Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:13:58.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Two Rare Verse-Forms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

T. C. W. Stinton
Affiliation:
Wadham College, Oxford

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1965

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 143 note 1 Kleine Beiträge, i. 182 f.

page 143 note 2 Note the initial dactyl of the preceding iambic dimeter; cf. ⌣⌣ Tro. 1067/78, with a like sequel (see below).

page 144 note 1 Editors since Reisig have usually taken it to be a gloss; but it is not a glossator's word, though collation with 534 is not impossible. Jebb thought it spoiled the dramatic effect by letting the cat out of the bag; but this is the very reason why Oedipus uses it, instead of calling a spade a spade. The chorus shows a like delicacy at 534. Hermann in his second edition restored it to the text, and wrote Λαἴου ἴστε τἰμ — ⋯ – ⋯π⋯γομομ but if my interpretation is right, the transposition is not needed.

page 144 note 2 See ‘Euripides and the Judgement of Paris’, J.H.S. Supplementary Paper No. 11 (1965), pp. 72 f.

page 144 note 3 Hesychius has ⋯ροτο⋯ς [sic]. ⋯νιαυο⋯ς Σοφοκλ⋯ς Τφαχιν⋯ας, which may be this passage; hence Erfurdt read δωδεκ⋯τους⋯ρ⋯τους, but this can hardly be right, as Ellendt s.v. ⋯ροτος remarks.

page 144 note 4 A similar licence appears in the first half of Lys. 324/38, ⌣⌣⌣⌣⌣⌣. The relevance of Dale's observation to Tr. 824/34 was pointed out to me by Lloyd-Jones.

page 145 note 1 The odd man out would then be the 4 da. + −⌣⌣⌣−− at I.A. 1331; but a possible analogy is O.C. 241, 249, 4 da. +−⌣⌣−−⌣, on which I suggested that such clausulae, and their relation to the preceding dactyls, may sometimes be ambiguous.

page 145 note 1 So Fraenkel, o.c, 324 = 205. In this sequence the dactyls are normally followed by diaeresis, which is absent in some of the examples examined above; but since there is synaphea, this may not be significant,

page 145 note 3 Cf. G.V. 333 n. and Dale in C.Q. xxxi (1937). 108–10.