_ -

_ ‘THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY ae FOUNDED BY J4uEH LOEB, Lid.

SorTEeD sy ?*T. BE. PAGE, c.a., crrr.o.

_ EB. CAPPS, run, uo. W. H. D. ROUSE, crrr.v. LA. POST, =... BE. H. WARMINGTON, ».«.

NONNOS DIONYSIACA I

fies <i ti

pS ae |

St CORDA

ime A . \ +doveoiax wv nage ley - sdmdv,aSniine\ Cee aac ae oie’ under itbeis|o. ebsiclreteattge

a Wren hg Arete fopuovey Kepovinr arb ean

wats <rshaado'ny we ae A Coe Ad A Sy NAV “n ev e.nclas eae. denial ope wil jam apne raviia dngledies" iskaks CPV Zor mre 6 cetyl Fale a Cw re MS nanch ih cele Mbari Apr pm cover 6 Vorlons’ a 420" Ulan lov. apr Gai a . colake Pee

oe wipes GP wirinvdogBinleso ge “pow aay Den cici pr donte. mo pnd Mad Ynotgordelev' Vow A300 bial age

TeaeD fhe geiprietany O76» ewla Gen.2 rc. ft who 1! Pare aZ

NONNOS DIONYSIACA

WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY W. H. D. ROUSE, Lrrr.D.

MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION AND NOTES: BY H. J. ROSE, M.A.

PROTEMOR OF CHEER, CRYVEROITY OF of. aeDREWs AND NOTES ON TEXT CRITICISM BY L. R. LIND, D.Lrrr.

CmAwronnerinig, GD. IN THREE VOLUMES I BOOKS 1—XV

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD

MOMAL

¥ i ee eee a 2 a - \ ; e419 fo * ud & r ree ae & $ ‘ ™ re . . ‘ ioe ‘ | ft as j

re F : ie

pied it

von - CONTENTS OF VOLUME IL Crema Ixtropuction

Lind

vi

‘ of ae

Racest Text-Carrictsm ov Tuer Dwwysiaca 5 XX xiii

xlv

| Sommany or THe Booxs or Tux Porw . . xivili ‘Text axp Traxstation—

Pe Ee Se ae ae ee =

BookI . ; 2 Additional Note to Book I # Book Il. . 4 : : ees Additional Note to Book II : _t oe Book III . : ‘ é ; ; ae Book IV . ‘ ; : : . 1 Book V : ; ; ; . 168 Book VI . ‘ ‘ | ; eo $4 Additional Notes to Book VI. ‘ . 0 Book VII . > * * és

v

_ Hay Cn TTTaE ana

re ui Ha Ne

ee aH Heli

pile dill thila ;

| ih milla iil | gi ilk a} aaa aE He at if Fistent if ae 43 Hae

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

meters. The Latin pret to be a word-for-word

maces elegan roth a deer bn Sole more an t ’ a

salon, and never forgetting the propricties; it is graceful and to read, but not very close to the Greek. by

Gennes oe its bold use of com words, It is a tr

for the eye rather the ear, for it is not possil to speak it metrically without gabbling, it is a great feat. | Readers who are interested in the text must go to Ludwich’s edition. We use his text, by consent of Messrs. Teubner, and note only the varia- tions, including one or two conjectures (as yivaso for Avaco, which I hope will commend itself, xlvi, 231).

Laurentianus XXXII 16 in Florence, paper, written A.D. 1280, is the chief and most ancient us. Others

M—in Munich.

N—in Naples, II F. 19, paper.

O—Ottobonianus 51, Vatican, paper.

P—Palatinus, paper, 16th century.

S—Reginensis 81, Vatican, paper, written in 1551.

f—Codex Falkenburgii, whence the editio prin- ceps was taken. hese

viii

_ GENERAL INTRODUCTION

J have to thank Professor H. J. Rose, who adds

the notes, and Dr. Lind, for kindly and I

the Reader also for his extreme care and patience.

