Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-k2jvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-10T03:34:16.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Editions of Plays of Aristophanes - 1.The Knights of Aristophanes. Edited by R. A. Neil. Cambridge, 1901. Pp. xiv. 229. 10s. - 2.Aristophanis Equites. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis edidit J. Van Leeuwen, J. F. Lugduni Batavorum, MDCCCC. Pp. xviii. 246. 6 M. - 3.Aristophanis Acharnenses. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis edidit J. Van Leruwen, J. F. Lugduni Batavorum, MDCCCCI. Pp. xviii. 198. 5 M. - 4.The Comedies of Aristophanes. Edited, translated, and explained by B. B. Rogers. ix. The Frogs, x. The Ecclesiazusae. London : Bell & Sons. 1902. Pp. xlviii. 274 and xxxv. 238. Price 15s.

Review products

1.The Knights of Aristophanes. Edited by R. A. Neil. Cambridge, 1901. Pp. xiv. 229. 10s.
2.Aristophanis Equites. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis edidit J. Van Leeuwen, J. F. Lugduni Batavorum, MDCCCC. Pp. xviii. 246. 6 M.
3.Aristophanis Acharnenses. Cum prolegomenis et commentariis edidit J. Van Leruwen, J. F. Lugduni Batavorum, MDCCCCI. Pp. xviii. 198. 5 M.

Show more reviewed productsShow more reviewed products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Herbert Richards
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 16 , Issue 7 , October 1902 , pp. 354 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1902

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

355 1 Dr. Verrall's junction of with , anapaests appearing in their own, i.e. the poet's own, name (this Review 16. 8) seems not only very forced but, as requiring , impossible. could surely mean nothing but ‘attend to the parabasis in itself’ i.e. think of nothing but the actual parabasis.