No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Winfried bühler's edition of Moschus’ Europa [Hermes, Einzelschrift 12 [1960]) has had the rare accolade of unstinted praise from reviewers in all languages. And deservedly so. Its text is eminently sound, its commentary relevantly erudite and richly instructive particularly about Moschus’ stylistic debts and paternities. Bühler's review of the Europa saga in ancient literature supersedes all that was written previously. And finally, his detailed collation of the nine independent manuscripts of the text establishes for the first time the full evidence for a completely effective stemma which few will challenge and none substantially alter.
page 149 note 1 Occasionally the editor rejects the manuscript tradition, without overriding justification, however, as I hope to show in an accompanying paper.
page 149 note 2 Bühler may be wrong only in his assess ment of the position of S in the stemma. Irigoin, J. (REG 76 [1943], 421 ff.) argues persuasively that where S has a good reading against FBA, its superiority may reflect not a better tradition but rather Planudes’ emendatorial flair.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 149 note 3 The Manuscripts of Aeschylus, Cambridge, 1964, 6 n. †.
page 150 note 1 Particularly s.l. = supra lineam; i.m. = in margine; * = an illegible letter; * = rasura covering the space of one letter. Underlining defines the extent of a correction.
page 150 note 2 Cf. also on 90, 144.
page 150 note 3 Ahrens (ed. maior, i [Leipzig, 1855], 45) already refers to A's ‘literis ita euanidis … ut pauca legi possint’.