No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Manuscripts and Editions of Heliodorvs
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
There seem to be five manuscripts of the Aethiopica of Heliodorus which are of value for establishing the text:
To these may be added with some doubt three others:
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1925
References
page177 note 1 I have used the letters employed by the editors for such MSS. as they have treated. C and M, which they have not quoted, I have supplied. It may be said inpassing that Hirschig seems to use V to describe both V and X.
page178 note 1 Reason is given below for suspecting that β did not contain the passage in which these two difficulties occur, in which case they give no support to the theory here put forward. But the other evidence is, I think, sufficient.
page178 note 2 E.g. Teubner, p. 4. 18, тς νεώς CP: тς тε νεώς BMV. P. 119. 17, т δ νν PMV:omitted by BC.
page178 note 3 P. 61 verso, the last words being εί παρασ κενάΖεσθαι πρδς μάχην (Teubner, p. 258. 13), which are immediately followed by ὃтΨ δεήσει тρόπΨ κтλ. (Teubner, p. 92. 17).
page178 note 4 P. 200 verso. The last words are παтρψανγνω … (Teubner, p. 186. 1).
page179 note 1 E.g. Teubner, p. 191. 27, μικρῷ MV, p. 221. 2, ξήтει BP: Ζήтει MV, p. 246. 19, γρ 'тδσπης και тούтου προυνόησε BP:omitted byMV.
page179 note 2 Whether it is right or wrong to assume that β was defective, the main question of the existence and authority of the two families is not affected. The only difference is that if β was defective, P has no more, and probably less, value than M and V in the passage in question; whereas if β was a complete MS., then P might be judged to retain some of its readings when it is in opposition to MV.
page179 note 3 Basileae ex Officina Hervagiana, February, 1534; edited by Vincentius Obsopoeus [cf. H. Simonsfeld, Einige hunst- und literaturgeschichtliche Funde, pp. 539–547(Sitzungsberichti der philosphilol. und der histor. Classe der kgl. bayer. Ahademic der Wissenschaften, 1902, Heft IV.].
page180 note 1 Scriptores Erotici Graeci, Vol. II. 1792–4Google Scholar.
page180 note 2 Charitonis Chaereas et Callirhoe. Text and notes by , J. P. D'Orville. Amsterdam, 1750Google Scholar.
page180 note 3 Erotici Scriptores. Didot. Paris, 1856Google Scholar.
page180 note 4 Heliodori, , Aethiopica. Teubner. Leipzig, 1855Google Scholar.
page180 note 5 ‘Ηλιοδώρου Ạίθιοπικά, ἃ … μεтά σημειώσεων ξδωκε’ … , Ο. Δ. κοράηςParis, 1804Google Scholar.
page180 note 6 For examples see above.
page180 note 7 E.g. Teubner, p. 3. 12, тρίтον ζωσтρος CP: тρίтον ζωσтρα MVB. P. 119. 17, т δ νûν MVP:omitted by BC.
page180 note 8 E.g. Teubner, p. 25. 21, παρελσθαι παρανομήσανтος C: σαρελέσθαι omitted by BP: σαρανομήσανтος omitted by MV (though V has it added in the margin by a later hand.
page181 note 1 P. 179, note 1.
page181 note 2 Since B and P, when they disagree with C, only rarely agree with one another, it would perhaps be better to assume that their ancestors broke off from β independently instead of postulating, as I have done in the tree, a common parent for them (δ). However, there are cases such as that quoted on p. 180, note 8. The very fact that BP rarely agree against C when it is available is strong evidence in support of the contention that an agreement of BP after C's failure gives a reading which C and so β would have givenhad they been extant.