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.
As the apparent variant is in the text, Ludvvich alters the scholion into 
, which has not been found in any MS. so far. The only noticeable point prima facie about 
is that it (of I pers. pi.) is an 
(we have 
and 
). Therefore I would read 
. Ludwich's index to his A.H.T. gives cases of the omission of ov or OVK in the scholia. We need not restrict 
There is too much tendency to restrict usage in matters of language. At one time it was believed that μ⋯ποτε was the property of Didymus! 
‘passage’ does not occur (apparently) in the scholia we possess, τόπος however does (Ludwich, Index). Compare the note on H 96
⋯ν ἄλλῳ ὑβριτα⋯. We must supply in sense χωρ⋯ῳ, for the reference is to Callim. Del. 69, where this is the meaning of ⋯πειλητ⋯ρες.
page 286 note 1 ∑ 25 
In the Oxford edition the intermarginal scholion on this line is printed in the footnote, as if partly undecipherable: it runs in the MS.
aorist for pluperfect; the same comment expressed by 
in the longer version.
page 288 note 1 Porphyrius uit. Pythagorae, c. 4 
the statement goes back to áλλα