SOME NOTES ON BLAYDES' NUBES. 



By AUGUSTUS T. MURRAY. 



It is is not the piirxsose of this pajper to give a detailed 

 review of Blaydes' work. His editorial methods are well 

 known and his thorough acquaintance with comic diction is 

 deserv^edly praised. It is in this respect that his editions are 

 most useful, giving as they do a wealth of illustration invalu- 

 able to every student of Aristophanes. Of course this must 

 be offset by his contempt of manuscript tradition, shown in 

 this very play by the introduction or suggestion of many 

 hundred variations from the vulgata. 



Added to this is the thoroughly unscientific character of 

 the commentary in which views are maintained and retracted, 

 and utterly divergent ones substituted, apparently according 

 to the whim of the moment. This very volume might have 

 been reduced in bulk surely one third, if a thorough revision 

 had been carried out. Many passages are now absurdly in- 

 consistent (see ('. g. text, critical note and addenda, vs. 811), 

 and while in Blaydes' eyes it may be a small sin to adopt one 

 reading in the text and another in the commentary, yet to all 

 believers in painstaking accuracy this fault is a grievous one. 

 The same carelessness shows itself in matters of fact: e. g. 

 on vs. 151 we are told that Dindorf and Teuffel give the read- 

 ing (J'uystf77j, whereas both have the earlier Attic form (^'uyjifrrj. 

 Again the addendum on vs. 1365 is said to be drawn from 

 "Teuff. II" while it really comes from Kock. (The same 

 error in addendum to vs. 1192. ) In the commentary on vs. 225 

 [Plat.] Axiochus 372 B. is referred to as Aeschin. Axioch. 

 22. But surely the identification is ungrounded; cf. Teuff. 

 Uebersicht p. 35. After reading in the text dstdsr^, (vs. 298) 

 it is absurd to read in the critical note " Dedi do'.oto'^'' although 

 it is true we find half a dozen lines further down "Yel i^otius 



