Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T05:14:17.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Composition of the Stichus.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

W. B. Sedgwick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 39 , Issue 3-4 , May 1925 , pp. 59 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1925

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

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.