No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On Heliodorus Aethiopica 7.12.6
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Mr. Reeve has shown beyond question that the vulgate is corrupt: ‘ marks exaggerations, is not an exaggeration (or sense in the context), and there is therefore something wrong with the text.’
- Type
- Shorter Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1977
References
1 C.Q. N.S. 18 (1968), 286. Mr. Reeve's very tentative will probably seem more attractive to others than it did to him, but ‘she all but…sees through me (my eyes)’ is not suitable before the unqualified seems certainly not to affect these words.) Besides, is an odd word-order.Google Scholar
2 The apparatus (Budé) presents the evidence in a way that leads one from the truth. It should have VM.
3 On this I follow Rattenbury and Lumb, the Budé editors. Even if their account of the tradition should be proved to have faults in it, it is anyhow hard to see how got into VM unless it was in the archetype.
4 That we should have a word for eyes in a catalogue like this is supported also by X. Cyr. 8.2.10–12; Arist.Pol. 3.11.9, 1287b 29 f. Plu. Arat. 25.7, 1039A; Luc. Ind. 23. The following passages, in which eyes and ears, vision and hearing, are referred to literally, also favour my view: Ach.Tat. 1.6.3.1
5 It is very noteworthy how seldom scribal error produced a vox nihili. See Thomson, G., ‘Marxism and Textual Criticism’, Wissenschaftlicbe Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, vol. 12 (1963), 43–52(45)Google Scholar, or any extensive apparatus criticus.
6 in Hld. e.g. 2.8.5.10; 2.16.6.3; 2.24.6.4.