Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:49:53.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hellenics of Xenophon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Herbert Richards
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Original Contributions
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , May 1901 , pp. 197 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1901

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

page 197 note 1 For a statement of the reasons see Mr. Underbill's recent commentary.

page 198 note 1 It has been suggested that in the three passages we should read ὡς ἥνυτον &c. for ὡς ἤνοιγον &c., and this gives us just the right sense, as best they could, &c. In Ar. Rhet. 3. 9. 1409 b 4, the best MS. has by a blunder νογειν for ντειν, and in Plut. Mor. 130 D νοιστν is a blunder for νυοστν (ὡς νυστν στι). We have Anab. 1. 8. 11 ὡς νυστν and R. L. 1. 3 and, if ὡς ἥνυτον does not occur elsewhere in X., neither does ὡς ἤνοιγον. But it would be strange for the same mistake to occur in three successive places.