Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

V. KONTORINI, VOl. II. Athens, Institut du Livre - M. Kardamitsa, 1989. 223 pp., 49 plates

V. KONTORINI, VOl. II. Athens, Institut du Livre - M. Kardamitsa, 1989. 223 pp., 49 plates 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Mnemosyne Brill

V. KONTORINI, VOl. II. Athens, Institut du Livre - M. Kardamitsa, 1989. 223 pp., 49 plates

Mnemosyne , Volume 45 (3): 429 – Jan 1, 1992

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/v-kontorini-vol-ii-athens-institut-du-livre-m-kardamitsa-1989-223-pp-EfKYvxKMW6

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1992 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0026-7074
eISSN
1568-525X
DOI
10.1163/156852592X00287
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

MnemosyneBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1992

There are no references for this article.