Quae Fortuna is rightly explained by Wagn. as ‘quae alia fortuna.’ Forb. comp. Aesch. Prom. 118, “πόνων ἐμῶν θεωρός, ἢ τί δὴ θέλων;” So Milton, Comus, “By falsehood, or discourtesy, or why?” For ‘quae’ after ‘an’ comp. Ter. Adelph. 3. 4. 22, “an quid est etiam amplius?” Plaut. Asin. 3. 3. 127, “an quid olim hominist Salute melius?” instances which seem to show that it is indefinite here (comp. “num quae” &c.), not, as Wagn. thinks, pleonastically interrogative. One or two MSS. have ‘aut’ (comp. 3. 311, 338), which is sometimes confused with ‘an.’ Burm. and Heyne had made ‘quae’ the relative, supplying ‘fortuna (abl.) venis’ from ‘fortuna,’ which would be intolerably harsh. The question is like 3. 609, “quae deinde agitet fortuna, fateri.”
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
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.