Textus Originalis
PRAEFATIO.
2. Codices F et G, qui nuper Berolinum translati sunt, inspexit Georgius Schneider, vir de Diodori studiis optime meritus, atque codicem F, ut coniecimus (vol. I p. XVII), in recentissimis libris numerandum esse comprobavit. Summa autem eius inventi est (G. Schneider, De aliquot libris Diodori, Berlin 1890): 'codicem F totum ex libro G manavisse' (p. 7) atque 'ad textum Diodori constituendum codicem G nulla auctoritate esse nec magis in editionibus citandum quam F' (p. 19). Tamen in hac editione codices G et F citatos invenies, non solum quia Schneideri programma sero editum est, sed ob eam potissimum causam, quod codicibus, unde G et F transcripti esse dicuntur, nondum accurate collatis codice G carere nequeo. Quod ad notarum explicationem attinet, obliquis litteris CFG distinxi eas lectiones, quas in codicibus CFG inveniri non ex dilucidis Wesselingi verbis apparet, sed ex eius silentio tantum concludi potest: exempli gratia V 11, 3 Wesseling adnotavit codices ABFG praebere ἐγκαλουμένους pro ἐγκαλοῦντας, quod ille in textum recepit; ipse recepi ἐγκαλουμένους, atque quoniam eadem lectio in codice D invenitur, brevitatis causa in apparatu critico non scripsi: ἐγκαλουμένους ABDFG, ἐγκαλοῦντας cet., sed: ἐγκαλοῦντας C, quod praeter illos quinque libros unum C mentione dignum existimo.
Traduzione
English — scholarly
ARETHE Knowledge Engineering DivisionPREFACE.
2. Codices F and G, which were recently transferred to Berlin, were inspected by Georg Schneider, a man most deserving in Diodoran studies, and he confirmed that codex F, as we conjectured (vol. I p. XVII), is to be counted among the most recent books. The sum of his discovery is (G. Schneider, De aliquot libris Diodori, Berlin 1890): 'codex F entirely derived from codex G' (p. 7) and 'for establishing the text of Diodorus, codex G has no authority and should no more be cited in editions than F' (p. 19). Yet in this edition you will find codices G and F cited, not only because Schneider's program was published late, but chiefly for the reason that, since the manuscripts from which G and F are said to have been transcribed have not yet been accurately collated, I cannot do without codex G. As for the explanation of the symbols, I have distinguished by italics those readings which are found in codices CFG not from clear words of Wesseling, but can only be inferred from his silence: for example, at V 11, 3 Wesseling noted that codices ABFG offer ἐγκαλουμένους for ἐγκαλοῦντας, which he received into the text; I myself adopted ἐγκαλουμένους, and since the same reading is found in codex D, for the sake of brevity I did not write in the critical apparatus: ἐγκαλουμένους ABDFG, ἐγκαλοῦντας cet., but: ἐγκαλοῦντας C, because besides those five books I consider C alone worthy of mention.
Commentario Arethe
Georgius Schneider, vir de Diodori studiis optime meritus
Georg Schneider published 'De aliquot libris Diodori' (Berlin 1890), in which he demonstrated that codex F (Laurentianus) was entirely derived from codex G: 'codicem F totum ex libro G manavisse.' This is a critical finding for stemmatic analysis — it means F and G represent a single witness, not two independent ones. Schneider's work appeared too late for Vogel to fully incorporate, so F and G are still cited separately in the apparatus. This illustrates a perennial challenge of 19th-century scholarship: the lag between publication and incorporation.
obliquis litteris CFG distinxi eas lectiones... ex eius silentio tantum concludi potest
A crucial methodological note on Vogel's apparatus: he uses italics to distinguish readings in CFG that are inferred from Wesseling's silence (argumentum ex silentio) rather than from explicit statements. This is a transparency device — it lets the reader know which attributions are certain and which are deduced. The example he gives (V 11, 3: ἐγκαλουμένους vs. ἐγκαλοῦντας) shows how brevity in the apparatus can disguise complex reasoning about manuscript agreements.