No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Juvenal, 1. 155–7
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
It is gratifying to read, in a recent issue of this periodical, Mr. A. A. Barrett's informed exposition of the syntax of this passage, even though he balks at the need to extract a grammatical subject for the verb deducit in 157 from the relative pronoun qua in the previous line. However his persuasive presentation of what he relies on as evidence in support of his suggested interpretation from the mosaics from Zliten in Tripolitania, which portray scenes in an amphitheatre, may seduce the unwary into an over-ready acquiescence in his proposal to read raeda in 157 for taeda of the manuscript tradition. Juvenal's words were correctly understood by T. Maguire as long ago as 1881, and the solution was restated with clarity in a note by W. V. Clausen recently.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1979
References
1 CQ N. S. 27 (1977), 438–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 These were first published by Aurigemma, S. in Dedalo 4 (1923), 397 ff.Google Scholar, with illustrations on pp. 399 and 401. They were later republished in his book I mosaici di Zliten, 1926, pp. 180 ff.Google Scholar, with the illustrations reproduced: the most detailed is that on p. 184 (fig. 114).
3 Hermatbena 4 (1881–1883), 422–3.Google Scholar
4 Harvard Stud, in Cl. Pbilol. 78 (1974), 181–3.Google Scholar
5 Wilson, H. L. in his edition of 1903 refers to Owen's article in CR 11 (1897), 401 f., and to Virgil Aen. 2. 693 f. in a footnote. Other editors are less helpful.Google Scholar
6 Mr. Barrett notes the inapplicability of latum to the tracks made by narrow-treaded wheels, but takes this difficulty in his stride (p. 439, near the bottom).
7 Cf. Juvenal 7. 227 and 234 f.
8 Add too Lucan 10. 500–2 and Silius Italicus 1. 354–7.
9 Curiously this passage has not, so far as I am aware, been brought into the discussion of these lines of Juvenal previously.
10 For the purpose of this discussion the problem of the variants pectore/gutture is unimportant. I cannot repress a persistent feeling that these may be both ancient, going back, for all we can tell, to Juvenal himself, although it seems that the more cogent examples of this phenomenon in his writings are concentrated in his book III, containing satires 7, 8, and 9.