Textus Originalis

PRAEFATIO.

dissimile autem utriusque partis ingenium descripsit Bezzel hoc modo: 1. Cum libri prioris partis (I—V) exornati sint titulis Διοδώρου τοῦ Σικελιώτου βιβλιοθήκης ἱστορικῆς πρώτη (sc. βίβλος), δευτέρα, τρίτη, τετάρτη, πέμπτη, hi desiderantur in libris alterius partis. 2. Argumenta singulorum librorum omnibus quidem praescripta inveni, sed cum librorum I—V argumenta instructa sint epigrammatis quibusdam (ἔλεγχος τῆς πρώτης βίβλου, πίναξ τῆς δευτέρας, τρίτης etc.), apud libros XI—XV frustra haec quaeres. 3. In parte priore numeri semper verbis sunt expressi, in altera saepissime litteris compendiariis. 4. Contra in priore parte nonnulla verba compendiose scribuntur, in altera non item. Haec sunt: σρ̅ίας (σωτηρίας), πρ̅ (πατρίδος), πρ̅ς (πατέρος), ἀδ̅ (ἀδελφόν), quo in verbo saepissime lacuna invenitur, nec non apud λγ̅ (λόγος). 5. In priore parte Δημήτρας, semper τεχνήτας scribuntur, in altera Δήμητρος, τεχνίτας. 6. In priore parte hiatus minime evitatur, in altera autem cum magna diligentia. Codex A igitur ex duabus partibus separatim scriptis conglutinatus est. H Vaticanus codex 994 saec. XVI chartaceus, qui 138 foliis continet libros XI—XV, videtur is liber esse, unde sumpta sunt, quae Wesseling 'ex schedis (sc. Vaticanis) ante hos trecentos annos deproperatis ad libros XI—XV illustrandos admovit'. Cuius codicis collatio, qua usus est Wesseling, vereor ne non satis fuerit fida. L Parisinus codex 1662 chartaceus saec. XV exaratus videtur, olim Trivultii Cardinalis, continet libros XI—XV (Catal. biblioth. regiae Paris. II p. 384). Hic liber idem est, quem Wesseling ita descripsit: 'codex regius

Traduzione

PREFACE.

the dissimilar character of each part was described by Bezzel in this manner: 1. While the books of the prior part (I—V) are embellished with the titles Διοδώρου τοῦ Σικελιώτου βιβλιοθήκης ἱστορικῆς πρώτη (sc. βίβλος), δευτέρα, τρίτη, τετάρτη, πέμπτη, these are lacking in the books of the other part. 2. I found arguments prefixed to all the individual books, indeed, but whereas the arguments of Books I—V are furnished with certain epigrams (ἔλεγχος τῆς πρώτης βίβλου, πίναξ τῆς δευτέρας, τρίτης etc.), you will seek these in vain for Books XI—XV. 3. In the prior part, numerals are always expressed in words; in the other, very often in abbreviated letters. 4. Conversely, in the prior part some words are written in abbreviated form; in the other, not so. These are: σρ̅ίας (σωτηρίας), πρ̅ (πατρίδος), πρ̅ς (πατέρος), ἀδ̅ (ἀδελφόν), in which word a lacuna is very often found, and also in λγ̅ (λόγος). 5. In the prior part, Δημήτρας, τεχνήτας are always written; in the other, Δήμητρος, τεχνίτας. 6. In the prior part, hiatus is by no means avoided; in the other, however, with great diligence. Codex A, therefore, is glued together from two parts written separately. H is the Vatican codex 994, of the 16th century, on paper, which in 138 folios contains Books XI—XV; it seems to be that book from which were taken the materials that Wesseling 'applied from notes (sc. Vatican) hastily compiled three hundred years ago to illustrate Books XI—XV'. The collation of this codex, which Wesseling used, I fear may not have been sufficiently trustworthy. L is the Parisinus codex 1662, on paper, seems to have been written in the 15th century, formerly of Cardinal Trivulzio, contains Books XI—XV (Catal. biblioth. regiae Paris. II p. 384). This book is the same one that Wesseling described thus: 'the second royal codex*), which bears the number 2539, does not exceed the age of the 15th century, formerly of Cardinal Agostino Trivulzio.' For in Bergmann's writings are found certain readings from codex Paris. 1662, which agree entirely with those that Wesseling adduced from his second royal codex; for instance, both attest that chapters 55 and 56 of Book XII are mutilated by a huge lacuna. Codex L was written by a scribe not unlearned, but insufficiently diligent, who did not consider it a religious scruple to insert his own fabrications for the transmitted words. How closely these three codices AHL are connected among themselves, and how far removed from the others, will appear from the survey of readings that we will give below; for the present, we will explain in few words what relationship exists among these books AHL themselves. Neither could A derive from L, nor L from A, because besides the lacunae common to both, there exist others by which either codex A alone, or, which occurs much more often, L alone, is afflicted. For example, A omitted the entire chapter 80 of the twelfth book; codex L, as we just mentioned, omitted chapters 55 and 56 of the same book. H seems to surpass both of these codices: not indeed in age, but in completeness; wherefore it is the more to be regretted that whoever undertook to collate codex H used greater haste than that the reading of this book at each and every place might be established. Therefore, there is lacking some codex which alone might serve us as representative of this entire family. For which reason I was most eager to inspect a codex which is both related in family to books AHL and older in age. I mean the codex

*) 'Second' he calls it in the preface, where all the Parisian codices of Diodorus are discussed: the first in the notes to Books XI—XV, where number two signifies not this codex, but codex I. 2*