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: 13 February 2009
page 174 note 1 Similarly Rowell, H. T., ‘The “Cam-panian” Origin of Cn. Naevius’ Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome, xix (1949), 17 ff.Google Scholar, who, though he quotes Marmorale's first edition, does not seem to be aware of having been anticipated, (I depend for this statement on Marmorale, though p. 3 n. 11.)
page 175 note 1 Boll. di Fil. Class. xvii (1907), 35–7. I do not know this paper and can only surmise that Buccicarelli's unfortunate idea was prompted by Plautus, Amph. 723.
page 175 note 2 See on this point the excellent paper of Timpanaro, S., Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa, 1949, pp. 186 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 175 note 3 I disregard his second ‘parallel’, which has a short first fall (cf. Leo, cited below. p. 55) and a diaeresis after the second rise.
page 176 note 1 I gather up a few more points of this sort: Com. 49 R capêrrata not caperata; 88 cŭmeo: not an irregular hiatus but a perfectly normal scansion; 93 patres: certainly not = patres conscripti; 116 persībus not persibus.