Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:48:09.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks on the Culex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

A. E. Housman
Get accessRights & 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.'

Information

Type
Original Contributions
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 16 , Issue 7 , October 1902, pp. 339 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1902

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 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.’