The Aldine editor, no doubt put off in part by the expression
had the text printed as given by P (the sole witness for this part of the play), but punctuated with commas after
and
, so that
could go with![](//static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20160329062345666-0580:S0009838800031827_inline5.gif?pub-status=live)
According to Elmsley, it was Musgrave who removed the comma after, adducing T. 276 to show
taking a dative. But, continues Elmsley, the simple
in this and other examples is taking a dative of the thing, never of the person. Accordingly he prints Pierson′s easy emendation
proposed independently by Reiske and printed almost simultaneously with Elmsley by Matthiae. The resulting reading has sufficiently satisfied all editors from then until the present day; there is not one, as far as I am aware, who does not print it. In our century the line has not been the object of any controversy.