No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 February 2009
1 Yet one misses some rather obvious supporting illustrations. On p. 18 Aeschylus fr. 253 N2 might have been quoted with its Euripidean analogue (fr. 792 N2), while for the general argument of this introductory chapter Bacchyl. 3. 85–87 could well be compared with the relevant passages in Pindar.