[97]: Ad _Eun._ 1055.
[98]: Ad _And._ 633, _Eun._ 233, 451, _Hec._ 63, _Ad._
259.
[99]: Ad _Phor._ 145.
[100]: Ad _Ad._ 200.
[101]: Ad _Eun._ 187.
[102]: VII. 2.8-10.
[103]: Cf. Diom. 291, 23 ff., K; Ribbeck, _Rom. Trag._ p. 634,
believes that this was the rule, but he is apparently alone in the
opinion. Cf. Budensteiner in Bursian's _Jahresbericht_ CVI, p. 162
ff., who agrees with the proof of van Eck, _Quaest. Sten. Rom._
(Amsterdam 1892), that it was an isolated intance.
[104]: We are not even remotely concerned with metrical analysis. For that
phase, with a discussion as to the effect of the various metrical systems,
see Klotz, _Grundzuge der altromischen Metrik_, esp. p. 370 ff. Cf.
Duff, _A Lit. Hist. of Rome_, p. 196. Note Donat, _de Com._
VIII. 9 and Diom. 491, 23K.
[105]: For arguments as to the divisions of the three classes, v., besides
Klotz, Ritschl, _Parerga_, p. 40; Conradt, _Die metrische
Komposition der Komodien des Terenz_ (Berlin 1876); Bucheler in _Neue
Jahr. fur Phil._ CXLI (1871), p. 273 ff.; Dziatzko in _Rhein.
Mus._ XXVI (1871), pp. 97-100: G. Hermann, _de Canticis in Romanorum
Fabulis, Opusc._ I. 290; which have all been landmarks in the
discussion. Cf. also Teuffel, _Rom. Lit._, Sec. 16. Sec. 5, etc.
[106]: Cf. Cic. _de Or._ II.46.193.
[107]: Cf. _As._ 265, 587, 640, 403, _Bac._ 611, _Cap._ 637,
_Cas.
Pages:
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112