W. H. D. Rouse

™ i 9 =e a, “

MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION

%

se

i in aie

4

Hh

‘

iif

iii

i

ii

Bs

if

Hi

os ne eee a

sehusdied, Psaece tox wah hoot aan on the lookout for anything which sa

rit

%

* Apoll. Rhod. iii, 36 ff.

ee eT ee ee eT ae

MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION

, catight eagerly at fresh material, while their great learning pat such material at thei ipl in form of numerous obscure and local legends never before treated in any well-known work of literature. This is why so many stories are known to us only from Alexandrians, or from late compilers who obviously drew on Alexandrian poetry for informa- tion. A third factor was the prevalence of the romantic and amatory interest. Psychology had been in the air, so to speak, ever since Euripides and Menander, and one of the most obvious ways to show the human character at its most interesting is to draw a man or woman in love. Therefore stories of the love, not so much, as in the preceding centuries, of a man for a younger member of his own sex, but regi sear a for a maid, were extremely . all the famous love-stories of

the world either have an Alexandrian origin or are modelled on some tale first given literary form by one of these eee Finally, ne was a master interest everyone who sought literary elegance, STEEEaas chaseaterletie thatecicel exorsiee waste

and so no poet was even an a tice in his art until he had put into the mouth of a Medeia, an Agamemnon, or a Scylla, an artistic and clever expres- sion of the feelings of an outraged wife, a father torn between ambition and parental affection, or a

* This is act forth, with tion but not without a basis of fact, by E. F. M. Benecke, Antimachus of Colophon and the Position of Women in Greek Poetry, London, Swan

Sonnenschein & Co., 1806; see especially pp. 103-114.

xi

MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION

daughter who must choose between overwhelming love and her duty towards her family and her country. The greatest surviving master of this sort of litera- ture is no Greek, but the Latin Ovid, whom there is some reason to say Nonnos knew ; at all events, he

B.C., Was an impressive deity, the protean aaa rad tty ata eae was

of fertility, ee tae ertility of food-plants, Se which the cer nt communities in the

Mediterranean and db areas conn denaalle alae in days of little wealth and poor communications, a failure of the harvests in any neighbourhood must

xii

MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION mean, not suffering and hardship only, but death.

- He-was a god also of animal fertility, lord of beasts as

well as men, or even rather than men, and, as such, was powerful in the wild where wild things live. For these reasons, while beneficent and desir-

effects. He could kill as well as make alive, send madness as well as prosperity and mirth. His ritual consisted largely, before Greeks tamed and civilized it, of wild orgiastic dancing on the hills and in places outside the little cultivated areas, tabu places we may say, where the ted felt themselves in uncanny as well as surroundings, as indeed the most blasé member of our present-day urban communities may feel for a moment, at least in youth, if he will “ let himself go " by vigorous move- ment in a solitary place in strong fresh air. Besides all this, there is some evidence that the sacrifices made to this god were of the nature of a mystic communion, in which the worshippers did not merely beast and make a banquet at which the deity guest, but slay and devour the god himself in , thus a into themselves his god- head. It is no wonder, , that there gathered around Dionysos many stories of his terrible wrath against the impious and presumptuous, of his fantastic sufferings, his marvellous gifts and graces, and of his activities as a giver of fertility to plants, animals, and on occasion human beings. centuries had passed since the existence of these beliefs and ices had impressed the sophis- ticated mind of pides and red him to write his wonderful Bacchae. By Nonnos’s time, a Dionysiac

