Textus Originalis
DE CODICIBUS LIBRORUM XI—XII.
XI 53, 1 ὁ Ἀκραγαντίνων — Θήρων om. F XII 12, 4 ὑπούλοις om. F XI 54, 3 αὐτοὺς om. I XII 74, 1 ἀνυπέρβλητον] ἀξιόλογον I XI 14, 3 συχνοὺς] πολλούς K XII 49, 2 ὁ τῶν Λακ. ναύαρχος om. K 68, 4 δὲ καὶ . . πόλεων om. K 46, 7 ἐξέλιπον τὴν πατρίδα] ἀπῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος M 66, 1 θλιβόμενοι] ἐθλίβοντο M.
Sed hic subsistamus. Suppetunt enim iam exempla ad cognoscendum horum librorum plurimum valere F, etsi in medio relinquendum est, num codex F ceterorum non solum princeps, sed etiam parens sit. Est enim cur suspicemur codicum collationes, quibus nos adhuc utimur, multis modis esse mancas et fallaces. Quare singulorum codicum FIKM inter se necessitudinem explicare non audeo; atque ut dicam quod sentio, hoc aenigma solvere non gestio. Nam mihi persuasum est omnibus codicibus, in quibus haec editio posita est, denuo perquisitis in verbis Diodori corrigendis perpaulum profici. Augebitur tantum numerus locorum, ubi et codices FIKM et AHL inter se concordant, altera familia codicum ab altera discordat; atque multae lectiones, quae codici P propriae visae sunt, investigabuntur etiam in H et L, sicut in codice A Hermanni Bezzel opera recognito iam indagatae sunt. Utut autem haec sunt, de ratione, qua codices ad Diodori libros XI et XII recensendos adhibendi sint, mea quidem sententia dubitatio esse non potest. Fundamentum operis est codex P, ceteri codices tamquam adminicula suggerendi sunt eis locis non ita paucis, ubi codex P lacunis aut mendis deformatus est. Ceteri
Traduzione
English — scholarly
ARETHE Knowledge Engineering DivisionON THE MANUSCRIPTS OF BOOKS XI—XII.
XI 53, 1 ὁ Ἀκραγαντίνων — Θήρων om. F XII 12, 4 ὑπούλοις om. F XI 54, 3 αὐτοὺς om. I XII 74, 1 ἀνυπέρβλητον] ἀξιόλογον I XI 14, 3 συχνοὺς] πολλούς K XII 49, 2 ὁ τῶν Λακ. ναύαρχος om. K 68, 4 δὲ καὶ . . πόλεων om. K 46, 7 ἐξέλιπον τὴν πατρίδα] ἀπῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος M 66, 1 θλιβόμενοι] ἐθλίβοντο M.
But let us stop here. For there are already sufficient examples for recognizing that among these books F has the greatest value, even if it must be left undecided whether codex F is not only the chief but also the parent of the others. For there is reason to suspect that the collations of manuscripts that we still use are in many ways incomplete and deceptive. Wherefore I do not dare to explain the relationship among the individual codices FIKM; and to speak my mind, I am not eager to solve this enigma. For I am persuaded that after all the manuscripts on which this edition is based have been thoroughly re-examined, very little progress will be made in correcting Diodorus' words. The number of places where both the FIKM and AHL codices agree among themselves, while one family differs from the other, will only increase; and many readings that seemed peculiar to codex P will be discovered also in H and L, just as they have already been tracked down in codex A by the work of Hermann Bezzel. However this may be, concerning the method by which the manuscripts are to be used for recensuing Diodorus' Books XI and XII, in my opinion there can be no doubt. The foundation of the work is codex P; the other manuscripts are to be brought in as supports in those not infrequent places where codex P is disfigured by lacunae or errors. For all
Commentario Arethe
Fundamentum operis est codex P, ceteri codices tamquam adminicula suggerendi sunt
Vogel's editorial principle stated plainly: 'The foundation of the work is codex P; the other manuscripts are to be brought in as supports.' This is a classic statement of the principle of recension based on a single best manuscript (codex optimus), modified by the two-branch check: wherever P agrees with either AHL or FIKM, the reading is archetypal. Where P stands alone against all others, the matter is 'still before the judge' (lis sub iudice est, echoing Horace Ars Poetica 78). This conservative approach — trusting the oldest witness unless positively refuted — defines the Vogel edition's character.