Prescott described its conclusions as an "important swing of the pendulum" towards recognising Plautus's originality, he regarded Fraenkel's identification of typical elements as the more successful part of the argument. In 2007, the Hellenist C. W. Marshall stated that the book was "insightful, thought-provoking and at times very frustrating", adding that Fraenkel's judgement of previous scholarship had "stood the test of time". The classicist Lisa Maurice wrote that, even though some of its arguments had been rejected, was "the catalyst for modern Plautine scholarship". Aeschylus Fraenkel had begun to show interest in the Agamemnon of Aeschylus as early as 1925 but focused on Latin literature in the years leading up to his application for the Corpus Professorship. He developed his thoughts on the play in his weekly seminars held from 1936 to 1942. From March 1942, a group of friends around the Latinist R. A. B. Mynors and the historian John Beazley began to support Fraenkel in the process of preparing his notes for publication. Parts of his work, including a translation of the Greek text, had to be translated from German into English. In 1943, Fraenkel submitted a manuscript for a commentary on the play to Oxford University Press. Although Kenneth Sisam, the responsible delegate of the press, took a favourable view of it, the publication process was held up due to concerns about the manuscript's exceptional length, leading Sisam to describe the commentary as "a Teutonic monster". The book was published in 1950 in three volumes. In his commentary, Fraenkel followed the method of the variorum, whereby substantial space is given to the views of previous scholars beside those of the primary author. In a remarkable piece of detection, he showed that many of the most penetrating notes in the highly influential early edition of the text (1663) by Thomas Stanley owed much to the anonymous generosity of John Pearson. In Fraenkel's view, the presentation of existing approaches, though laborious, was necessary to separate the text from the scholarly views that had accrued over time. Contrary to common practice, his book did not deal with overarching themes in a separate introduction but covered them in the commentary whenever they appeared. His individual notes thus became sources of information on many areas of scholarship beyond the play itself. Fraenkel also showed an interest in commentary technique, coining new critical terms, such as guttatim for Aeschylus's use of cumulative apposition.