No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
As my suggestions have been unfavourably criticized in Professor Ridge-way's article on ‘Euripides in Macedon’ which appears in the current number of the Classical Quarterly, perhaps I may be permitted a few words of explanation and reply. Professor Ridgeway's article in its latter part is chiefly directed against the thesis I endeavoured to support in the Classical Review of 1921, pp. 52 sqq., to the effect that our Rhesus is probably not the genuine work of Euripides. Space does not permit me to do more than refer to a few of Professor Ridgeway's strictures; but I would ask readers not to accept his statements of my views without reference to my original article. The context often makes all the difference. Thus, for example, when I am arguing that a strong case can be made against Euripides on the score of language, I am made to be dealing with the whole issue of authenticity. Indeed, if Professor Ridge-way's judges were to sum up at nisi prius on the lines suggested for them, they would soon become the by-words of their profession.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1926
References
page81 note 1 There is an unfortunate blunder in the reference to this matter in my previous article (C.R. XXXV. 6I). It can be cured by the omission of the words ‘the tetralogy,’ and in any case matters little for the present purpose. See also Wilamowitz, Anal. Eur., p. 166.