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: 23 December 2013
1 By ProfessorForster, E. S. (JHS, lxiv, p. 121).Google Scholar
2 One might find fault with T.'s handling of some of the fragments of doubtful authorship. He does not print Bowra's F 341, nor (in spite of Snell's, remarks at Hermes lxxv (1940), p. 184Google Scholar) Bowra's F 342; he does print (as F 237) Bergk's Lyr. adesp. 85, cutting the perplexing knot presented by the genitives in -ω by changing them to -ου with an irritatingly complacent ‘correxi’.
3 But Professor Forster's complaint that English work on Pindar is neglected by comparison with continental must be reiterated; for example, references to Sophoclean fragments in Nauck TGF2 might well be supplemented by references to Pearson. In dealing with his F 137 (133 S.), T. quotes Dieterich's ‘Nekuia’, but makes no reference to ProfessorRose's, H. J. contribution to ‘Greek Poetry and Life’ (Oxford, 1936).Google Scholar
4 At F 118 (111 S.) he scans τραχύ (occurring before ῤόπαλον) as an iambus, saying of the ῦ ‘notabilis est prosodia’, a comment which seems equally applicable to his scansion of the first syllable of this word.