xiii

MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION

orgy was a thing one might read about in old books ; nen ‘cults: had long'ago wrested from is saga old place in popular favour, and the stories about him had been contaminated on the one hand with the too human romantic interest already touched upon, on the other with a curious political Dionysos, who as early as Euripides’ day was of as a great conqueror (he came from the East, had established himself in face of opposition in Hellas; } therefore it was natural to assume that he had con- quered the Eastern peoples) was assimilated to a human conqueror, Alexander, and the romantic tales OF aS greet th ee early days somethi a Dionysiac flavour, ord mijelr petinanent-ab thuitutatl ah Hence also the ree Dion tended to become an Alexander. e Freer 2 of oe to one for bee Alexander was a dim and legendary figure long distant past, was that Dionysos developed into the sort of world-conqueror likely to be a a mind wholly alien to the least notion motives, a person who for no particular reason about subduing nation after nation in bloody battles, in which his personal was a remnant of the genuine epic tradition, the of days in which tactics were in their infancy, armies small, and the strength and valour of one well-armed man often of real importance) is a decisive factor. The other tales had degenerated into accounts of how the god made people mad, drunk or both, and seduced women,—poor survivals of the Dionysos of older, less ted and at the same time more understand-

Tit

LS ee ee

MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION

aroused by the dastardly assailant of Aura and the monotonously successful wizard who kills large num- bers of incredible but mostly inoffensive Indians. Never has it been more patent that an imaginative

writer, if he is to impress his audience, must have at

least an imaginative belicf in his own story. But the ancient tales of how the great god had shown his eee see nng of incense lod matter for paradoxes, and the old merri-

ments (for the cult certainly oe its jovial side) brought a snigger now instead of a laugh. To the student of religion or mythology, as to the of literature, Nonnos has nothing

to offer except the telling after his fashion of a few stories not to be found elsewhere, as the fight between Dionysos and Perseus (bk. xlvii. 475 ff.), of which traces can be seen in earlier art but not many in literature.* It is of rather more importance that he has some know- ledge, of course na bly literary, of Orphism, a system which originated in or about the sixth century n.c., had a most curious mythology and theology of its

of Zagreus is old, probably of the original stratum of Orphism, for he is well known to Pi in his Orphic

* See Roscher’s Leribon, ili. 2016 7. (EB. Kubnert). It was

3 !

MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION

context. How and when he became identified with

Dionysos to the extent to sr “90 a 7 Te one we

do not know ; the strangeness of the

ete tten by Zeus after having swolkemnd ie eart of the older Zagreus) suggests something quite

alien to ordinary Greek thought, and so akin to the

abnormal ideas of Orphism itself.

If Nonnos had been a more consistent thinker and more of a poet, he had hold of an idea which would at least have given his work a grandiose pattern and a real, contemporary interest. He seems to have tried to fit the events of the story into an astrological background, ill though he was fitted to do so, when his knowledge of both astronomy and astrology was evidently feeble.’ Astrology had long been popular and widely accepted, and it continued to be so, what- ever the Church might say or do, till modern astro- nomy made its schemes cease to appeal to the average man's imaginative picture of the universe. Stege- mann has shown’ that he had some acquaintance

1922-1923), Lei Berlin, Teubner, 1925, but the work is crammed relevan uable,

read * This has been denied, but see Rose in Greek Poetry and Life (Oxford, Clar. Press, SDE ape FOAEs . aed, expen, Peep is in bk. vi. $2, where quadratile aspect with the Sun, i.«, 90 deg.

thorough a tion of his astrological and ideas er rasa iets ata oe “a

_-—s MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION 3 with astrological writings, and that his general scheme

of the universe is in accord with their teachings. He

| divides time into world-months constituting a world- r r, and after the cosmic month which brings the Flood (bk. i.) and that of T 's attempt (bk. ii.), the cosmic winter is over iii. 1), summer is come to the universe and the blessing of the new god, a god of the fruitfulness of autumn, is due. This comes in the later books of the poem, with the birth, growth _ and triumph of Dionysos. But unfortunately, having got his new saviour-god born, he has no idea what to with him, and the poem trails off into a series of conventional adventures, military and amorous, each more than the last, till finally a few concluding lines Dionysos away to heaven. He has lost sight of his own framework, recurring to it only now and again, and so the work which might have been a curious monument of astrological religion, instinct with some genuine feeling, is but a heap of episodes, loosely connected.

