Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T10:01:30.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Manilivs II. And III

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

H. W. Garrod
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the Classical Quarterly, vol. ii. No. 2, reviewing Breiter's recent text of the Astronomica, together with Housman's edition of Book i, I made a number of suggestions of my own on some of the principal difficulties in the text and interpretation of Manilius. I did not, however, bring my notes down beyond Book i. In the present paper I propose to traverse some of the more thorny places of ii. and iii. I shall try to make what I have to say to some extent a continued review of Breiter (and even of Housman).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 1908, pp. 175 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1908

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 176 note 1 eximo quod became eximioq., and the -q was then omitted metri gratia; eximiam followed, for which eximium is a mere blunder. Reviewing this passage I now think that eximum perhaps stands for consilium = csilium = exilium. Cf. consilium in 4. 900 (a closely parallel passage).

page 178 note 1 In that passage, too, some of the difficulties may come from omissions. One or more lines beginning mitto quod may very well have dropped out.

page 181 note 1 Bentley's (or Huet's: cf. Ellis ad loc.) correction decuma at 5. 53 is just such another mathematically demonstrable emendation.