Citations:adespota


 * 1882,, “On the Fragments of ” in The Journal of Philology, volume X, № XX, §: ‘[Fragment] 739: Temenidae’, page 245:
 * It was said above on fr. 620 that τὸ μῶρον was sometimes connected with δυσγένεια: see fr. 166 from the Antigone; and, what is more to the present point, comp. fr. 138 of the Adespota τὴν εὐγένειαν, ἢν θέλῃς ἀνασκοπεῖν, Ἐν τοῖς καλῶς φρονοῦσιν εὑρήσεις βροτῶν.
 * 1893, Frederic D. Allen, “On πεῖραρ ἑλέσθαι (Σ 501) and the Manus Consertio of the Romans” in , volume IV, page 167:
 * Also, still with the ‘rope’-meaning, in a verse of an unknown poet, Stob. Ecl. I, 2, 9, Ζεὺς ὁ καὶ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου πείρατα νωμῶν.¹ ¹ Put by Nauck among the Tragic Adespota (472). But is it not a dactylic hexameter, Ζεὺς (γὰρ) ὁ καὶ θανάτου καὶ ζωῆς πείρατα νωμῶν?
 * 1897 October 27th, The Times, № 35,345, “Mr. Henley’s ‘Burns’” (Review), page 10/3:
 * The fourth and last volume of Messrs. Henley and Henderson’s “Burns” contains the songs hitherto not given by them, the unauthenticated pieces, with notes, indices, and an essay on the poet. There is also a bibliographical paper on Burns’s adespota; verses fugitive, unsanctioned, or apocryphal.
 * 1904 January, Alfred William Pollard, “Robert Proctor” in The Library: A Quarterly Review of Bibliography and Library Lore, Second Series, № 17, volume V, page 20:
 * The cards were then sorted out according to countries, towns, and presses, with a large section of ‘adespota,’ and the work of comparison and description of types went steadily forward.
 * 1954 June, Sir Harold Idris Bell, “Literary Texts from Papyri: The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt by Roger A. Pack” (Review) in The Classical Review, New Series, volume IV, № 2, page 123:
 * The principles followed in presenting the material are excellent. Identified fragments are placed under the names of their authors, in an alphabetic arrangement, Latin separately from Greek; the adespota are given later, classified according to their nature.
 * 1992, John H. Molyneux, Simonides: A Historical Study, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, ISBN 0865162220 (hardback), ISBN 0865162239 (paperback), chapter i: “Introduction”, § 2: ‘State of scholarship on the Simonidean epigrams; treatment of the epigrams in the present study.’, :
 * The line of enquiry begun by Junghahn was developed by Kaibel in two articles written shortly after Junghahn’s. Kaibel accepts many of the criteria laid down by Junghahn for the assessment of particular epigrams. He is more concerned than Junghahn with the process by which epigrams ascribed to Simonides in ancient sources acquired the poet’s name. He emphasised two factors which have been recognised ever since as being of fundamental importance: that metrical inscriptions of the sixth and early fifth centuries were not accompanied on the stone by the poet’s name, so that epigrams taken into anthologies from monuments were likely to be anonymous and might acquire an author’s name by guesswork because of the anthologist’s dislike of adespota; and that when an early author quotes an epigram anonymously, a later author as Simonidean, the earlier author’s silence may imply ignorance of the authorship of the epigram, and the later author’s ascription may be based not on superior knowledge but on guesswork or unreliable information.
 * 1999, Andrew I. Dale, A History of Inverse Probability: From to , Springer-Verlag (second edition), ISBN 0387988076, §: “Notes”, endnote 31 to chapter 2 (page 20), :
 * This notebook, although strictly speaking to be numbered among the adespota to be attributed to Bayes, bears on its first page the handwritten words “This book appears to be a mathematical notebook by Rev. Thomas Bayes, F.R.S.. The handwriting agrees very well with papers by him in the Canton papers of the Royal Society Vol. 2, p. 32.” This note is dated 21‒1‒1947 and is signed by M.E. Ogborn.