Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.03.33
Solodow on Murgatroyd on Solodow on P. Murgatroyd and G.G. Fagan, From Augustus to Nero. Response to 2007.02.47
Response by Joseph B. Solodow, Southern Connecticut State University and Yale University (email@example.com)
A brief reply to Paul Murgatroyd's response to my review of the anthology edited by him and Garrett Fagan. About insecutus on p. 87, he is entirely right, and I am so entirely in the wrong as to deserve a dunce cap. About res plural meaning "state" (p. 106), however, I agree that it is possible, though I don't believe it is necessarily right in this passage, and for support I call upon the judgment of one who knows Tacitus far better than I, A. J. Woodman, who in his translation takes the word as I do. About eo on p. 154, I stoutly maintain that there is a difference between the adverb, which means "(to) there," and the ablative, whether it be of cause ("because of that") or degree of difference ("to that extent"); the comparatives in the two clauses strongly incline me towards the latter. Finally, for all that students will learn from the vocabulary, omittent might be the present: because quantities are not marked, the verb could be mistaken for second conjugation. About the rest, I stand by my views, while happily noting that Prof. Murgatroyd did not seem displeased with the great bulk of the review, which found much to praise in his work.
[For a further response by Paul Murgatroyd to this response, please BMCR 2007.05.02.]