Textus Originalis
IV PRAEFATIO.
quae in praefatione priorum voluminum disserui. Primum enim maximi momenti est, quod codices et librorum I—V et XI—XV in duas partes dirempti sunt idque discrimen usque ab temporibus codicum nostrorum aetate multo antiquioribus repeti potest (I p. XX. II p. XXXII). Deinde, ut Suidae et Peiresci libros hic praeteream, Stephanus atque interpretes latini*) codicibus utebantur, qui a nostris non numquam diversi, numquam tamen eis se praestant potiores. Georgius Schneider, qui multum studii ac doctrinae in codicibus Diodori recensendis consumpsit, hanc tulit sententiam (Wochenschrift f. klass. Philologie 1891 p. 677): 'Vogel hält die mühevolle Durchforschung dieser vielen Schreibereien für zwecklos; leider nur zu sehr mit Recht. Die Aufstellung eines vollständigen Stemma der Handschriften entbehrt der praktischen Bedeutung.' Itemque E. Bethe, qui sinistris meis auguriis (II p. XXVII) diffisus multas Italiae bibliothecas perscrutatus est, quod attinet ad Diodorum, inanis inde redii. Unum codicem ex omnibus quos novimus plus valere dixi Venetum 375 (II p. XI et XX); quem codicem mihi nescio quo pacto olim denegatum nemo adhuc ex bibliothecae tenebris extraxit.**) Iterum igitur eius ope destituti ad codicum quaestionem aggredimur.
Note a pie di pagina
1 *) Duae exstant librorum XI—XIII interpretationes latinae, altera a Cocchio et Rutilio ante annum 1588 perfecta, altera Arnoldi Arlenii, quam ignoravit Dindorf (edit. 1828 vol. I part. II pag. IX), edita est Basileae anno 1548: utraque ergo, quia editione principe antiquior est, sumpta est ex libro manu scripto.
2 **) Ex hoc codice haustum esse codicem F, qui ipse esset fons codicis M, per litteras mecum communicavit E. Bethe; refutat ergo vir doctissimus, quae dixi II p. XX.
Traduzione
English — scholarly
ARETHE Knowledge Engineering DivisionIV PREFACE.
what I have set forth in the preface of the previous volumes. For first, it is of the greatest importance that the manuscripts of both Books I—V and XI—XV are divided into two parts, and that this distinction can be traced back to times much more ancient than the age of our manuscripts themselves (I p. XX. II p. XXXII). Secondly, to pass over Suidas and the Peirescian manuscripts here, Stephanus and the Latin translators*) used manuscripts which are sometimes different from ours, yet are never superior to them. Georg Schneider, who expended much study and learning in reviewing the manuscripts of Diodorus, delivered this opinion (Wochenschrift f. klass. Philologie 1891 p. 677): 'Vogel considers the laborious investigation of these many scribblings pointless; unfortunately, only too rightly. The construction of a complete stemma of the manuscripts lacks practical significance.' And likewise E. Bethe, who, distrusting my pessimistic forecasts (II p. XXVII), searched through many libraries of Italy, returned empty-handed as far as Diodorus is concerned. I said that one manuscript out of all those we know, the Venetus 375 (II p. XI and XX), is more valuable; this manuscript, once denied to me I know not how, no one has yet brought forth from the darkness of the library.**) Again, therefore, deprived of its help, we approach the question of the manuscripts.
Commentario Arethe
codices et librorum I—V et XI—XV in duas partes dirempti sunt
The bipartite division of Diodorus' manuscript tradition is the cornerstone of Vogel's stemmatic method. All surviving manuscripts fall into two families, and this split goes back to an era far older than any extant codex. Vogel established this for Books I–V in Vol. I (p. XX) and for Books XI–XII in Vol. II (p. XXXII). The fact that this same division persists across Books XIII–XV is what he will now demonstrate in the remainder of this preface — it is the central thesis of the volume's critical apparatus.
All Diodorus manuscripts divide into two families descending from a lost archetype. This split predates all surviving copies.
Georgius Schneider... Wochenschrift f. klass. Philologie 1891 p. 677
Georg Schneider's review in the Wochenschrift is partially quoted in German — one of the rare moments where Vogel breaks from Latin in the preface. Schneider agrees that further manuscript investigation is futile ('leider nur zu sehr mit Recht') and that a complete stemma would lack practical significance. This pragmatic pessimism contrasts with the optimism of 20th-century scholars like B. Egan who later discovered new readings in overlooked manuscripts.
E. Bethe... multas Italiae bibliothecas perscrutatus est
Erich Bethe (1863–1940), later famous for his Thebanische Heldenlieder (1891) and work on the epic cycle, personally searched Italian libraries for new Diodorus manuscripts at Vogel's behest. He returned empty-handed ('inanis inde rediit') — a remarkable example of scholarly collaboration across generations. Bethe's letter informing Vogel that codex F derives from the Venetus 375 (via codex M) is cited in the footnote and overturns Vogel's own stemmatic hypothesis from Vol. II.
1863–1940
Venetum 375
The Codex Venetus Marcianus graecus 375 is repeatedly identified by Vogel as the single most valuable unexploited manuscript of Diodorus. Despite Vogel's repeated requests, no one managed to obtain a collation of it ('mihi nescio quo pacto olim denegatum nemo adhuc ex bibliothecae tenebris extraxit'). The manuscript remained in 'the darkness of the library' — a poignant image of scholarly frustration. Bethe later argued that codex F was derived from Venetus 375, making it indirectly accessible through F's readings.
*) Duae exstant librorum XI—XIII interpretationes latinae
Two pre-editio princeps Latin translations of Diodorus Books XI–XIII survive: (1) by Cocchi and Rutilio (before 1588), and (2) by Arnold Arlenius (Arnoldus Arlenius), published Basel 1548. Since both predate the first printed Greek text (editio princeps, 1559), they must derive from manuscript sources — making them independent witnesses to the text. Dindorf was unaware of the Arlenius translation. This is a classic example of how translation history intersects with textual criticism.