Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T09:26:39.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Sallustian Sv Asoriae—II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Hugh Last
Hugh Last
Affiliation:
St. John's College, Oxford.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the first part of this paper an attempt was made to show by various considerations that the second Suasoria of cod. Vat. lat. 3864 cannot be the work of Sallust. There still remains, however, a final argument which, partly because through some mischance it has never been elaborated before and partly because it leads to a slightly more definite conclusion than the foregoing, deserves separate and fuller statement. The critic whose name is most closely associated with the view that these two Suasoriae are not by a single hand is Hellwig; and though his work is now generally ignored—to some extent perhaps because he omitted the more convincing reasons for the theory he was urging—a fresh examination of the evidence may suggest that, so long as he is merely combating the assumption of single authorship, Hellwig is on the right lines. After that, unfortunately, he goes completely astray: in trying to prove that the second Suasoria is Sallustian and the first an inferior imitation, he is wide of the mark. Had he only taken a hint already available in Schenkl's review of Jordan and backed the first as authentic, he might have saved his successors much controversy.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 17 , Issue 3-4 , July 1923 , pp. 151 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1923

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 151 note 1 Vide Schenkl, p. 672.

page 153 note 1 Vide Jordan, p. 9.

page 154 note 1 Vide Jordan, p. 10.

page 154 note 2 Vide Bell. Cat. 6, 5; 52, 3. Bell. Iug. 3, 2; 87, 2. Ep. Mithr. 17.

page 154 note 3 II. 8, 4; 13, I; 13, 6.

page 154 note 4 Vide Jordan, p. 5.

page 154 note 5 Vide Bell. Cat. 12, 5; 20, 9. Bell. Iug. 68, 3.

page 155 note 1 Vide p. 98 supra.

page 155 note 2 Vide pp. 96 sq. supra.

page 155 note 3 Vide the authorities collected in Pauly-Wissowa, R. E. art. Domitius, No. 22.

page 155 note 4 Vide Plut. Pomp. 10, 3; Appian, Bella ciu. I. 96, 6–7.

page 155 note 5 Vide Livy, , Ep. 89Google Scholar ; and further Pauly-Wissowa, R. E. art. Junius, No. 51.

page 155 note 6 Vide Plut. Pomp. 16, 4; and further Pauly-Wissowa, R. E. art. Junius, No. 52.

page 155 note 7 Vide e.g. Livy, Ep. 88Google Scholar; Plut. Sulla 30, 2 sqq.; and for other authorities Pauly-Wissowa, R. E. IV., col. 1548 sq.

page 156 note 1 Vide Gebhardt, p. 10.

page 156 note 2 Vide p. 91 supra.

page 157 note 1 Vide p. 138 supra.

page 157 note 2 vide Hauler, p. 130.

page 157 note 3 Vide Jordan, p. 27.

page 158 note 1 Vide Spandau, p. 21

page 158 note 2 Vide Hellwig, p. 14.

page 158 note 3 The best that can be found is perhaps Or, Lep. I: ‘clementia et probitas uostra, Quirites, quibus per ceteras gentis maxumi et clari estis…’

page 158 note 4 Vide Ahlberg, , Prolegomena, p. 179Google Scholar.

page 158 note 5 Vide Corte (1724), p. 1019.

page 158 note 6 Vide Meyer, p. 584.

page 158 note 7 Vide Hellwig, p. 16.

page 158 note 8 Vide Corte (1724), p. 1028.

page 158 note 9 Vide Kühner-Stegmann, , Ausfükrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, IIte Aufl., IIter Bd., Iter Teil (Hannover, 1912), p. 724Google Scholar.

page 160 note 1 Vide Jordan, p. 14.

page 160 note 2 Vide p. 141 supra.

page 161 note 1 Cic. Tusc. Disp. V. 35, 100.

page 162 note 1 Vide p. 94 supra.