Nonnos had, however, another enthusiasm, which gave rise to a piece of apparently nal and not nes Aap ue creation. He had, even at that late date, unbou faith in the civilizing mission of the Roman Empire (much less dead, of course, in the East than in the West) and especially in the benefits of Roman law. Therefore he provides one of the

est of the law-schools, that at Berytus, with a | yth of its own, the story of the nymph _ Beroé, child of Aphrodite (see bks. xli.-xlii. and notes _ there)* Ifall his constructive ideas were as interest-

_ ® Forthis episode, see Stegemann, op. cit.,p. 174. Itispartof * dulebasivepttahrgtin vision of eerts pence which katedioren | with some justification, to have risen before Nonnos's mind. | xvii

MYTHOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION

ytho Bentley says of him,* “ he great variety of Learning, and may pass for an able Grammarian, though a very ordinary Poet."" Hence the episodes with which the poem abounds, and the continual allusions which interrupt the narrative, teem with stories, mostly in late literary forms, often probably also of late origin, even invented or given their shape Nonnos himself, which either found elsewhere or are not told in full save in Dionysiaca. Instances of this will dance in the notes; besides the with Perseus, already mentioned, we may remind reader here that Nonnos is our au i. 511) for the very curious | that trived to steal not only the thunderbolts of Zeus his sinews, which at once betrays itself as

origins at all events popular, old and Greek. Nonnos tie tho vile un eae tales (bks. x. ff.) of the various loves of Dionysos who were metamorphosed into various plants connected with viticulture. Nonnos gives us incomparably the longest account of the expedition of the god against the Indians, and though he probably invented a good deal himself, still there are no doubt elements derived from earlier fancies than his, and in the dearth of documents for this interesting development of quasi- * Diss. on Phalaris, p. 90 W Bohn ed. edetiete. For’ Geoumaries” os cheata eh scholar ” or “ philologist.” xviii

z

H

ff

a Eee

=f

¥. 7

i Re a

WH He vue:

|

: ul ith

id Hi

RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM OF vi

DIONYSIACA ia nditied Tue interest which classicists of the English-speaking world have taken during the last nd a half in the Dionysiaca of Nonnos of Pape aas show an inverse ratio to the astonishing he poe

A work which, since the appearance of its edif princeps (1569), has in some degree attracted t moo kerya. | Her- mann, A. Koechly, K. Lehrs, W Me pallet ”

J. J. Sealiger, J. oss, and von Wilamow tinues, however, to eal ta» asa scholars, at least of whom have cont mebolanen at Jones ee of its text.

The man -tradition was first studied scientific fashion by A. Ludwich,® who also prod the edition now in use. He gave a full account of the lesser manuscripts and provided the basis for a revised edition by proving that the Laurentian codex (Mediceo-Laurentianus xxxii. 16, written in a.p. 1280), not used by any previous editor, was the one from which all other extant mss. were descended.

* All references to the are made to the latest and best edition, a trul of by A. dw ( . Teubner, vol. i. 1909 ; vel ee

et

eee a iad i a eee)

——— -

eect

: RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

F suieush his collation of (L) was never published, he GQ earvey a selection of from it which amply revealed its primacy.“ In his edition (i. 13) he maintained the view that (P) Palatino-Heidelber- gensis 85, of the sixteenth century, the best copy of ), was itself the model for another very faulty ms.

| ~e now lost, from which all the codices deteriores coe

FMNORSVW), none earlier than the sixteenth

copied.

