to a single person see Postgate in Hermathena, XVIII. (1914), p. 94Google Scholar. Cf. uestra, Sen. ad heluiam, I. I.

page 152 note 2 In V. 98 mandata peregi is used like peregiiussa, II. 338 sq. Mandata there refers to Pompey's instructions to Cornelia to convey his message (the mandata of v. 85) to his sons. The repetition of the word in a different sense is awkward, but quite Latin.

page 156 note 1 Cunctetur is also possible.