Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:26:54.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palatine Apollo: A Reply to Professor Richmond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. H. Bishop
J. H. Bishop
Affiliation:
The University of New England, Armidale, N.S. W., Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Professor Richmond's reply (C.Q. N.S. viii. 180–4) t o m y article on Palatine Apollo (C.Q. N.S. vi. 187–92) is argued with his usual enthusiasm and cogency. This reply to him, which has been delayed by my departure for Australia, must begin with an expression of the respect that I feel for an antagonist far more able and experienced than I can claim to be. Indeed, it was while lecturing on Ovid, Tristia 3 that I first met Professor Richmond's masterly article on the Augustan Palatium (J.R.S. iv [1914], 193–226). From this article my enthusiasm for the subject began, and I know that Professor Richmond has always welcomed discussion and argument about the famous Augustan temple of Apollo on the Palatine. I can but join him in urging any who may have been interested by our discussion to study his original article which contains much more besides a discussion of the site of Apollo's temple.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 11 , Issue 1-2 , May 1961 , pp. 127 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1961

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.)

References

1 I said in my earlier article that Statius, Siluae 4. 2. 20–21Google Scholaruicina Tonantis regia might be one of the keys to the mystery and dismissed the view that the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol was meant. Professor Richmond says it must be the Capitol. ‘The height of the cella of Apollo Palatinus above sea-level is a few feet greater than the height of the cella of Iuppiter Capitolinus. ‘I wonder if Statius knew this. It would take more than a few feet to justify Statius' stupet, particularly when the distance between the two sites is taken into consideration: and regia is an odd word for a temple, anyway, Since writing this note, I have had my attention drawn to a further important contribution to this subject by G. Lugli, ‘Commento topografico all’ elegia la del III libro del Tristia ', Studi Ovidian (Rome 1959), pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar