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
As a student at Cambridge forty years ago I received a good training in the language and literature of classical Greece, and had the good fortune to study paleography under the late E. H. Minns. For all this I am deeply grateful. But I had no training in Byzantine Greek. It was only later, and more or less by accident, that I discovered Byzantine and Modern Greek. It is not my intention to discuss the wider aspects of this question now, but to appeal, on the basis of some passages in the Oresteia, for a new approach to textual criticism, or rather for the renewal of an old approach.
2 Headlam, W., ‘The Transposition of Words in MSS’, CR xvi (1902), 243.Google Scholar
3 Cobet, C. G., Variae Lectiones, p. 475.Google Scholar
4 Headlam, , On Editing Aeschylus (1891), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
1 Headlam, , C.R. xvi. 247.Google Scholar
2 Paley, F. A., The Tragedies of Aeschylus (1861), p. xxx.Google Scholar
1 Thomson, G., The Oresteia of Aeschylus (1938), i. 74–93.Google Scholar
1 Porson, R., Euripides, p. 7.Google Scholar
2 Cobet, , Collectanea Critica, p. 188.Google Scholar
3 Headlam, , C.R. xvi. 243.Google Scholar
1 The case for 
has been argued by Beattie, A. R., who writes (C.R. N.S. ii [:1952] 71): ‘The corruption 
which is a hap. leg., would easily arise from the the context’. How?Google Scholar
1 Cf. also ch. 302–4 
