This chapter argues that the practice of excerption is the best way to explain the apparent “gaps” in coverage in Berol. 9780. The discussion begins by studying F. Leo's hypothesis that explained why Berol. 9780 does not meet the expectations of some scholars as a commentary on Dem. 9–11 and 13. It then addresses the literary and physical “fragments” of Didymus, before it studies his reputation in ancient and modern scholarship. The next section looks at the criticisms of the theories of H. Diels and W. Schubart on Didymus' commentaries on Dem. 9–11 and 13.
California Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.