In pages 101–3 of his article Pope lists the numbers of occurrences of interrogative and enclitic in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and mentions occurrences in other authors. He shows that, although there is a dead heat between the numbers of instances of the two words in Aeschylus, nevertheless enclitic is very rarely indeed, and perhaps never, found in sentences which do not have a main verb. There are, however, occurrences of interrogative in sentences which lack a main verb and have (...) no predicate either. It must surely be rare to find statement sentences which do not contain at least subject and predicate at the best of times, let alone when happens to occur in the sentence. There are strong reasons, then, for rejecting the version of F and Triclinius, quite apart from the occurrence of in the sentence. One can defend by saying that either is understood from the preceding sentence, or else is vaguely understood: The favour of the gods comes to men perforce.’ But it is not very plausible. I am inclined to agree with Pope on this point, if not for quite the same reason. (shrink)

All past interpretations of this passage involve an obscure train of thought. There appear to be two ideas running right through; light-twilight-night, and quick-slow-. But how are we to combine these ideas so as to make sense of them ? Most, if not all, past commentators have agreed in taking to mean ‘punishes’’ and most interpretations conform to one or other of the following patterns.

All past interpretations of this passage involve an obscure train of thought. There appear to be two ideas running right through; light-twilight-night, and quick-slow-. But how are we to combine these ideas so as to make sense of them? Most, if not all, past commentators have agreed in taking to mean ‘punishes’’ and most interpretations conform to one or other of the following patterns.

The manuscript version of this line, apart from a nonsensical variant tutus for bubus, is et Tiberis nostris advena bubus erat. The trouble here has been that scholars have taken advena to mean ‘stranger’, ‘foreigner’, ‘alien’, or German ‘fremd’. Clearly the sentence and Tiber was a stranger to our oxen makes no sense in the context, and for this reason many scholars have either produced strange translations or else have dabbled in dubious emendation.

The manuscript version of this line, apart from a nonsensical variant tutus for bubus, is et Tiberis nostris advena bubus erat. The trouble here has been that scholars have taken advena to mean ‘stranger’, ‘foreigner’, ‘alien’, or German ‘fremd’. Clearly the sentence and Tiber was a stranger to our oxen makes no sense in the context, and for this reason many scholars have either produced strange translations or else have dabbled in dubious emendation.

Mr. G. B. KERFERD, in C.Q. xlviii , 84 ff. writes of ‘Plato's Noble Art of Sophistry’. He suggests that Plato thought there was a ‘Noble Art’ of sophistry, other than philosophy itself; and he seeks to find this Art in the better and worse arguments of Protagoras. This suggestion is, unfortunately, based on a mistranslation of Plato, Sophist 231 a:.

Jebb is right. The two lines are a comment by the Chorus; and they are a comment on the apparent shamelessness of the remarks which Electra has just been making about her mother. The dissentients have been deceived by two pseudo-problems, hitherto unexploded.

Jebb is right. The two lines are a comment by the Chorus; and they are a comment on the apparent shamelessness of the remarks which Electra has just been making about her mother. The dissentients have been deceived by two pseudo-problems, hitherto unexploded.

In CR N.S. 10 , 7, I supported L. Purgold's emendation of to in O. T. 230, accepted by Elmsley, wrongly discarded by all editors since, and now omitted even from the apparatus criticus of R. D. Dawe's recent Teubner edition of Sophocles. May I now add that the emendation was also defended, at greater length, by M. Furness in CR 13 , 195–7? The 1899 editor of CR reproduced, at the end of Furness's article, the sueeinct and trenchant Latin (...) in which, in the year 1802, Purgold defended his emendation. (shrink)

In CR N.S. 10, 7, I supported L. Purgold's emendation of to in O. T. 230, accepted by Elmsley, wrongly discarded by all editors since, and now omitted even from the apparatus criticus of R. D. Dawe's recent Teubner edition of Sophocles. May I now add that the emendation was also defended, at greater length, by M. Furness in CR 13, 195–7? The 1899 editor of CR reproduced, at the end of Furness's article, the sueeinct and trenchant Latin in which, (...) in the year 1802, Purgold defended his emendation. (shrink)

Westphal wished to transpose lines 88–90 and 93–5 of the Supplices. This transposition has been supported recently by R. D. Dawe , by Holger Friis Johansen in C. & M. xxvii , 43–4 , and by Sir Denys Page . However, the transposition gains little support from a careful examination of the language and context of the passage, as I shall now proceed to demonstrate. I discussed the whole passage previously in my article ‘Aeschylus Supplices 86–95’, Classical Philology, 1 , (...) 21–5, and much of my argument can be found in that earlier article. (shrink)

Westphal wished to transpose lines 88–90 and 93–5 of the Supplices. This transposition has been supported recently by R. D. Dawe, by Holger Friis Johansen in C. & M. xxvii, 43–4, and by Sir Denys Page. However, the transposition gains little support from a careful examination of the language and context of the passage, as I shall now proceed to demonstrate. I discussed the whole passage previously in my article ‘Aeschylus Supplices 86–95’, Classical Philology, 1, 21–5, and much of my (...) argument can be found in that earlier article. (shrink)

In pages 101–3 of his article Pope lists the numbers of occurrences of interrogative and enclitic in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and mentions occurrences in other authors. He shows that, although there is a dead heat between the numbers of instances of the two words in Aeschylus, nevertheless enclitic is very rarely indeed, and perhaps never, found in sentences which do not have a main verb. There are, however, occurrences of interrogative in sentences which lack a main verb and have (...) no predicate either. It must surely be rare to find statement sentences which do not contain at least subject and predicate at the best of times, let alone when happens to occur in the sentence. There are strong reasons, then, for rejecting the version of F and Triclinius, quite apart from the occurrence of in the sentence. One can defend by saying that either is understood from the preceding sentence, or else is vaguely understood: The favour of the gods comes to men perforce.’ But it is not very plausible. I am inclined to agree with Pope on this point, if not for quite the same reason. (shrink)