Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:46:11.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bâle and Leyden Scholia to Thucydides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. Enoch Powell
J. Enoch Powell
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The remarks I wish to make upon the Thucydides scholia in Bâle University MS. no. E III 4 will be clearer if prefaced by an outline history of the scholia to Thucydides in general.

The editio princeps (Aldine, May 1502) contained no scholia. They made their first appearance in the following year as an appendix to the Aldine Gemistius and Herodian. The same scholia were then reprinted in the Juntine edition (Florence 1526) as a frame to the text. In the Hervagian edition of Camerarius (Bâle 1540) they were relegated to the end, and Camerarius claims in his prefatory epistle to have expended some trouble in emending them. Henceforward the same corpus of scholia, unchanged save for occasional emendation, passes on from edition to edition, either framing the text, as in Stephanus ([Geneva] 1564), or beneath it, as in Stephanus ([Geneva] 1588), Hudson (Oxford 1696), Duker (Amsterdam 1731), Gottleber-Bauer-Beck (Leipzig 1790–1804).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 1936 , pp. 80 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 80 note * For Bks. I, II (Gottleber's work) and V 54 end these notes lurk amongst the commentary at the foot of the pages; for III–V 54 they are all together in an appendix to vol. I (pp. 816–834). In addition, further notices of scholia, Cassel have been combined with the annotations in Scholia Graeca vol. II pp. 482–588Google Scholar, which also include the Bâle scholia as printed by Duker.

page 80 note † Discounting the scholia Patmensia, and 9 cases due to the blunder explained below. p. 90.

page 83 note * The text is τῷ … παρειμένῳ, altered by someone who did not see that μ' is the accusative in question.

page 86 note * A few of Dain's numerous innovations in the nomenclature of the Thucydidean MSS. are evidently salutary: our present MS. is called J instead of G, a letter given to it by Bekker, but now usurped irrecoverably by the capital MS. Monacensis 228; and X, which Arnold wasted on Bekker's D (Marcianus 367), is transferred to the Leyden MS., hitherto known as Lugd. Other changes, though they conflict with the notation I had privately been using, are intrinsically un-objectionable, and I will in future conform to them. These are: S (Salmanticensis M 74); U (Laurentianus 69, 16); 1 (Parisinus suppl. gr. 256); m (Massiliensis Aa. I); n (Tolosanus 802). But most of Dain's proposals are pernicious. He has transferred the letter T from Cantabrigiensis Kk-5·19 to the Tours MS. of Constantine's Excerpts, and L from Arundelianus 545 to Laurentianus 69, 30; worse than this, Greek letters, small and capital, which it was highly desirable to reserve for other purposes, have been distributed at random and sometimes given to MSS. which had names already. These I intend to ignore myself; and I hope that others will do the same. [The apparent renaming of A (Parsuppl. gr. 255) as C is a misprint.]

I have felt obliged to make these observations, not only because the nomenclature of the Thucydidean MSS. will, unless carefully controlled, become increasingly confused as more papyri are published and more MSS. collated, but also because Dain intends (l.c. p. 20) to give us dissertations upon the text of MSS. which he has examined. I trust he will then take the opportunity of reconsidering some of his suggestions. It must be confessed that the paragraph with which he has prefaced his present ‘Liste’ arouses anxiety as to his equipment for dealing successfully with the intricate problems of Thu Cydidean deteriores. We there read that ‘the Norfolkianus is kept at London, and not at Holkham, like the other Norfolkiani’ [the Norfolkiani are partly in the British Museum, and partly in the College of Arms; originally possessed by the Dukes of Norfolk and Earls of Arundel, they have of course no connection with Holkham Hall, the seat of the Leicesters]; that ‘to-day the meaning of the appellations Italus and Graevianus escapes us; the latter moreover never belonged to Graevius’ [Italus, because brought from Italy in 1797; Graevianus, because Hudson obtained the loan of it through , Graevius (praef. 1696)]Google Scholar; or that ‘one of the good anthorities for Thucydides, the Cassellanus, has ceased to be employed has been lost that Greek MSS. exist at Cassel’ [modern editors ignore on principle all be right over Cassellanus, which, except for a part of the scholia, is a direct copy of F].

page 87 note * See a forthcoming article by me in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift on two leaves of the earliest known MS. of Theophanes' Chronologia, which were used in the binding.

page 88 note * Poppo-Stahl allude (I p. 43) to a collation by H. Stephanus. This is a mistake due to the fact that Stephanus reprinted in his margin some of the variants given from J by Cameraius. Either Wetsten or some collator unknown is responsible for scratches with a hard point made against readings which differ from the received text.

page 88 note † Omited in Dain's ‘Liste,’ to which add also, between nos. 89 and 90: Marcianus C1. VII cod. 56.

page 90 note * From II 90 onwards. Laur. lxix. 30 was the exemplar.

page 91 note * See a note by me on this MS. in Journ. Hell. Stud. 1935 pp. 81–3.

page 93 note * My thanks are due to the directors of the Utrecht, Leyden, and Bâle libraries for having lent MSS. K. X and J respectively to Trinity College Library, where I collated them.