Textus Originalis

XII PRAEFATIO.

ἦσαν πέντε μὲν ἀπὸ Σικελίας παραγεγενημέναι vel ὑπῆρχον Σικελικαί, ἓξ δὲ.... In errorem inducti sunt editores, ut alibi, etiam hic particula μέν, qua Diodorus liberius usus saepius sine insequenti δὲ hiatum tantum evitandi causa inseruit, veluti XIII 48, 2 δοκοῦσι γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἀναιρεϑέντες. — XIII 104, 3 μέγα μὲν οὐδὲν ἔπραξε, ubi Reiske μὲν deleri iussit. — XIV 58, 2 τούτων δ᾽ ὀλίγαι μὲν ἦσαν τριήρεις, ubi Stephanus adnotavit: 'aut μὲν hic expungendum, aut aliquot verba deesse dicendum est'. — XV 42, 2 διὰ τὸ κεῖσϑαι μὲν αὐτό, ubi τε pro μὲν scripsit Dindorf. XIII 47, 5 ἐνταῦϑα γὰρ ὁ μεταξὺ τόπος ἦν στενώτατος. Cum codices AH pro τόπος ἦν praebeant προσῆν, iam Wesseling adnotavit, non deterius quam vulgatum esse ὁ μεταξὺ πόρος. atque editores posteriores hanc coniecturam receperunt. Res non tanti esse videtur, ut multis verbis disputetur (cf. XIII 78, 7 τὸν μεταξὺ τόπον, XIV 49, 3. et 57, 5 τὸν μεταξὺ πόρον): id unum addere iuvat, in omnibus Diodori codicibus vocabulum τόπος saepe confundi aliis similibus verbis λόφος, στόλος, ὅπλον, ποταμός, ἵππος. XV 52, 2 περὶ γὰρ τὰς πύλας ἀπήντησε τοῖς περὶ ᾿Επαμεινώνδαν κῆρυξ τυφλὸν ἄνδρα ἀποδεδρακότα κομίζων, καὶ καϑάπερ ἦν εἰϑισμένον, ἀνηγόρευε κηρύττων μήτ᾽ ἐξάγειν Θήβηϑεν μήτ᾽ ἀφανίζειν. Ut superioribus locis consensu codicum P et F nisi vulgarem lectionem adulterinis verbis auctam esse censuimus, ita hic ex consensu codicum P et A concludimus, verba κομίζων καί, quae desunt in PA, esse damnanda, utpote olim inserta, ut enuntiatum antiquitus corruptum sanetur. Acrius quam ille interpolator loci corruptelam perspexerunt Reiske Wurm Madvig, quorum ex variis coniecturis primum sumo pro ἄνδρα ἀποδεδρακότα (iisdem quattuor litteris αποδ duplicatis) scribendum esse ἀνδράποδ᾽ ἀποδεδρακότας. Verbis hic ita mutatis atque κομίζων καὶ abolitis duo resident scrupuli, alter in coniunctione verborum ἀπήντησε et ἀνηγόρευε, alter in vocabulo τυφλόν: qui ita evelli poterunt, ut aut ἀπαντήσας, aut τυφλός, ὅς, aut cum Wurmio τὸ τυχὸν pro τυφλόν, aut deleto verbo ἀπήντησε scribatur ἐντυχὼν pro τυφλόν. Maxime offendimur in vocabulo τυφλόν, cum difficile sit iudicatu, utrum caeci servi fugitivi an caecus praeco maiori sint offensioni? Dixerit sane quispiam praeconem eam ob rem caecum fingi, ut coram Epaminondae agmine verba tam abominanda pronuntiata esse minus incredibile fiat. At quamvis incertum sit, qua ratione verba corrigenda sint, certo certius est, id quod unum hic

Traduzione

XII PREFACE.

ἦσαν πέντε μὲν ἀπὸ Σικελίας παραγεγενημέναι (five had arrived from Sicily) or ὑπῆρχον Σικελικαί, ἓξ δέ.... (there were Sicilian ships, and six...). The editors were led into error, as elsewhere, also here by the particle μέν, which Diodorus used rather freely, often inserting it without a following δέ merely to avoid hiatus, e.g., XIII 48, 2 δοκοῦσι γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἀναιρεθέντες (for those who were slain seem...). — XIII 104, 3 μέγα μὲν οὐδὲν ἔπραξε (he accomplished nothing great, indeed), where Reiske ordered μέν to be deleted. — XIV 58, 2 τούτων δ᾽ ὀλίγαι μὲν ἦσαν τριήρεις (of these, few were triremes), where Stephanus noted: 'either μέν must be expunged here, or one must say that some words are missing'. — XV 42, 2 διὰ τὸ κεῖσθαι μὲν αὐτό (because it lay indeed), where Dindorf wrote τε for μέν. XIII 47, 5 ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ὁ μεταξὺ τόπος ἦν στενώτατος (for there the intervening place was very narrow). Since codices AH offer προσῆν (was present) for τόπος ἦν (the place was), Wesseling already noted that ὁ μεταξὺ πόρος (the intervening passage) is not worse than the vulgate reading. And later editors accepted this conjecture. The matter does not seem important enough to be discussed at length (cf. XIII 78, 7 τὸν μεταξὺ τόπον (the intervening place), XIV 49, 3. and 57, 5 τὸν μεταξὺ πόρον (the intervening passage)): I would only add this one thing, that in all manuscripts of Diodorus the word τόπος (place) is often confused with other similar words like λόφος (hill), στόλος (expedition), ὅπλον (weapon), ποταμός (river), ἵππος (horse). XV 52, 2 περὶ γὰρ τὰς πύλας ἀπήντησε τοῖς περὶ Ἐπαμεινώνδαν κῆρυξ τυφλὸν ἄνδρα ἀποδεδρακότα κομίζων, καὶ καθάπερ ἦν εἰθισμένον, ἀνηγόρευε κηρύττων μήτ᾽ ἐξάγειν Θήβηθεν μήτ᾽ ἀφανίζειν (For near the gates a herald met the troops of Epaminondas, bringing a blind man who had run away, and as was customary, he made a proclamation, announcing neither to lead out from Thebes nor to make away with). As in the previous passages we judged by the agreement of codices P and F that the vulgate reading was augmented by spurious words, so here from the agreement of codices P and A we conclude that the words κομίζων καί (bringing and), which are missing in PA, are to be condemned, as having been inserted at some time to heal a sentence that was corrupt from antiquity. More keenly than that interpolator, Reiske, Wurm, and Madvig perceived the corruption of the passage; from their various conjectures, I first take that for ἄνδρα ἀποδεδρακότα (a man who had run away) (with the same four letters αποδ duplicated) we should write ἀνδράποδ᾽ ἀποδεδρακότας (slaves who had run away). With the words thus changed and κομίζων καί (bringing and) removed, two scruples remain: one in the conjunction of the verbs ἀπήντησε (met) and ἀνηγόρευε (proclaimed), the other in the word τυφλόν (blind): which can be removed either by writing ἀπαντήσας (having met), or τυφλός, ὅς (a blind man, who), or with Wurm τὸ τυχὸν (any chance thing) for τυφλόν, or by deleting the word ἀπήντησε and writing ἐντυχὼν (having encountered) for τυφλόν. We are most offended by the word τυφλόν, since it is difficult to judge whether a blind fugitive slave or a blind herald is more offensive? Someone might indeed say that the herald is feigned to be blind for this reason, so that it becomes less incredible that such abominable words were pronounced before Epaminondas' army. But however uncertain it may be how the words should be corrected, it is more certain than certain, which alone

Commentario Arethe