qui non risere parentes
Clicks: 3
ID: 248968
1994
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #135 of 144 articles by views in south african journal of botany
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 144 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
On the traces of a recent article on Verg., Ecl. IV 62, the old question is anew examined, whether cui or qui should be read in that verse 62, and definitely qui ... parentes is shown to be the only reading that must be accepted, as it was accepted, almost four centuries ago, by our eminent Virgilian scholar Juan Luis de la Cerda.
| Reference Key |
elvira1994emerita<i>qui
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Antonio Ruiz de Elvira |
| Journal | south african journal of botany |
| Year | 1994 |
| DOI |
10.3989/emerita.1994.v62.i2.393
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.