No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
XPHN: EXPHN
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2009
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.
- Type
- Review Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1942
References
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.