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: 11 February 2009
Fuhrmann's work on the manuscripts of Anaximenes'
, finally made public in his Teubner text (Leipzig, 1966), has left the ground clear for critical operations. A solid start was made by Spengel and Kayser (for references to their contributions, and to those of other scholars, see Fuhrmann, pp. xlvi–xlviii, whose abbreviations are used below); but that there are still serious flaws in the text has recently been shown by R. Kassel (Philologus 1967, 122–6). The main purpose of the following notes is to air difficulties, some afresh, some for the first time.
The second example is apt, the first not, because the author is discussing not outright illegality, which falls within the compass of TO
, but two ways of bringing within the compass of
acts that are not expressly illegal. Deletion of the first example must therefore be considered. It should not be thought, however, that there is anything wrong with the asyndetic coupling of two examples that both lead off with
(cf. p. 10. 9–11).
page 237 note 1 He did not go over the papyrus, but if a brief inspection can be trusted, Grenfell and Hunt took such pains over reading it that he would not have had anything new to offer (in line I
is not impossible, and in lines 22–3 their articulation needs adjusting:
almost certainly stood at the beginning of 23, and accordingly it is unlikely, despite traces of ink, that anything followed
.
page 237 note 1 —to whom thanks are due for his comments on this article.