Die Abortiva in der römischen Kaiserzeit

The relationship ofP to Aetius, however, is not satisfactorily resolved. There is no clear line on what to do with passages in P suspected of being interpolated from Aetius. Some are banished completely from both text and apparatus; others are relegated to an appendix; still others are included in the text but in smaller letters. It would perhaps have been best to print the whole of P's text, indicating with brackets and smaller print the passages rejected by the editors. As it is, there is still doubt as to the editors' views of the status of the various passages. Conversely, at 1 1.46-49, we ought to have been told whether the marginal note is in the same hand as that of the text, for this has a bearing on the authenticity of these lines and of the various scribal rearrangements (at 31.21, I would delete the penultimate word as an early gloss on the (superfluous) word that follows). What do these philological changes mean, particularly for an English readership accustomed to the Baltimore, 1956, translation? For an overview of Soranus, the English translation is still useful-indeed, its rendering of ch. 2 is more accurate than the French-but for any work on details, the new Bude is essential, not least for its introductions and commentary. The remaining books are eagerly awaited.