We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The succeeding pages were destined, had matters gone otherwise, to form one section of a chapter devoted to the text of those deservedly neglected authors whom, after a mortal illness released Anton Westermann from the task, Rudolf Hercher marshalled between the two covers of the Didot Epistolographi. That chapter, in its turn, was to have been the last in a volume of Adversaria, and, if the truth is to be told, perhaps not the least important function of some of my proposals was to supply a colourable pretext for dealing with passages of other writers (especially Clement of Alexandria and Libanius) whom I had not treated in the body of the book.
page 167 note 1 ‘Quis enim est, qui, nisi ad hoc ipsum natus sit, Phalarideis, ut his utar, per omme anni tempus se adplicet uel Dionysii Antiocheni futilibus commenticiisque sententiis immoriatur?’ So Hercher (Praef. IX.); and the apology, though called for, was adequate.
page 167 note 2 Collated after Westermann (for tbe Epistles) by Hercher himself, whom I follow; Bast's collation seems not to have been published. Of the two editions previous to Hercher—the princsps (Rome, 1628, by Caryophilus, Archbishop of Iconium) and that of Habich—I have been able o t consult neither. The first, it is more than clear from Hercher's apparatus, has long been negligible, the latter always.
page 167 note 3 He credits himself in his preface with the salvation of Themistocles; but, in point of fact, the percentage of frivolous or hasty conjectures is heavier, and the certain or plausible emendations of a less arresting character, than is the case in most of his other work—e.g. on Aelian, the Novelists, and Plutarch. Indeed, his whole volume is in the main a poor monument to a scholar who, with all his failings, had in him the rudiments of greatness.
page 168 note 1 The references are to the page and line of Hercher: the asterisks indicate my own proposals.
page 168 note 2 Dissertation upon the Epistles of Themistocles, III.
page 168 note 3 Wecklein extends the melancholy list with στíαν, νεανíαι, ν;óστιμον, θσσιν, and worse. Murray adopts σεξ;ι;áν, which might have been considered if the word had been Greek for ‘to the right.’
page 169 note 1 This insertion might be made with some speciousness in Clem. Alex. Strom. I., § 19 fin.: πολυμ;θí;α σισ;వσυστατικ τυγχáυνει τι παρατιθɛμνιυ τá κυριώτατα τν σολμáτων πρóσ πειθώ τν áκροωμνων, θανμασμóν γγɛννσα τιῖσ κατηχουνENOIΣ <EN OIΣ> καíπ τν áλήθειαν συνíστηιν (=ν τῷ… συνιστáν;αι. For the idiom in Clement see Mayor, , Strom. VII., pp. 263, 289–90)Google Scholar!. Stählin prints, after Wilamowitz, <και> θαυμασμóν … [και] πρóσ κτ.
page 170 note 1 He goes on a little later: πǪρ μιɛο ταῖσ áσπισιν, οπιπτον σ τν óπλιτν ήμíκντοι πολλοí. For ACIIíσιν, which has always seemed to me remarkably foolish in the context, I propose ΔEPPισιν (or δρρεσιν: but the compound δερριδóλομφοσ appears to guarantee the other form.) See Wesseling on D. Sic., t. II., p. 412.
page 171 note 1 He has the accusative at 748, 49, ὓπɛιΣιν ὑμσ θ;áμβοσ, but the dative is legitimate enough.
page 172 note 1 Add, again from the dregs of Greek, pseudo-Libanius de Socratis silentio, § 22 init.: οὐ Σωκρατικ μέν στι τατα, where the context clamours for μόνον. At § 25 med. read οὐχ ὐπρ Ὶλισσόν ὑπ τ πλατάνζ τ καλή, λλ' έκεῖ μόνοι (μν οι codd.) τέττιγες ᾄσονται. Even to-day this production is all the worse for not having passed through Reiske's hands.
page 173 note 1 Who closed the sentence at δίκαιον, and by changing ᾰν to ᾰτι attempted vainly to connect the remaining words with the next sentence. In Paed. I., § 85, read: καἰ ϕιλάνθρωπος ὂτι κα άνθρωπος, <δς> ξναι κύριον δελϕς εῑναι βεβούληται. Stählin prints νθρώπων (a modification of Mayor's νθρώποις) and, in addition, Wilamowitz's ungrammatical κύριος, though a little later (§ 88 med.) both he and Wilamowitz leave πρν γρ κτίστην (leg. κ τ ί σ τ η ς) γενέσθαι θες ν untouched.
page 174 note 1 Hercher decided for the futures.
page 174 note 2 Intelligibly enough, as the idea would be virtually that of passages like Xen. Hier. II. 8, οί τύραννοι πάντες πανταχ δι πολεμίας πορεύονται. If the word is seriously corrupt, it is not easy to emend, for Haupt's θεσιν γέμεις (with [κα] τοὐπί) is one of his failures.
page 176 note 1 This paper might be filled with parallels. A few, mostly concerned with prepositions or prefixes, may be appended: Porph. antr. Nymph. 5 (p. 59, 10, Nck.), αὐτοϕυς… κα [αὐτο] συμϕυής: Clem. Alex. Paed. II., § 28, πολυκλύζεται (περικλ. F2, πικλ. a Catena)… πολυποσίᾳ: Iambl. V. Pyth. XIX., συνδιατρίΨας… συνδιατρίΨας (προσδ. F): Strab. 235 Cas., στρατΙΩΤικν κ τν πελευθέρ[ΙΩΤ]ων: Hyperid, epit. XVII., τν πόλιν τν θ. οίκτρς ἠϕανισμένην ξ νθρώπων, τν δ κρόπολιν [ξ] αὐτς ϕρουρσμένην ξ άνθρώπων, τν κρόπολιν [ξ] αὐτς ϕρουρουμένην: id. Eux. VI., γραϕα ΒΑΣεβείας πρς τν ΒΑΣιλέα: Jul. 75A, τ [ὑπρ] τς Ἰλίαδος ἔπη… τ ὺπρ τν ἔργων: 55c, ὑπεραγωνιζόμενος κα ὑπερβεβηκὼς (=πιβ.) τν ίκρίων: Aesch. f.l. 167 τοὺς συνεϕήβους κα τοὺς [συν]άρχοντας: X. Oec. V. 7, συμπαρέχουσαι. συμπαρορμᾷ (παρορμᾷ Stob.): Philostr. V.A. I, 4, ὃστις… [ξ]εγένετο IIp. τ ἅν ξηγοίμηε: Plut. S.S.C. 150F, IIερίανδρος [περι]ορν: 2 Macc. XI. 23–24, γενέσθαι πρς τν τν Ἰουδαίων (=ίδίωα) πιμέλειαν κηκοότες τοὺς Ἰουδαίους (Alex.): Σ Ar. Eq. 603, Μηδικ χώρα Μηδείας (πεδιάς Hemsterhuys) τε οσα: D. Chrys, 196B, ν Βάκτροις… IIαλιμβάκτροις (=IIαλιβόθροις. So C, according to an anonymous collation in my copy of Geel). And 'so ad infinitum. To the host of passages corrected or to be corrected on this principle Lib. Cor. or. 3, οὐδ' ώς δεινοί λέγειν ὂντες πέστημεν τ [συγ]γραϕ, συγγενεῖς δ' ὂντες… τν πολωλότων, and Clem. Alex. Paed. III., § 51, κοσμΩΔΕΣΤΕΡΑ (leg. κοσμιωτέρα) κα νδρΩ. ΔΕΣΤΕΡΑ. Outside this passage κοσμιώδης, so far as I know, has no certificate of existence.
