In a note on Aesch. Ag. 1243 f. in C.R. lxxv 187-8, I had occasion to cite a number of examples of adverbial transference. Whether they were or were not adequate to establish the point I was seeking to make I leave to the judgement of others, but the idiom possesses interest of its own, and it seems worth while to quote some further instances of it that I have noted since my article appeared. I will divide them according as (...) they occur with verbs of hearing or with other verbs. (shrink)

In C.Q. xliii , p. 126, Messrs. Klos and Minio-Paluello write: ‘Burnet's and Robin's collations of W… differ for the text of the Phaedo in about 130 readings of a more than orthographical interest. A new inspection of the manuscript has shown that Robin very often corrected Burnet, but added some twenty mistakes.’ As this may give a false impression of Burnet as a collator, it will be well to recall Burnet's own statement in C.Q. xiv , p. 132: ‘He (...) [Wilamowitz] says that my collations of W are inadequate, and have been shown to be so by Schoene for the Symposium, and by Hensel for the Theaetetus and Politicus. As he refers his readers to my Prefaces , he has presumably read them, and ought to have known that I never collated W at all or even saw it.’. (shrink)

The question whether τυγχνω can be used forτυγχνω ν in Attic Prose has been differently answered by different scholars. Phrynichus held that it could not, and Porson followed him. The generality of modern scholars, however, have taken the other view—so, e.g., Locella, Heindorf, Lobeck, Ast, Schneider, Madvig, Stallbaum, Krüger, W. H. Thompson, Rutherford, Jebb, Adam, Kühner-Gerth. The object of the present note is to show that the ‘modern’ view, if it is to be maintained, must be based on other evidence (...) than that hitherto given for it. (shrink)

The question whether τυγχνω can be used forτυγχνω ν in Attic Prose has been differently answered by different scholars. Phrynichus held that it could not, and Porson followed him. The generality of modern scholars, however, have taken the other view—so, e.g., Locella, Heindorf, Lobeck, Ast, Schneider, Madvig, Stallbaum, Krüger, W. H. Thompson, Rutherford, Jebb, Adam, Kühner-Gerth. The object of the present note is to show that the ‘modern’ view, if it is to be maintained, must be based on other evidence (...) than that hitherto given for it. (shrink)