奥里巴修斯论卷心菜:libri ad evnapivm 3.13.4

Lijuan Lin
{"title":"奥里巴修斯论卷心菜:libri ad evnapivm 3.13.4","authors":"Lijuan Lin","doi":"10.1017/s0009838823001052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article suggests a new reading for Oribasius’ Libri ad Eunapium 3.13.4. Based on evidence from both Greek and Syriac sources, it argues that the variant contained in Oribasius’ Synopsis ad Eustathium should be adopted as the correct reading of the original.","PeriodicalId":510528,"journal":{"name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"10 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ORIBASIUS ON CABBAGE: LIBRI AD EVNAPIVM 3.13.4\",\"authors\":\"Lijuan Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0009838823001052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article suggests a new reading for Oribasius’ Libri ad Eunapium 3.13.4. Based on evidence from both Greek and Syriac sources, it argues that the variant contained in Oribasius’ Synopsis ad Eustathium should be adopted as the correct reading of the original.\",\"PeriodicalId\":510528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Classical Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"10 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Classical Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009838823001052\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Classical Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009838823001052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文为奥里巴修斯(Oribasius)的《Libri ad Eunapium》3.13.4 提出了一种新的读法。根据来自希腊文和叙利亚文的证据,文章认为应采用奥里巴修斯的《Synopsis ad Eustathium》中的变体作为原文的正确读法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ORIBASIUS ON CABBAGE: LIBRI AD EVNAPIVM 3.13.4
This article suggests a new reading for Oribasius’ Libri ad Eunapium 3.13.4. Based on evidence from both Greek and Syriac sources, it argues that the variant contained in Oribasius’ Synopsis ad Eustathium should be adopted as the correct reading of the original.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
NATURE, LANDSCAPE AND IDENTITY IN SILIUS ITALICUS’ ACCOUNT OF THE BATTLE AT THE TREBIA JULIUS CAESAR AND THE LARCH: BURNING QUESTIONS AT VITRUVIUS’ DE ARCHITECTVRA 2.9.15–16 EURIPIDES, TROADES 95–7: IS SOMETHING MISSING? TWO NOTES ON AURELIUS VICTOR'S LIBER DE CAESARIBVS (10.5 LAVTVSQVE AND 13.3 SATISQVE) A FEMININE TYPOLOGICAL TRINITY IN PROBA'S CENTO VERGILIANVS 380–414
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1