Some Notes on Blaydes' Nubes. 45 



occur, althoup^h Thuc. 1,25 seems to be the only classic in- 

 stance. Others can, however, be adduced from later writers; 

 see Krtiger's note on Tliucyd. loc. cit. 



Strepsiades therefore uses the common word for contem- 

 ning, UT:tp(ppt)v=:v^. 



As to the ace. with this last vb. cf. Thucyd. 6. 68. 2, 3. 39. 5, 

 Aesch. Pers. 825, Eur. Fr. 545 N-. 



For Strepsiades' taking words in a different sense from 

 the speaker, see 236, although there it is from inability to 

 understand them. Perhaps 248 is to be explained in the 

 same way. (Teuff.") 



In my opinion the passage is perfectly sound, and Blaydes' 

 suggestion, while very ingenious, is to be discarded. 



Vss. 369 ff. — Soc. has denied the existence of Zeus. Strepsi- 

 ades then asks, amazed, (DJm ri^ ust ; to which Socrates 

 reiDlies: 



aurat drJTZou. iieydloi^ di a lyw (Trjp.sioi'i aura dtdd^oj. 

 y.airot yp7/'^ ai&pia^ usf^ aoruv^ rayra? d' d-i)8r/ij.sTv, 



In vs. 369 Reisig reads rouro from inferior MSS., so 

 Blaydes, a reading which is easier but unnecessary. In 371 

 Blaydes takes exception to aiJToy and casts it out, accepting 

 (WffYj? before ustv, which is also found in some MSS. That is, 

 however, unquestionably a gloss to explain ah^pia'i and can 

 readily be paralleled, while the use of the genitive alone is 

 very common. 



Blaydes' grounds for ejecting uvti)v are that it itself is ap- 

 parently a gloss, [oovra is used absolutely in 370), and that 

 there is nothing for it to refer to, "nisi illud additum hie 

 statuas majoris emphasis causa propter sequens rauraqy 

 But that is exactly the case, and the reference is clear from 

 what precedes. There is no difficulty whatever and the (wn'iv 

 adds force. 



Vs. 493. — didor/.d (t\ u) -pza^ihza^ prj -Xrjywv disc. 



Blaydes with Dindorf, but against the MSS., reads Sirj, 

 noting that the subj. is necessary. In this he seems clearly 

 wrong, despite Elmsley's authority. See Goodwin G. M. T.'^ 



