{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.040046207162110124, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015787447054293417, 'mean_word_length': 4.551282051282051, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Euripidean Chorus

The detailed analysis of affiliations and multifarious linkages does not make for easy reading, but it is handled with unimpeachable accuracy (so far as one can judge) and clarity of presentation. The conclusions reached are broadly in line with those of both Matthiessen and Mastronarde. Where Mastronarde sounded a note of caution against Matthiessen as to Moschopoulos, D.'s study confirms that Matthiessen was right. We can now decisively abandon Turyn's hypothesis of Moschopoulean and Thoman 'recensions'. Moschopoulos may indeed have introduced some novelties of his own invention, but we have no way of identifying them if they exist. Rather, we must visualise an indefinite number of Byzantine scholars actively interested in the text in the Paleologan period, and even somewhat earlier, with access to many more earlier MSS. than have survived to the present day. Usefully appended in chs. xvii-xviii are resume lists of what D. judges to be 'Conjectures in the Medieval Tradition' and 'Truth Preserved in a Minority'. Decisions as to transmitted truth are mostly in line with those of recent editors (M. L. West and myself). There are not many adversaria in this study (for which see rather D.'s article in CQ 40 [1990], 100-23); and this is not the place for me to take issue with the very few with which I disagree. Chs. xiv-xvi on ' The Papyri',' Testimonia' and' Colometry' are richly informative, but still mainly concerned with the light thrown on the MSS.' affiliations rather than on the tradition in antiquity. There is nothing here corresponding with Barrett's survey in his Introduction to Hippolytos: no mention anywhere, e.g., of Aristophanes of Byzantium, so that we are left in the dark as to what exactly D. means by 'the Alexandrian colometry' which 'can usually be recovered'. I hope to pursue elsewhere my view that in many lyric passages there are likely to have been diverse Alexandrian lineations, both in textually unstable or metrically 'difficult' places and in places admitting legitimate alternatives. But we must be grateful to D., as to Mastronarde, for providing so much of the evidence needed for further study in this field. The book is beautifully produced, admirably proof-read and typographed, and with exemplary indices. Pp. 7 and 27: the date of F may be as early as 1270, cf. West, CPh 85 (1990), 312. Pp. 71 and 147: one misses a mention of Ad's reading in 1501a (possibly the truth, but if so, presumably a lucky accident by a scribe much given to omission of letters). P. 137: read irarpaulaji' for iraTpa>i\av in line 14.