Textus Originalis

PRAEFATIO.

clare emaculavit numeroque auxit, etiam ordinare denuo voluisset. Nullus dubito, quin eo modo ad pristinam operis dispositionem omnia iam revocata haberemus. Verum adversante in hac re Diodoro fortuna, meos in humeros onus suscepi, quod sanequam grave bene me usquequaque sustinuisse haud contendo.' Postrema autem Dindorfi editio, sicuti Bekkeri, quod pertinet ad fragmenta librorum VI—X, tota pendet ex Parisina; nimirum suo loco adduntur excerpta ex codice Escorialensi περὶ ἐπιβουλῶν post editionem Parisinam inventa.*) Neque ipse animum inducere potui, ut ab hoc iam inveterato ordine longius recederem; ne legentes perturbarentur, eosdem fragmentorum numeros, quibus usus est Dindorf, quam maxime retinebam. Tamen saepius numeri mutandi erant, quia Dindorf ipse unum fragmentum transponi (VI 6 = XXI 1, 6), alterum inseri (VII 14) in corrigendis iussit, tertium delendum erat utpote ex primo Diodori libro (c. 28 et 77) a Ioh. Laurentio (de magistr. I 47) haustum; praeterea Dindorfium sequi non potui in eo, quod frag. IX 10 in duas partes distinxit priorem tantum partem excerptis Vaticanis attribuens, posteriorem nescio quo errore ductus excerptis περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας; tum illas controversias Cleonnis et Aristomenis (VIII 12) equidem unum fragmentum numero, non tria, ut Dindorf; deinde non intellego, qua ratione loci ex integris Diodori libris sumpti, quibus ad priora aut ad posteriora delegatur, tamquam fragmenta a Dindorfio numerati sint; denique fragmentum (VI 7), quod nuper enucleavit A. Ludwich, additum est.

*) De posteriore octavi libri parte idem egit Krebs (a. 1856, program. gymn. Weilburg), noni fragmenta optime illustravit Klüber (a. 1868, Würzburg).

Traduzione

PREFACE.

had clearly emended and increased in number, would also have wished to arrange them anew. I have no doubt that in that way we would have everything already brought back to the original disposition of the work. But since fortune opposed Diodorus in this matter, I have taken upon my shoulders a burden which, although indeed heavy, I do not claim to have borne well in every respect.' The latest edition of Dindorf, however, like Bekker's, as far as it pertains to the fragments of Books VI—X, depends entirely on the Paris edition; naturally, in their proper place are added the excerpts from the Escorial codex περὶ ἐπιβουλῶν discovered after the Paris edition.*) Nor could I myself bring myself to depart too far from this now established order; so that readers might not be confused, I retained as much as possible the same fragment numbers that Dindorf used. Yet the numbers often had to be changed, because Dindorf himself ordered one fragment to be transposed (VI 6 = XXI 1, 6), another to be inserted (VII 14) in the corrigenda, a third had to be deleted as drawn from the first book of Diodorus (c. 28 and 77) by John Laurentius (de magistr. I 47); moreover, I could not follow Dindorf in that he divided frag. IX 10 into two parts, attributing only the former part to the Vatican excerpts, and the latter part, led by I know not what error, to the excerpts περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας; then those famous controversies of Cleonnis and Aristomenes (VIII 12) I count as one fragment, not three, as Dindorf does; furthermore, I do not understand for what reason passages taken from the intact books of Diodorus, which refer to earlier or later passages, have been numbered as fragments by Dindorf; finally, a fragment (VI 7), recently elucidated by A. Ludwich, has been added.

*) Concerning the latter part of the eighth book, Krebs also worked on the same (a. 1856, program. gymn. Weilburg); Klüber excellently illustrated the fragments of the ninth (a. 1868, Würzburg).

Commentario Arethe