Classical Quarterly 24 (3-4):183- (1930)

Abstract
A Previous article in this journal gave some account of Terence quotations in Priscian. A similar account for Servius is necessary. Umpf en bach's summary is far from accurate; and it has the serious defect that no distinction is made between Servius proper and the material peculiar to the enlarged Commentary. With Thilo's warning that the evidence is all against the assumption that the enlarged Commentary is a truer representation of what Servius himself wrote, we should, in any problem relating to Servius, confine ourselves strictly to what we know to be his work
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0009838800004274
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,337
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-12-09

Total views
26 ( #439,351 of 2,508,109 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,711 of 2,508,109 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes