Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1975

Publication Title

Classical Philology

Volume

70

Issue

3

Pages

204-206

Publisher Name

The University of Chicago Press

Abstract

As it now stands in current editions of Lucan, the sentence contained in 8. 860-61 makes little or no sense. In dealing with it editors have resorted to emendation and various manipulations of punctuation, while commentators and translators have unsuccessfully attempted to wrench some meaning out of it.' Two versions of these lines have gained overwhelming acceptance by editors of Lucan. The first reads es of manuscript U and takes Fortuna as vocative. Thus Hosius and Bourgery: "nunc es pro numine summo / hoc tumulo, Fortuna, iacens." The other version-and indeed the more popular of the two-reads est with manuscripts ZMPGV and understands Fortuna as the nominative subject of the verb: "nunc est pro numine summo / hoc tumulo Fortuna iacens." So Weber, Haskins, Postgate, Housman, and Duff-except that Weber inserts a comma after summo and Postgate one after iacens.

Comments

Author Posting. © 1975 The University of Chicago Press. This article is posted here by permission of the University of Chicago Press for personal use, not for redistribution. The article was published in Classical Philology, Volume 70, Issue 3, July 1975.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Download

Included in

Classics Commons

Share

COinS