Textus Originalis

DE CODICIBUS LIBRORUM XI—XII.

XI 29, 2 συναχθέντων δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰς τὸν Ἰσθμόν, ἐδόκει τοῖς πᾶσιν [μένουσιν PHL, μένοντα A] ὅρκον ὀμόσαι. Lectiones, quae eaedem in P atque in AHL inveniuntur, plus valere quam ceterorum librorum, ex codicum aestimatione modo percepimus; hic autem nulla codicum ratione habita res ipsa docet, lectionem μένουσιν sensu carentem et a scriptura τοῖς πᾶσιν multo abhorrentem neque de industria neque casu mutatam, sed ex archetypo transscriptam esse. Corruptelam inesse etiam librarius A animadvertit et scripsit μένοντα. Minime ergo dubito, quin lectio τοῖς πᾶσιν coniectura et ea falsa sit; genuina lectio potius enucleanda est ex scriptura μένουσιν. Conatus sum scribere: μὲν αὐτοῖς vel σεμνόν, sed ipse meae arti diffido. XII 3, 3 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐκ Κιλικίας καὶ Φοινίκης προσφερομένων τριήρων τῇ νήσῳ, Κίμων ἐπαναχθεὶς καὶ πόλεμον συγκρούσας πολλὰς μὲν τῶν νεῶν κατέδυσεν, ἑκατὸν δὲ σὺν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν εἷλε, τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς μέχρι τῆς Φοινίκης κατεδίωξεν. Desunt in PAL (sine dubio etiam in H) vocabula καὶ πόλεμον συγκρούσας πολλὰς μέν, quibus omissis orationem hiare nemo non videt. Atque vidit ille librarius et lacunam implevit sapientia vili. An quid est vilius quam illud πολλὰς μέν? quid insolentius quam illa elocutio paene inaudita πόλεμον συγκρούειν, cuius unum exemplum praebent lexica (ex Johan. Mal. p. 219, 24)? Tamen hoc supplementum passus sum, inopia coactus, non credulitate. Restat ut imaginem archetypi, unde omnes codices usque ad hanc aetatem servati originem duxerunt, lineamentis aliquot describere conemur. Quamvis autem

Traduzione

ON THE MANUSCRIPTS OF BOOKS XI—XII.

XI 29, 2 συναχθέντων δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰς τὸν Ἰσθμόν, ἐδόκει τοῖς πᾶσιν [μένουσιν PHL, μένοντα A] ὅρκον ὀμόσαι. From the evaluation of the manuscripts we have just perceived that readings found the same in P and in AHL are more valuable than those of the other books; here, however, without regard to any manuscript evidence, the matter itself teaches that the reading μένουσιν, lacking sense and greatly at odds with the wording τοῖς πᾶσιν, was changed neither deliberately nor by chance, but was transcribed from the archetype. Even the scribe of A noticed that corruption and wrote μένοντα. I therefore have no doubt that the reading τοῖς πᾶσιν is conjectural and, moreover, false; the genuine reading must rather be extracted from the scriptura μένουσιν. I attempted to write: μὲν αὐτοῖς or σεμνόν, but I distrust my own skill. XII 3, 3 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐκ Κιλικίας καὶ Φοινίκης προσφερομένων τριήρων τῇ νήσῳ, Κίμων ἐπαναχθεὶς καὶ πόλεμον συγκρούσας πολλὰς μὲν τῶν νεῶν κατέδυσεν, ἑκατὸν δὲ σὺν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν εἷλε, τὰς δὲ λοιπὰς μέχρι τῆς Φοινίκης κατεδίωξεν. In PAL (without doubt also in H) the words καὶ πόλεμον συγκρούσας πολλὰς μέν are missing; with these omitted, everyone sees that the speech is gaping. And that scribe saw it and filled the lacuna with cheap cleverness. For what is cheaper than that πολλὰς μέν? What more unusual than that almost unheard-of expression πόλεμον συγκρούειν, of which lexica provide one example (from Johan. Mal. p. 219, 24)? Yet I have tolerated this supplement, compelled by necessity, not by credulity. It remains for us to attempt to describe in a few outlines the image of the archetype from which all manuscripts preserved up to this time originated. Although, however,