Page:The Dramas of Aeschylus (Swanwick).djvu/258

188

132. This use of  for  is undoubtedly corrupt in 166 and 337; so, also, as I think, in Agam. 7. I have no Index that will tell of other such passages, but I think this ought to be, i.e. , "some one."

155. is clearly wrong, proposed by Wakefield, is adopted by Schutz and Hermann.

158. For Dindorf reads, which has no syntax. I can believe in or, joining  to.

166. is absurd:  gives the necessary sense. The simplest change is for.

168. Linwood condemns. Certainly is more to the purpose, especially with.

169. . Scholefield proposed ; qu., ? But Hermann suggested.

337. Dindorf excellently changes to, and  to  (perhaps following Hermann); and bolder still, writes  in place of. It must be admitted that the last words are a mere interpretation of some adjective whose place they have usurped; but I should look rather for an adjective which did not contain the word, as or.