Textus Originalis

DE FRAGMENTIS LIBRORUM VI—X.

primus editor Bipontinus (in vol. IV, anno 1799).*) Deinde multum studii in hac spinosa quaestione consumpsit Krebs (Lectiones Diodoreae, Hadamar 1832)**) atque res usque ad Olymp. 18, 1 (= fragm. VIII 20) ita absolvit, ut editores Diodori plerumque ad eius sententiam accesserint. Interea etiam excerpta Vaticana cognita erant, quorum de ratione et ordine iam Angelus Mai et Ludovicus Dindorf argutas fecerant coniecturas. Praeterea autem Dindorf in fragmentis Diodori non multus fuit***); nam in prioribus editionibus (a. 1826 et 1828) nihil novi occurrit nisi loci quidam ex Tzetze, Eusebio aliisque excerpti, quidquid autem in editione Parisina (a. 1842) in hac re profectum est, id sua opera elaboratum esse testatur Carolus Müller (vol. I praef.): 'Utinam Dindorfus fragmenta, quae tam prae-

*) Hoc labore supersedit Eichstädt, qui (in vol. II praefatione, a. 1802) hanc dixit sententiam: 'fragmenta quidem recentiores editores suis reponere locis tentarunt. Quorum ego conamina quamquam non repudio, si qua forte utilitas inde ad continuam Diodori lectionem redundet; tamen cum fragmenta et brevia sint, nec suis quaeque locis satis tuto restitui queant, utilitatem illam perexiguam, errandi periculum maius esse et gravius existimo.' — Ieiuni an fastidiosi hoc esse putas? equidem sobrii. **) Hunc libellum multis verbis eisque perdoctis recensuit Wurm (Neue Jahrb. d. Phil. 1833 p. 64), qui ipse Diodori bibliothecam lingua Germanica interpretatus fragmenta suo arbitrio ordinavit (a. 1831), omissis tamen singulorum librorum numeris. ***) Contra Bursian (Gesch. d. klass. Philologie p. 867): 'Von dem gleichfalls zu wiederholten Malen von Dindorf bearbeiteten Geschichtswerk des Diodor sind es namentlich die bruchstückweise erhaltenen Partien, welche demselben in bezug auf Anordnung und Herstellung der einzelnen Bruchstücke viel verdanken.'

Traduzione

ON THE FRAGMENTS OF BOOKS VI—X.

...the first Bipontine editor (in vol. IV, 1799).*) Then Krebs (Lectiones Diodoreae, Hadamar 1832)**) spent much effort on this thorny question and brought the matter up to Olympiad 18, 1 (= fragm. VIII 20) to such a conclusion that most Diodoran editors have agreed with his opinion. Meanwhile, the Vatican excerpts had also become known, about whose nature and order Angelo Mai and Ludovicus Dindorf had already made subtle conjectures. Moreover, Dindorf was not extensive in the fragments of Diodorus***); for in the earlier editions (1826 and 1828) nothing new occurs except certain passages excerpted from Tzetzes, Eusebius, and others; whatever progress was made in this matter in the Paris edition (1842) is testified by Carolus Müller (vol. I praef.) to have been elaborated by his own work: 'Would that Dindorf had treated the fragments, which so pre-...'

*) Eichstädt refrained from this labor, who (in vol. II preface, 1802) expressed this opinion: 'Indeed, recent editors have attempted to place the fragments in their proper places. Although I do not reject their efforts, if perhaps some utility therefrom redounds to the continuous reading of Diodorus; yet since the fragments are brief and cannot be safely restored each to its place, I consider that utility very slight, and the danger of error greater and more serious.' — Do you think this is meager or fastidious? I consider it sober. **) This little book was reviewed with many words and very learned ones by Wurm (Neue Jahrb. d. Phil. 1833 p. 64), who himself translated Diodorus' library into German and arranged the fragments according to his own judgment (in 1831), yet omitting the numbers of individual books. ***) Contra Bursian (Gesch. d. klass. Philologie p. 867): 'Of the historical work of Diodorus, which was also repeatedly edited by Dindorf, it is especially the fragmentarily preserved parts that owe much to him in regard to arrangement and restoration of the individual fragments.'

Commentario Arethe