Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T08:48:59.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correspondence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

D. A. Slater
D. A. Slater
Affiliation:
Cardiff
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Correspondence
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , September 1912 , pp. 206 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1912

References

1 This ul' (= vel) has undoubtedly got into the text of O at XCV. 10, and XXII. 15, and is probably accountable for the monstrous ‘guioclero’ (=‘guro ul’ ero,' i.e. ‘guro vel goero’) at LXVI. 6. See Bährens’ Commentary, ad. loc.

2 Professor Ellis on a kindred device in Catullus LXIV. See Catulli Veronensis Liber, p. 260 sq. Cf. also line 3 of the Virgilian parody of this poem (Catal. VI.)—‘Tuone nunc puella talis et tuo,’ which surely suggests a similar ‘iteration’ in the original.