Article contents
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0009840X00206525/resource/name/firstPage-S0009840X00206525a.jpg)
- Type
- Original Contributions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1902
References
page 340 note 1 For uir and fer confused see Prop, ii 6 24, Ou. her. ix 141.
page 342 note 1 I subjoin for comparison the readings of Baehrens and Leo.
Baehrens: praeda Charonis agor uigilis. flagrantia taedis limina tum lucent infernis obdita templis. obuia Tisiphone cet.
Leo: praeda Charonis agor. uiden at flagrantia taedis limina collucent? infestis obuia templis, obuia Tisiphone cet.
page 343 note 1 Baehrens' ‘otia quaerenti frustra ceruice puellae’ incurs the similar objection that it does not account for the reading of B.
page 344 note 1 ‘male Bentleium Minyas reposuisse patet’ Lachmann.
page 345 note 1 Such as ‘Fabricius, ducibusque aequata laude tribunus.’
- 1
- Cited by