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: 27 February 2009
page 18 note 1 Neil's Knights (1901) is very good on the linguistic side. Interesting, too, is Rennie's Acharnians (1909). In German we Wilamowitz's short but brilliant Lysistrata (1927) and the more massive but less exciting Frogs of Radermacher (1921), and Plutus Holzinger (1940). In French mention should be made of Mazon's brief but elegant Peace (1904). The best complete exegetical edition of Aristophanes is that of van Leeuwen (1893–1906): his text is often erratic but the Latin commentary is very useful.
page 19 note 1 Note the occurrence of Νε]ϕ⋯λαι β´ in the new list of plays, P. Oxy. xxxiii 2659.
page 19 note 2 At 88 Dover rightly prints ἔκτρεψον (E), a reading already favoured by Dobree (ἔκτρεψον cett.). At 1046 δειλ⋯ν ‘the most important contribution of the Thoman MSS.’ (δειλ⋯τατον a) already figures in a number of earlier texts, where it is often (e.g. Coulon) misleadingly attributed to the Aldine edition.
page 19 note 3 The apparatus is content with: ‘γ’ om. RΕacΚΝΘ᾽.
page 20 note 1 It is good to see Reiske's τῇ γνώμῃ in the text at 744. Note also Blaydes's οὕς for οἷς at 528, and the cautious retention of the manuscript reading of verbs at 489, 776, 783.
page 20 note 2 At 1017f. we expect the order στ⋯θος λεφτ⋯ν, χροι⋯ν ὠχρ⋯ν, ⋯μους μικρο⋯ς to correspond to 1012f.: Bücheler transposed, perhaps rightly.