Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:11:48.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Britt Dahlman, Saint Daniel of Sketis; a group of hagiographic texts edited with introduction, translation and commentary. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 10, 2007. Pp. 260

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Joseph A. Munitiz*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Some rare blemishes in the English: ‘adviced’ for ‘advised’ p. 79, n. 48; ‘accidence’ for ‘accident’ p. 88, line 10; ‘reservation’ for ‘reserve’ p. 196, note 4-5; ‘opposite’ for ‘opposed’, p. 193, note 19.

2 Occasionally the editor does take a helping hand from a related manuscript (e.g. Coislin. 282 for Story 4A): hence I would also have accepted πυκτεύσιχντος in place of πυκτεύσας in this story (line 17). But overall her choice of readings seems sound; έν έχοτφ (EV) in place of the #έν έμχυτφ given by given by MV (Story 6: 114) is one of the few cases where I would differ.

3 They can be identified as follows: de homicidio BHG 2100; Marcus salus BHG 2255; de mendico caeco BHG 2102; Thomais Alexandrina BHG 2453+b; de virgine ebria BHG 2101; Eulogius latomus BHG 618; Andronicus et Athanasia BHG 122; Anastasia patricia BHG 79.