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.
429 insult to the reader. Superfluous and pedantic is the addition of Por- tugal on p. 98, the translation of Venus ( = Aphrodite) on p. 131, the line in parenthesi on p. 164 (line 2 and 3), the remark on Claude Per- rault on p. 170, the translation of Louis le Grand (p. 170) and the translation of contention (p. 209). The remark on De Oosterburen is unnecessary (p. 42), just as his remarks on Picasso in parenthesi on p. 55/56. In the first sentence on p. 50 we see a good example of the author's uncertainty: meestal, niet alti:fd, hoezeer daarnaast, etc. On p. 20 I do not understand line 2 and 3 and I miss the first road. He uses strange words: gestiliseerd (p. 22), Bisschop (p. 25), allegoristerei (sic!) (p. 198) and a strange style (line 6/7 from bottom page 84). His transcription of Greek words is mostly literal: we find Homeros and Plotinos. But why not Platon then and Dionysios Areopagites (instead of Areiopagites). There are too many printing errors: p. 33, 66, 82, 124, 150, 152 and 210. Why do we find Het Ene on p. 80 and het Ene on p.
Mnemosyne – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 1992
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.