Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T12:33:14.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Notes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1921

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 103 note 1 Exclusive of cases with enclitic que (I. 14, III. 68, VI. 21, VIII. 34, IX. 59), the last of which at least is counted by Dr. Warde Fowler. These are not pure instances, and the absence of a conflict of word accent and ictus has the effect of softening the harshness of the rhythm. The two cases of the elision of a dissyllabic word (VII. 7, IX. 51) are very doubtfully to be reckoned. If admitted, they would give an earlier position to VII. and IX.

page 103 note 2 Cf. with the average ratio for the Eclogues (1/32·65)—Culex (1/20·7), Lucretius Bk. I. (1/34·87), Georgics (1/100·16), Ciris (1/108), Catullus LXIV. (1/204), Aeneid I.–VI. (1/135·8), on the same basis of calculation.

page 104 note 1 As an example of the difference cf. the smoothness of crudelis tú quoque máter of VIII. 49 and 51 with the original crudelis tú mágis Órpheu (Culex 292).

page 104 note 2 There appears to be a real anomaly here in the position of V., which is generally placed soon after II. and III. (11. 86–7).

page 104 note 3 The cases are: I. 29, 150, 356, 380; II. 20, 49, 82, 308, 321, 447, 458, 486; III. 8, 35, 42, 84, 176, 260, 416, 496, 499; IV. 84, 324, 418, 498.