No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
As the apparent variant is in the text, Ludvvich alters the scholion into , which has not been found in any MS. so far. The only noticeable point prima facie about
is that it (of I pers. pi.) is an
(we have
and
). Therefore I would read
. Ludwich's index to his A.H.T. gives cases of the omission of ov or OVK in the scholia. We need not restrict
There is too much tendency to restrict usage in matters of language. At one time it was believed that μ⋯ποτε was the property of Didymus!
‘passage’ does not occur (apparently) in the scholia we possess, τόπος however does (Ludwich, Index). Compare the note on H 96
⋯ν ἄλλῳ ὑβριτα⋯. We must supply in sense χωρ⋯ῳ, for the reference is to Callim. Del. 69, where this is the meaning of ⋯πειλητ⋯ρες.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1909
References
page 286 note 1 ∑ 25 In the Oxford edition the intermarginal scholion on this line is printed in the footnote, as if partly undecipherable: it runs in the MS.
aorist for pluperfect; the same comment expressed by
in the longer version.
page 288 note 1 Porphyrius uit. Pythagorae, c. 4 the statement goes back to áλλα