Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T12:11:11.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scheuer on the MSS. of Tacitus' Dialogus - De Tacitei de Oratoribus Dialogi Codicum nexu et fide scripsitFriedericus Scheuer, Diss. Bresl. 1891 (Bresl. Phil. Abh. vi. 1). Pp. 49. 2 Mk.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Alfred Gudeman
Alfred Gudeman
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 6 , Issue 7 , July 1892 , pp. 316 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1892

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 316 note 1 Michaelis (p. xii.) cites nine examples, out of a total of twenty-three available instances, of an agreement between AB us. CDEΔ (the cod. Vindobonensis is ignored)—a very unfortunate selection as no fewer than eight of them give the false reading, the other being doubtful.

page 316 note 2 Out of eleven instances cited on p. xiv. ch. 27, 16 cum for et cum of the Y class has nothing in its favour, while the est in 37, 23 is also unjustly retained by ABD.

page 317 note 1 On this passage, cf. Am. Jour. of Phil. xii. p. 454 ff.

page 318 note 1 There remain about 100 such variants unnoticed by Scheuer in which the two classes seem to blend into one another. The majority of these arise out of orthographical differences and common seribal errors. They in no way, however, invalidate the conclusion reached by Scheuer, as might appear at first sight. But regarding this point, I must refer to the Prolegomena of my forthcoming edition.