No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2009
1 cf. Bader, B., ZPE 12 (1973), 270–276Google Scholar, Questa, C., Maia 26 (1974), 314Google Scholar. Dingel, reiterates his view at ZPE 14 (1974), 168.Google Scholar
2 See Strzelecki, Wl., Quaestiones Verrianae (Warsaw, 1932), pp. 81–92.Google Scholar
3 It would be better to make Paulus' commentary on the Historiae of L. Coelius Antipater (Charis. pp. 161. 8–12, 181. 10–12, 281. 23–6) the source of Julius Romanus' statement than to hypothesise a commentary on one of Afranius' scripts (as do Marx, F., RE I i [1893], 710Google Scholar, and Mariotti, Sc., Der kleine Pauly 1 (1964), p. 108).Google Scholar
4 Awareness of Verrius' tendency to cite units of metre rather than of sense (see J. Vahlen, Ennianae poesis reliquiae 2 (Leipzig, 1903), pp. lxv–lxxi) would have assisted with the problem of punctuating and interpreting Afran. 15 (= 17 Daviault, p. 147).
5 Daviault omits Priscian's reference to Caper from his report of the context of Afran. 16 (Gramm. Lat. II. 499. 17–500. 11).
6 The Danieline citations probably stem in the first instance from the commentary of Donatus. Servius includes none (cf. Lloyd, R. B., HSCPh 65 (1961), 302–304)Google Scholar, an interesting pointer to how the early fifth century school regarded the Togata. Schol. Ver. Virg. Buc. 7. 33 (citing Atta 10–11) comes expressly from the commentary of Aemilius Asper; perhaps also those on Aen. 2. 670 and 10. 564.
7 On the common source of the fourth century chapters de tropis see Barwick, K., Remmius Palaemon und die römische Ars grammatica (Leipzig, 1922 [Philologus, Suppl. 15. 2]), pp. 42–43.Google Scholar