Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:41:30.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Notes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

W. Headlam
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 13 , Issue 1 , February 1899 , pp. 3 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1899

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

1 Compound epithets are habitually so corrupted: e.g. Demetr. de eloc. 91, 116 and 143 (Bergk. P.L.G.iii4. p. 728), where I conjecture Ar. fr. 537), —In Ar. Ran. 1339 , looks me like an adscript to μεγαώνυχα, a corruption μελανονεκνεμονα above; cf. Hesych. κρατερώνυχας.