No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In the accompanying paper I have attempted a new collation of the manuscripts of Moschus’Europa, in order to correct some errors and omissions that may be detected in the critical apparatus of Winfried Büihler’s excellent edition of this work (Hermes, Einzelschrift xii [1960]). Büihler’s textual decisions, for instance, are refreshingly free from slavish preconceptions and inert prejudice. When he prints an emendation or opts for the daggers of despair, he is usually right. The occasions when he rejects the manuscript tradition without overriding justification are rare. At 77 there is probably no need to posit corruption in δήγάρ At 127 κóλου foreshadows with typical Hellenistic ambiguity the verb λοώθηin 129.2 It is possible that there are two other places also where the manuscript tradition has wrongly been suspected: κυανin 47 and ϊαρόν in 60.
page 154 note 1 Cf. Lloyd-Jones, H., Gnomon xxxiii (1961),38;Google ScholarFontenrose, J.AJP lxxxiii (1962), 306.Google Scholar
page 154 note 2 Cf. Giangrande, G., Eranos lxiv (1966), 24 ffGoogle Scholar
page 155 note 1 Cf. F. H. Stubbings in Wace-Stubbings, Companion to Homer, 509.Google Scholar
page 155 note 2 Cf. Ebeling’s lexicon s.v., ’κυανέηνsignificat non tam colorent quam materiam.’ A further link between this passage of II. 18 and Moschus, Europa 44–7, has been called to my attention by Professor J. Gould, who writes, ’The (44) and (47) would correspond to and echo the similar wording in Il 18. 564f.(44) and (47) would correspond to and echo the similar wording in Il 18. 564f. and
page 155 note 3 CR xxxviii (1924), 50 f.Google Scholar
page 155 note 4 CQ, N.S. xvii (1967), 85 ffGoogle Scholar
page 156 note 1 Cf. the Thesaurus, s.v.Google Scholar
page 156 note 2 Cf. Giangrande, Eranos lxiv (1966), 24 ffGoogle Scholar