aportaciones críticas a una edición de la mulomedicina de vegecio

Clicks: 25
ID: 188375
1986
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #91 of 144 articles by views in south african journal of botany

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 144 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The author examines the bases of the edition of Mulomedicina by Vegetius, made by E. Lommatzsch (Leipzig, Teubner, 1903), and tries to demonstrate the edition has some mistakes: first of all, the editor has overvalued the editio princeps (J. Faber, Basel, 1528); then, he has excessively undervalued the mss. of the epitome, but most surprising is the treatment given to ms. F (= Laurentianus 45, 19, XIVth century), whose variants are not included in the apparatus criticus of the edition since the beginning of Book II. Finally, the author hopes that his reviewing contributes to give new points of view for a future edition of Mulomedicina.
Reference Key
gmez1986emeritaaportaciones Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;José María Robles Gómez
Journal south african journal of botany
Year 1986
DOI
10.3989/emerita.1986.v54.i2.654
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.