![]() ( Halm) or monementis, is probably the right spelling cf. Mandare monumentis- letteris illustrare: common phrases in Cic., e.g. Of course if quia be read above, eum must be ejected altogether. for expressions like me illum ipsum ( Ad Att. Such a combination of pronouns is vainly defended by Goer. gave quia, which was the vulgate reading down to Halm, Have in the place of this quod with variants que, quae, qui, Velit: Walker reads velis with St Jerome. often makes a speaker use iste of a person who is present. have et si quid, bad Latin altered by Manutius. The spelling percunctari rests on false derivation ( Corss. To take it as nom., understanding faciat, is clearly wrong. Ecquid forte Roma novi: Roma is the ablative, and some verb like attulisset is omitted. Atque ea: Halm brackets ea, quite needlessly,įor its insertion is like Cic. Hic pauca primo: for the omission of locuti, cf. Which only means " tolerably," to mean " sufficiently." The words satis longo intervallo simply = " after a tolerably long halt." For the clause ut mos, etc., cf. Some editors stumble ( Goerenz miserably) by taking intervallo of distance in space, instead of duration in time, while others wrongly press satis, May note that the separation of satis from longo by the word eum is quite in Cicero' s style ( see my note on 25 quanta id magis). The emphatic ille is often repeated by the unemphatic is, cf. The text is sound the repetition of pronouns ( illum,Įum) is quite Ciceronian. but Halm, after Davies, reads se visentum for satis eum, Satis eum longo intervallo: so all the MSS. 106) etc., but not abesse officio ( De Off. Ab eius villa: the prep is absent from the MSS.,īut Wesenberg ( Em. uses the dramatic form of the dialogue in order to magnify hisĪttachment for Varro. uses the contracted forms of such subjunctives, as well as the full forms,īut not intermediate forms like audiissemus. Varro was much more the friend of Atticus than of Cic., see Introd. Varro agrees, and promises an exposition of the principles of Antiochus ( 13, 14). to discuss thoroughly the difference between Antiochus and Philo. This leads to a proposal on the part of Cic. Varro refers to Antiochus as an authority on the other side. defends himself,Īnd appeals to Philo for the statement that the New Academy is in harmony with the Old. with deserting the Old Academy for the New. Varro putting the request on one side charges Cic. He gives reasons why he should himself make the attempt, and instancing the success of Brutus, again begs Varro to write on philosophy ( 9- 12). ![]() Latins may surely imitate Greek philosophers as well as Greek poets and orators. lauds this devotion, but demurs to the theory that philosophy written in Latin is useless. He greatly believes in philosophy, but prefers to send hisįriends to Greece for it, while he devotes himself to subjects which the Greeks have not treated ( 7, 8). Varro thinks philosophy written in Latin can serve no useful purpose, and points to the failures of the Roman Epicureans ( 4- 6). Cic., after adroitly reminding Varro that the promised dedication of the De Lingua Latina is too long delayed, turns the conversation towards philosophy, by asking Varro why he leaves this subject untouched ( 2, 3). Cic., Varro and Atticus meet at Cumae ( 1).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |