No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
‘A sweet life without lamentation’ renders Mr G. Thomson, who discusses the passage in C.Q. XXVIII 74 f. That is beyond question what this Greek will naturally and properly mean; if there were any doubt, his citations dispel it.
page 168 note 1 Except to the extent that, as is shown by T.'s ref., Dionysius (de avibus 2. 19), speaking as a naturalist and in the time of Hadrian, asserted that ᾂδοѵσɩ δ' οὐχί θρηѵδες ώσπερ θί λкѵόѵες.
page 168 note 2 A singing creature may naturally appear here and there in association with a singing deity, as the nightingale stimulates Apollo to rivalry at Ar. Birds 217, or the cicala serves the Muses at Plat.Phaedr. 259c.
page 169 note 1 At Soph. El. 19, although the night is not black with stars, it must be black to be starry; ibid. 758 the antithesis of epithets μέγɩστοѵ…δεɩλαίας makes all the difference.
page 170 note 2 ‘έμοɩγε’; however it may be with others. To my taste, the γε in μοɩγε impairs the pathos of the line; but I do not presume to invite others to think so. I note however that Denniston, Greek Particles p. 51, speaks of τάρ in Attic as ‘colloquial in tone,’ ‘avoided in formal language,’ and on p. 52 as associated with ‘a break-off, a sudden change of topic’ I had observed that all Aesch.'s three exx. are with a verb in the 2nd pers.; P.V. 343 (but let me tell you); 1011 (but really, you know); Pers. 333 (but look here,but I say).
page 169 note 3 I regard Enger's γε for γάρ as certain, forthe reasons given in Headlam's note.
page 169 note 4 I may say that I punctuate ‘ϕε’ ταλ ϕρ. Ιτυν’ ‘Ιτυν’ στέν кτλ I do not see how one can do otherwise.
page 169 note 5 Here How and Wells make an extraordinary comment; it is no explanation of a passage which needs none; but it would be an exact and necessary explanation, if γεύσας were γενσάμενος and αɭνα ‘eternity’! Nor can I see (with orthodoxy, vid. Rawlinson's tr.) that γεσαɭ τɩ is γε;σα ϒɩνά τɩνος. God made life as such taste sweet; his ϕθόνος appears in his accompanying dispensations.
page 169 note 6 Mr Denniston, my main victim, will bear this out; I owe to him the refutation on logical grounds of an attempt not mentioned here.
page 169 note 7 These are given in the best general account of the myth, Pearson's introduction to the fragments of Sophocles' Tereus.
page 170 note 1 See 1316 for an opposite picture, also, of course, derived from nature.
page 170 note 2 The distinction, if any, is purely technical; it is regarded as negligible by Kühner-Blass I p. 522 [see (b) and n.], but is nicely determined by Brugmann-Thumb4 (p. 519), who note that the dative became eclipsed after Homer; cf. L. and S.8 s.v. AI2 fin. and the authorities cited there.