Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:34:43.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bos Piger or Piger Caballus?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Extract

Professor Huxley's article on ‘Bos, Bentley, and Byron’ was delightful to read; it provokes these thoughts of mine.

Majority opinion proves nothing, but it is solidly on the side of bos piger. Kiessling, for instance, and F. Villeneuve (in his 1967 Budé text) place the comma after piger. So do Lewis and Short, the TLL, the compilers of the new Oxford Latin Dictionary, and Dominicus Bo in his Lexicon Horatianum. Acron, Pseudo-Acron, and Porphyrion offer no comment. Piger is attached to caballus by Lane Cooper, and rather hesitantly by A. S. Wilkins. The latter felt that this better fitted the general sense of Horace's argument, a point to which I recur later. Wilkins was less confident of the rhythm of the line as a pointer to the ascription, and mentioned that many (unspecified) editors took piger as going with both nouns; this, indeed, might be an attractive compromise.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1973

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 122 note 1 Huxley, H. H., G & R xix, 2 (10, 1972), 187 ff.Google Scholar

page 122 note 2 Concordance to Horace (Washington, 1916).Google Scholar

page 122 note 3 In his Macmillan edition of the Epistles (London, 1883), 181.Google Scholar

page 122 note 4 Sat. 134. 2.Google Scholar

page 122 note 5 Frag. 163 Marx ( = 161 Krenkel).