Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:58:18.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1-2 , February 1891 , pp. 66 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1891

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 68 note 1 Wagner, forcing the order of the words with most un-Terentian harshness, explains quam cupida eram as explanatory, non dici potest as parenthetical. But the indicative in dependent questions cannot everywhere be explained away, and in any case there is a logical dependence.

page 72 note 1 Times, Jan. 1, 1891.

page 72 note 2 Athenaeum, Dec. 13, 1890.

page 73 note 1 Notiz. degli Scavi dei Line. Aug.—Sept. 1890.

page 73 note 1 Berl. Phil. Woch. 15 Nov. 1890.

page 73 note 2 Burl. Phil. Woch. 20 Deo. 1890.

page 73 note 3 Antiquary, Jan. 1891.

page 73 note 4 Berl. Phil. Woch. 29 Nov. 1890.

page 74 note 1 Antiquary, Jan. 1891.

page 74 note 1 Academy, 6 Dec. 1890.

page 74 note 1 Berl. Phil. Woch. 15 Nov. 18