or 
ionic a minore with first or second long resolved (p. 93 fin.), a phenomenon not found before Euripides' Bacchae.
corresponds to 29 
as trochee to ionic ‘a majore’; even if it were relevant, this would be special pleading, for the metre is much better interpreted otherwise 
pher. er. ba. = 
so also Schroeder Grundr. §205, Wilamowitz S. und S. p. 182). 
and 
but even if the tradition were trustworthy (the second line is very easily made to conform to the first) we should still lack evidence that the lines were in correspondence. Aesch. PV 534 
= 543 
too easily squared to be a reliable witness. The most interesting example in this category is 
or 
There are, in short, some indications of evidence for 
there is none adduced for 
For alleged examples in Pindar and Bacchylides see Maas, Responsionsfreiheiten, passim; the faith which survives his criticism must be sturdy, and may be blind.
5 
8 
(
Athenaeus), 
Casaubon, though Athenaeus may be thought to indicate 
Bergk; 9 
Guelf.; 15 
16 
Sylburg, perhaps rather 
19 
22 
Victorius. These are mere clerical slips, admitting of instant (and almost universally accepted) correction.
or even 
in Fr. 6. 1.
is the subject of 
it must also be the subject of 
and 
cf. Il. 15. 606 
Mosch, fr. 1. 5. The conjectures τέτμε (Weir-Smyth), 
(Davison), 
(Nietzsche), make no appeal to me.
will not scan. We do not know which of the four theoretically possible scansions of 
is correct here; but I find no insuperable difficulty with any of them.
In 39, 50 
49 
29 
and a few other places, text or metre or both are too uncertain to be used in evidence.
40.3 
48.3 
but 48.3 
and contrast 22.1, prob. 
with 8.2, 
30.3 
a certain example of the shorter form within the verse. There are some doubtful examples: but 
may be correct in 5.1, and in 37.4 I should divide 
etc.; there are a few other places where text or metre or both are uncertain.
10.2 
27.2 
32.2 
9.4 prob. 
one or two other possibles.
text and metre of the whole line are uncertain. In 34 
has been conjectured.
4.2 
11.1 dub.
in 6.1.
Davison p. 92 n. 4 says that ‘Simonides and Bacchylides appear to admit synizesis only in words which are contracted in Attic’: but the evidence is far too meagre to prove this conclusion for Simonides; 
in 4.21 is, in my view, a certain example of the contrary.
for 
19 
for 
(or 
), 22 λετττῶν for -ὸν, 23 εὗδε for σ' εὗδε, 25 εὑδέτω ἂμ. for εἂδέτω δ' ἂμ., 28 δὴ for δέ, and probably ὃτι for ὃττι. In 12, τε added to connect νυκτί and Δνόφωι.
passive, see Wackernagel Vorles. 1 pp. 137 f.; Gow on Theocr. 28. 12.
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Easterling, P. E.
and
Knox, Bernard M. W.
1985.
The Cambridge History of Classical Literature.
Segal, Charles
1985.
The Cambridge History of Classical Literature.
p.
222.
Bacchylides
and
Maehler, H.
2004.
Bacchylides.