{"title":"Some New Vergilian Loci and Second Thoughts on Old Ones*","authors":"E. Kraggerud","doi":"10.1080/00397679.2017.1350372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I. The text of Ecl. 3.100–102 is discussed and evaluated: quam is defended against quom and Cartault’s proposal [1897. Étude sur les Bucoliques de Virgile. Paris: Armand Colin] Hisce cutes – not adopted by editors and hardly visible in later apparatus critici, but recommended as worthy of attention by Heyworth [2015. “Notes on the Text and Interpretation of Vergil’s Eclogues and Georgics.” In Virgilian Studies. A Miscellany Dedicated to the Memory of Mario Geymonat [Studia Classica et Mediaevalia 10], edited by H.-C. Günther, 195–249. Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz] – is both brilliant and necessary. II. Based on grammar and context the abl. risu at Ecl. 4.60 is taken as modal: “Begin, little boy, to recognize (get to know) your mother with your smile”; then the final lines (62–63) must be restored to comply with Quintilian’s figura in numero (9.3.8) as qui risere (plural) followed by hunc “such a one” (singular); this change in number is shown to be in accordance with the use of a generalizing hic to denote quality. – III. At G. 2.22 I propose quos … vias construing reperire with two accusatives. – IV. At G. 2.266–268 I furnish parallels for similem … et as “like to” supporting Heyworth’s mutata … semina. – V. Rejecting my earlier position on A. 9.462–464 I now give a repentant vote in favour of Conte’s punctuation [2009. P. Vergilius Maro. Aeneis [Bibliotheca Teubneriana]. Berlin: De Gruyter] while at the same time adding an argument in its favour.","PeriodicalId":41733,"journal":{"name":"Symbolae Osloenses","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00397679.2017.1350372","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Symbolae Osloenses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00397679.2017.1350372","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
I. The text of Ecl. 3.100–102 is discussed and evaluated: quam is defended against quom and Cartault’s proposal [1897. Étude sur les Bucoliques de Virgile. Paris: Armand Colin] Hisce cutes – not adopted by editors and hardly visible in later apparatus critici, but recommended as worthy of attention by Heyworth [2015. “Notes on the Text and Interpretation of Vergil’s Eclogues and Georgics.” In Virgilian Studies. A Miscellany Dedicated to the Memory of Mario Geymonat [Studia Classica et Mediaevalia 10], edited by H.-C. Günther, 195–249. Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz] – is both brilliant and necessary. II. Based on grammar and context the abl. risu at Ecl. 4.60 is taken as modal: “Begin, little boy, to recognize (get to know) your mother with your smile”; then the final lines (62–63) must be restored to comply with Quintilian’s figura in numero (9.3.8) as qui risere (plural) followed by hunc “such a one” (singular); this change in number is shown to be in accordance with the use of a generalizing hic to denote quality. – III. At G. 2.22 I propose quos … vias construing reperire with two accusatives. – IV. At G. 2.266–268 I furnish parallels for similem … et as “like to” supporting Heyworth’s mutata … semina. – V. Rejecting my earlier position on A. 9.462–464 I now give a repentant vote in favour of Conte’s punctuation [2009. P. Vergilius Maro. Aeneis [Bibliotheca Teubneriana]. Berlin: De Gruyter] while at the same time adding an argument in its favour.