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: 27 October 2009
page 196 note 1 There are, however, numerous emendations, none credible, of δα φνον.
page 196 note 2 Headlam has assembled many in his note on Aesch. Agam. 1234, but has not fully recognised their principle; if he had he would neither have included our passage nor presented his collection as a defence of Ἅιδου μητρα.
page 197 note 1 Hec. 503; Tro. 447, 747; I.T. 359; Hel. 239 (with Φρυγν not far before, 229); I.A. 337, 352, 359, 729, 825, 1200, 1310, 1335, 1414, 1469.
page 197 note 2 At a meeting of the Cambridge Philological Society on November 26, 1931.
page 197 note 3 Camb. Univ. Reporter, 1931–2, p. 435. The existing connexion of 1022–3 with 1027 is certainly both strong and good; but it is not invalidated by the transposition, only protracted.
page 198 note 1 E.g. the fate of Astyanax was noteworthy; Trojan children would normally be enslaved.
page 198 note 2 ἄλοχοι never = mulieres, despite one scholium and Musgrave (whose two examples themselves refute him).
page 198 note 3 For Schroeder too ignores it, his Eur. Cantica, p. 37, sanctioning the hiatus.
page 198 note 4 Of which my stock illustration is from this play—line 248.
page 198 note 5 δυστ. τοκ. as δειλοὺς τοκ. in Il. XXIII. 223.