Skip to main content Accessibility help

Aristophanes, Knights 1070 and 1076

  • Colin Austin (a1)


  • An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided below. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.



Hide All

1 Assuming that Solazzi was not right to tear the whole text to shreds on the ground that it was heavily glossed.

2 Pace Muirhead in his Gaius, who seems to have been alone in maintaining that it could.

3 Böcking in his fifth edition of Gaius, 1876, read [Etiam lege Aelia Sentia] at the beginning of § 85. Huschke, , in Studien des röm. Rechts, i, 1830, at pp. 179 ff., held likewise, giving good reasons and mentioning yet earlier scholars who had believed the same; but by the time of his second edition of Gaius, 1873, he had changed his mind, and now read [E lege Latina], with explanations which I do not find clear. Castello, C. in Studi Solazzi, pp. 242 ff., proposed the lex Minicia, which seems less suitable. David and Nelson in their commentary do not refer to the old view that the lex was Aelia Sentia.

Aristophanes, Knights 1070 and 1076

  • Colin Austin (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed