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: 27 October 2009
1 But it seems to have occurred also in Ἀδ. á; cf. Ter. Ad. 5. 3. 17.
2 See Lindsay, , Anc. Eds. of P., pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar
3 E.g. much of I. ii., II. i. (Running Slave motive), II. ii., III. ii., IV. i., IV. ii., V. (all). In my opinion everything, except the scenes absolutely necessary for the plot, shows signs of being from P.'s hands. As this is an early play, it seems as if the prominence of the Roman element is no sign of lateness as many argue (the Roman element had been prominent in Naevius). So the M.G. has an exceptionally large number of Roman passages; the Cist. not so many; but see I. i. 57–77, I. iii., and most of II. i. (N.B.—These are the only plays known to be early.) To my mind the signs of earliness are—(1) a certain verbosity, (2) lack of lyrical metres, (3) frequency of archaic forms (?), (4) comparative lack of skill in handling the plot.