Aportaciones críticas al libro I del De natura animalium de C. Eliano (I)
Loading...
Publication date
Authors
Advisors
Department
Research group
Center
Abstract
El deficiente conocimiento de los manuscritos del De Natura Animalium de C. Eliano y sus relaciones llevó a R. Hercher a desestimar en su edición muchas buenas lecturas que hoy sabemos que se remontaban al arquetipo. Nos proponemos poner de manifiesto este hecho a través del análisis de un buen número de pasajes correspondientes al proemio y al libro I del tratado, ya que una nueva colación de los manuscritos más importantes ha venido a arrojar mucha luz al respecto. En este primer artículo se incluye además una introducción general que trata brevemente sobre los diversos manuscritos.
The deficient knowledge of the manuscript De Natura Animalium by C. Aelian, and its relations led R. Hercher to reject in his edition a lot of good readings that dated from the archetype, as we know. We decide to expose this incident through the analysis of a good number of passages that belong to the prologue and the 1st book of the treatise, since a new important comparison of the manuscripts has clarified on that subject. In this first article, it is included a general introduction that deals, briefly, with the different manuscripts.
The deficient knowledge of the manuscript De Natura Animalium by C. Aelian, and its relations led R. Hercher to reject in his edition a lot of good readings that dated from the archetype, as we know. We decide to expose this incident through the analysis of a good number of passages that belong to the prologue and the 1st book of the treatise, since a new important comparison of the manuscripts has clarified on that subject. In this first article, it is included a general introduction that deals, briefly, with the different manuscripts.







