Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:43:45.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

P. Oxy. 2329, 3—4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Hugh Lloyd-Jones
Hugh Lloyd-Jones
Affiliation:
Christ Church, Oxford
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
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , December 1966 , pp. 275
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1966

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 Koerte rightly followed Wilamowitz in deleting the μου which in the papyrus follows καταμ⋯νειν. Sudhaus's expedient of transposing δε⋯σεται to the beginning of the line in order to keep μου, which has been adopted by Christina Dedoussi in her recent edition of the play (Athens, 1965), is ruled out by the impossibly late position μου would then have in the sentence. The attempt of Barigazzi, A. in Athenaeum xxxiv (1956), 340fGoogle Scholar. to argue that this fragment may come from the Georgos was not worth making; neither have I much profited from the treatment by Stark, R. in Rhein. Mus. c (1957), 129fGoogle Scholar. In lines 9, 10, and 24 the supplements printed by the first editor may be right, but they should not be in the text.