Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T09:28:24.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Rhesvs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

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
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1926

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

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.