Tacitus' use and adaptation of phrases from earlier Latin writers is well known. By this means he adds to his own context something of the atmosphere belonging to the context from which the phrase is borrowed. So, for example, when at Ann. 4. 1 he describes Seianus in language modelled on Sallust's description of Catiline , the reader is immediately made aware that he is to expect Seianus to display the same resolute villainy that Catiline had shown.

The Brotherton Collection, which now forms part of the Library of the University of Leeds, contains a manuscript of Cicero's De Officiis which is usually assigned to the twelfth century. On page 3 of the catalogue of the Brotherton Library the manuscript is incorrectly said to contain ‘DE OFFICIIS LIBER PRIMUS’. In fact the manuscript contains all three books with the exception of nine leaves which have been removed. At present the manuscript consists of 41 folios on vellum measuring 11 (...) in. X 7½ in. Ff. 39–41 are written by a later hand. (shrink)

Tacitus' use and adaptation of phrases from earlier Latin writers is well known. By this means he adds to his own context something of the atmosphere belonging to the context from which the phrase is borrowed. So, for example, when at Ann. 4. 1 he describes Seianus in language modelled on Sallust's description of Catiline, the reader is immediately made aware that he is to expect Seianus to display the same resolute villainy that Catiline had shown.

Editors and writers on the prosody of Plautus and Terence disagree about the prosody of the final -a in the nominative and vocative of proper names taken from the Greek First Declension. The fact that they are often quoted as examples of syllaba anceps either at the diaeresis of longer iambic lines or at loci Iacobsohniani would seem to imply that they normally scan as Latin First Declension nouns with short -a in the nominative and vocative singular. So R. Kauer (...) in the commentary of his edition of Terence's Andria on line 301 writes ‘die griechischen Eigennamen auf -a —Sosia, Byrria, Chaerea, Phaedria usw.—haben bei Terenz stets kurzes -a’. (shrink)

Editors and writers on the prosody of Plautus and Terence disagree about the prosody of the final -a in the nominative and vocative of proper names taken from the Greek First Declension. The fact that they are often quoted as examples of syllaba anceps either at the diaeresis of longer iambic lines or at loci Iacobsohniani would seem to imply that they normally scan as Latin First Declension nouns with short -a in the nominative and vocative singular. So R. Kauer (...) in the commentary of his edition of Terence's Andria on line 301 writes ‘die griechischen Eigennamen auf -a —Sosia, Byrria, Chaerea, Phaedria usw.—haben bei Terenz stets kurzes -a’. (shrink)

From the beginning of the seventeenth century it has generally been held that the second Medicean is the parent of all the other extant manuscripts. In two articles C. W. Mendell has demonstrated that Leidensis B.P.L. 16. B is the manuscript once owned by Rudolphus Agricola and later by Th. Ryck, whose edition makes frequent allusion to its readings. Mendell's attempt to show further that L represents a tradition independent of the Medicean has found little support until recently, when E. (...) Koestermann, in the course of preparing the latest Teubner edition of Annals and Histories became convinced from his own study of L that Mendell's view—in spite of some arguments of dubious validity—was essentially correct. In an article in Philologus and in the preface to his edition of Histories Koestermann has marshalled the arguments which he believes prove L's independence of the Medicean line of descent. Since the new valuation that Koestermann puts upon L has produced a drastic revision of both text and apparatus criticus in his new editions, it may be worth while to examine the evidence that Koestermann adduces in support of his belief in L's independence. (shrink)

From the beginning of the seventeenth century it has generally been held that the second Medicean is the parent of all the other extant manuscripts. In two articles C. W. Mendell has demonstrated that Leidensis B.P.L. 16. B is the manuscript once owned by Rudolphus Agricola and later by Th. Ryck, whose edition makes frequent allusion to its readings. Mendell's attempt to show further that L represents a tradition independent of the Medicean has found little support until recently, when E. (...) Koestermann, in the course of preparing the latest Teubner edition of Annals and Histories became convinced from his own study of L that Mendell's view—in spite of some arguments of dubious validity—was essentially correct. In an article in Philologus and in the preface to his edition of Histories Koestermann has marshalled the arguments which he believes prove L's independence of the Medicean line of descent. Since the new valuation that Koestermann puts upon L has produced a drastic revision of both text and apparatus criticus in his new editions, it may be worth while to examine the evidence that Koestermann adduces in support of his belief in L's independence. (shrink)

Professor Skutsch has convicted me of one error—the inclusion of Eun. 465 in my list on p. 208. I do not feel, however, that he has proved that Phaedria is a dactyl in Terence. The essence of his argument, as I see it, depends on the figures in the last two rows of the first two columns on p. 90, and may be stated as follows: ‘Forms undeniably dactylic, such as Pamphile, are always followed by a disyllabic thesis. The thesis (...) after all critical examples of Phaedria is disyllabic. Therefore “Phaedria is proved to be a dactyl”.’ My objection to this argument is not that it is not a logical syllogism, but that it seeks to establish the prosody of Phaedria without considering the prosody of the other Phaedria-typt1 names in Terence. These are listed on p. 208 of my article . The following cases, I suggest, merit consideration. (shrink)