No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 February 2009
page 100 note 1 Although some (e.g. Ruperti, Pearson and Strong, Mayor) seem content simply to equate antrum with ‘litter’.
page 100 note 2 Hence of course the alternatives: he does not pretend to know what type of conveyance the lady actually uses. (For convenience I have assumed a litter is involved, in view of the emphasis on its spaciousness.)
page 101 note 1 For the ablative cf. Hardie on Sat. i. 13, and a useful note by Maguire, T., Journal of Philology iii. (1871) 232 f.Google Scholar
page 101 note 2 Pearson and Strong were right in the commentary of the first edition, but in their second changed over to the general interpretation of Liburna.
page 101 note 3 Cf. Torr, Ancient Ships (1895), 16 f.
page 101 note 4 Cf. Cambridge Ancient History, x. 236 f.