Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T15:03:35.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Note on an Old Grammarian, with a Correction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Original Contributions
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1920

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

page 29 note 1 Perhaps I should rather say that this is what all recent editors agree that he did say. The best MSS. have ‘dum repugnantibus.’ Others and earlier edd. ‘interdum repugnantibus.’ Of these the first is nonsense, and the second does not give the antithesis which the sentence evidently requires. Whether it is merely an attempt to emend ‘dum repugnantibus,’ or whether it is partially inspired by Virgilian orthodoxy, I should not like to say.

page 30 note 1 I do not mean to imply that the need of the Latin Grammatici for a Roman Homer is the cause why Virgil is to us what he is. While I think that he owed his position originally to what we may call an accident, I do not suppose that he could have maintained it without higher claims. At least, in the interest of the sanity of human judgments, my own included, I hope not.