previous next

[59] Aut tibi iam nulla est. This reasoning of Cydippe, however specious, is manifestly fallacious. Whatever degree of favour Acontius might be in with the Goddess, his prayers could not avail to pacify her resentment, unless Cydippe at the same time resolved to make good her engagements. For, as breach of vows had first provoked her rage, there was no way left to remove her anger, but by a removal of the offence. Acontius therefore had done all that could be expected from him: he had acquainted Cydippe in what manner she was to hope for relief; and, if she refused the terms, no blame could lie upon him. This will be better understood, by considering attentively what follows, near the conclusion of the epistle.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: