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 3 note 1 I am indebted to Mr. M. N. Tod for these facts.
page 3 note 1 Where lexica exist I have used them; where not, I have searched the text. Neither the human eye nor human attention is infallible. I can only hope that omissions, if any, are few.
page 3 note 2 
.
page 3 note 3 I cite from the texts respectively of Murray and Pearson. For Eur. fragg. I use Nauck.
page 4 note 1 Where 
would be possible only by prodelision or crasis I regard 
as metrically guaranteed.
page 4 note 2 Cf. Hense on Stob. iv, p. 728,1. It isnot clear whether Bergk meant a late Sophoclean play or a post-Sophoclean play. In any case Wilamowitz definitely regards itas post-Sophoclean (Hermes, lxiv. 465).
page 4 note 1 I purposely omit Eur. fr. 1109. 2 (
)as almost certainly spurious (cf. hypoth. to Rhesus, p. 2, 1. II (Murray) 
); also/r. 953. 1 (‘not Euripidean’: Wilamowitz in Hermes, xv. 491); also fr. adesp. 111. 2 (
)—a fragment attributed to Eur. by Meineke (Jahrb.f. Philol. lxxxvii. 381), without, as it seems to me, any justification.
page 5 note 1 I say 8, not 7, as I have added Neophron, fr. 2. 7 (
).
page 5 note 2 I cite from the Oxford text of Aristophanes, and from Kock, vol. i.