Textus Originalis

PRAEFATIO.

verat, permulta Diodori fragmenta non sine multo labore e tenebris eripuit (script. vet. n. coll. II, Romae 1827). Librum illum misere violatum*) denuo perscrutatus est Herwerden (spicilegium Vatic., Lugduni Batavorum 1860). Deinde ex codice Escorialensi I, Ω 11 chartaceo saec. XVI excerpta περὶ ἐπιβουλῶν edidit et Aug. Feder (Darmstadt 1848) et Car. Müller (fragm. h. Gr. II p. VII), quibus etiam Diodori quaedam continentur. Denique apud varios scriptores antiquitatis et medii aevi editores Diodori vestigia persecuti spicilegio parum copioso eius reliquias auxerunt. Haec disiecta Diodori membra ut haud facili negotio collecta sunt, ita suo quodque loco ponere opus si non difficilius, certe subtilius atque fallacius est. Hunc laborem primus adiit Wesselingius, neque tamen perfecit: fragmentis enim, quae inter illa excerpta περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας atque περὶ πρεσβειῶν exstant, seorsus positis reliqua tantum in ordinem digerere conatus est. Tum eodem fere tempore et Stroth in interpretatione Diodori Germanica fragmenta, quae tum (anno 1782) erant nota, universa disponenda curavit et Heyne in commentatione de fontibus et auctoribus Diodori extrema (anno 1784), quo ordine fragmenta inter se excipere viderentur, disputavit. Sed ne hi quidem singula fragmenta singulis libris attribuere ausi sunt, nisi quod quaecumque ad fabulas bello Troiano antiquiores spectant, ex ipsius Diodori dispositione (I 4, 6) in sextum librum rettulerunt. Cetera quoque fragmenta singulis libris (VII—X) distribuere ausus est

*) Mendelssohn (edit. Appiani I p. XVIII) de palimpsesto haec: 'nunc medicamentis Maianis tantopere adfectus, ut equidem nihil fere legere potuerim ac praeter perpauca ab Herwerdeno feliciter eruta Maio fidem habere debuerim.'

Traduzione

PREFACE.

...had discovered, brought to light many fragments of Diodorus, not without great labor (script. vet. n. coll. II, Rome 1827). That wretchedly damaged book*) was again scrutinized by Herwerden (spicilegium Vatic., Leiden 1860). Then from the Escorial codex I, Ω 11, a paper manuscript of the 16th century, both Aug. Feder (Darmstadt 1848) and Car. Müller (fragm. h. Gr. II p. VII) published excerpts περὶ ἐπιβουλῶν, which also contain some Diodoran material. Finally, following Diodorus' traces among various ancient and medieval writers, they augmented his remains with a rather meager collection. Just as these scattered members of Diodorus have been collected with no easy task, so placing each in its own place is a work, if not more difficult, certainly more subtle and deceptive. Wesseling was the first to undertake this labor, yet he did not complete it: for, having set apart the fragments that exist among those excerpts περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας and περὶ πρεσβειῶν, he only attempted to arrange the rest in order. Then around the same time, both Stroth in his German translation of Diodorus had the fragments known at that time (in 1782) arranged as a whole, and Heyne in his final essay on the sources and authors of Diodorus (in 1784) discussed in what order the fragments seemed to follow one another. But not even these dared to assign individual fragments to individual books, except that whatever pertains to stories older than the Trojan War, they referred to the sixth book, following Diodorus' own arrangement (I 4, 6). He also dared to distribute the remaining fragments to individual books (VII—X)

*) Mendelssohn (edit. Appiani I p. XVIII) says this about the palimpsest: 'now so greatly affected by Mai's chemicals that I myself could read almost nothing and, except for a very few things happily unearthed by Herwerden, I had to trust Mai.'

Commentario Arethe