Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T07:57:21.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Gallus, 8–9

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. S. Hollis
A. S. Hollis
Affiliation:
Keble College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As far as I am aware, it has generally been taken for granted that ‘Kato’ in the pentameter must be vocative. The double vocative ‘Visce’—‘Kato’ does not seem objectionable if ‘non’ were repeated as first word of the pentameter (e.g., as Professor Nisbet suggests, ‘non ego, Visce, / non quadrupla, Kato, …). None the less this is unexpected, and it seems at least worth considering the possibility that 'Kato’ might be nominative. The most plausible (if not the only) way of accounting for a nominative would be as subject of a relative clause. Further consequences would follow almost inevitably: the word-ending doubtfully read

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , December 1980 , pp. 541 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1980

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 This idea occurred to me before I had seen a photograph, or had been given precise inforation about spaces and traces. As to length, Mr. P. J. Parsons kindly traced out for me ‘quae vult dupla’ pronouncing it half a letter too long. But ‘quae volt’ seems at least as likely (note ‘quom’ in line 2), and in this scribe's hand would probably save a little space, bringing the restoration within an acceptable range as far as length is concerned (Mr Parsons agrees). The crucial point is whether the trace of what, in my restoration, would have to be the D in DUPLA is so definite as to rule out this possibility. This trace is described (Nisbet et. al., p. 145) as ’apparently a short oblique, desceding from left to right, a little above base-level(i.e. an interpunct; or from the right side of A, K, M, R, X)’, which leads Nisbet to give most consideration to ‘quadrupla’. Mr W. S. Barrett suggests to me that the ‘apparent short oblique’ might conceivably be a cross-section from the thick base of a D.

2 The above note presupposes familiarity with the first publication by Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet in JRS 69 (1979), 125–55. I am grateful to several colleagues for discussion, particularly Messrs. W. S. Barrett, P. J. Parsons, and N. J. Richardson.Google Scholar