Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
SOME EMENDATIONS AND NON-EMENDATIONS IN THE THIRD EDITION OF CORPUS TIBULLIANUM BY G. K. GALINSKY When I took over the work on Friedrich Lenz' third edition (Leiden 1971) of the Tibullan Corpus I was aware that he had been characterized, and in some quarters even criticized, for being 'conservative' in his approach to the text. It is clear that a tradition as miserable as that of the Corpits Tibullianum invites more than the usual share of emendations and conjectures, and one could easily make a name for oneself by offering a great number of what H. D. Jocelyn calls "original contributions of his own" 1). Whether the adoption of this principle would be a genuine improvement of the Tibullan text rather than emendatory one-upmanship is open to question. Some of the following examples may illustrate that such emendations often are not the result of a careful study of the poetic context of a given passage, but the result of that schematic analogy- hunting which J. Whatmough in his Sather Lectures singled out for criticism 2) . Here as elsewhere, the use of the term `conservative' only obscures the issue. Nor do I see any harm Tibullum ex Tibullo
Mnemosyne – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 1973
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.