Abstract
A. The Problem:Since A. Gercke's fundamental work, there has been no complete reappraisal of the manuscript tradition of the Natural Questions, yet a reappraisal is long overdue. Gercke divided the manuscripts into two branches, Δ and Φ but this division has been seriously undermined from two quarters. First, H. W. Garrod questioned the status which Gercke assigned to Δ, arguing, quite rightly, that in every case where Δ has the truth against Φ, Δ's reading can reasonably be attributed to conjecture, which is known to be rife in Δ Certainly nothing is proved about Δ's integrity by the passages which Gercke adduced, such as the following (Δ's reading first):3
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Literature and Literary Theory,Philosophy,History,Classics
Reference69 articles.
1. Gercke , Seneca-Studien, p. 11
2. Gercke , Seneca-Studien, p. 37.
3. Axelson , Senecastudien, p. 88.
Cited by
30 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. SENECA, QVAESTIONES NATVRALES 4B.4.2: AERIS OR TEMPORIS? REMARKS ON THE MEANING OF TEMPVS;The Classical Quarterly;2021-04-16
2. General Bibliography;The Cambridge Companion to Seneca;2015-02-16
3. Seneca and the Moderns;The Cambridge Companion to Seneca;2015-02-16
4. Senecan Political Thought from the Middle Ages to Early Modernity;The Cambridge Companion to Seneca;2015-02-16
5. SenecaRedivivus;The Cambridge Companion to Seneca;2015-02-16