Another tradition is represented by I] (Papyrus Berolinensis — a badly mutilated f ent con- taining books xiv., xv. and xvi., dating from

eaitiaeores th century a.p.* (L) nevertheless SMI Sorel aoentiesl pursreoen the basis for our text, it is barely ible that manuscript material thus far left wholly unexamined may be — to bear upon its textual problems.‘

cit. 287-299. A description of the contents of (L) is

4 given A. Chiari, * De codice laurentiano xxxil. 16" in

Seritti in Onore di Felice Ramorine (Milan,

Societs Faditrice Vita ¢ Pensiero, 1927), 568-574, * See eee Santen, i. os me an account gh manuscripts the stemma given b st nn, Astro- logve Ls gah eee gpg Rudin o wand alerpretationen

= - Noanos von Panopolia (Leipaig, * Edited

12a, | by Wr Schubart and U. von Wilamowits-Moellen- dorff, in Berliner Klassikerterte, soehage age con der ten hene der igi. Museen wu Berlin, Heft +. 1. aves Dichterfragments, 1. Halfte, epieche und elegioche aiapheede (Berlin, 1907), 04-106. I refer to three xs. now in the Escorial library, which no editor save the Comte de Marcellus (Nownce. Lea Diony- ete.. Paris, Didot, 1856), Introduction xvi. = has even mentioned. These are most py, ee recently described by P. A. Revilla, Catdlogo de los C Griegos de la Biblioteca ‘a El Escorial, Tomo i. (Madeid, Imprenta Helénica, 1936), 218-220, 497-498, 502-503; a

vou. I 4 xxi

RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM |

(L) itself is hard to read; many compendia in it were wrongly transcribed by the of the deteriores. "he corrections by two were put in carelessly, so that at times it is difficult to make out the true form. Yet these corrections are most important, although they were usually written over the wrong reading which remained otherwise un- — changed in the mss.; this may have been the con- dition in which the exemplar of (L) was handed down.

The problems presented by the text are, precael “2 the result of errors which crept into it as it was propagated from the fifth century, when Nonnos flourished,* to the thirteenth. That so many Mas.

ee of the papyrus, 14 in all, not the agment listed Miller and the 4 by Utenhovius and 1 by us, now lost; see

Ludwich, Praefatio, i. 13) of a poem which contains

conce the other sas. of Nonnos given by Ludwich shows |

: ;

fragmentary ms. containing the first two Dionysiaca only, listed by E. Miller, © dea M&S, grece de la bibliothéque de I’ Escurial (Paris, 1848), No. —_ pages 189-190, with the entry Y. 1.13. The three he de

all complete. Possibly an examination, present, of these Spanish ss. might some useful evidence upon certain readings of the text, since Ludwich considered the deteriores known to of examination at many points and often lists their

xxii

He

} Mime 7. 110 reading Dion, 4. 139 _ (W. Headlam-A. D. Li ‘Miastnd Peep

--

. RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM : ities monotonous hexameters, 21,287 in number,

_ should have survived, is, of course, one of the many fronies attendant upon the transmission of ancicnt

HEE

Chief recourse in clarifying a text upon which much

| ‘still remains to be done * must, then, be had to con- _ jeetural emendation, but a type of emendation which

must also maintain a wholesome respect for LP. The materials for such correction are, fortunately, not as exiguous as one might suppose ; first, the a ere scribendi is peculiarly rich in repetitions of , lines, and entire passages ; second, aoe prosody of Nonnos is so and relatively so free from exceptions that the laws governing it form very useful aid; and, third, Nonnos imitated in many places a large number of authors whose testi- ine ire were to bear upon his text.’ These

so Berliner philologioche Wockenschrift, xxx. 1910) 1116; BP. Maas, Deuteche literaturceitung, No. xxxi.

1910), 2588; A. Ladwich, “ Ad noviesimam Nonni tna siacorum oe ge si - v oe enn ook 8: ceydell, Dursians bivudevtelé, Couns. (1931 —t 102, hs ail sain

le Dion yriaca some ence for the See Gr Cina autem than heedene. J. B. Sandys has made good ve Be Sesstrtags Univ; Press, 15 of

instances with especial tage. A. Raach (Hesiedi carmina, od." Leipzig, Teubner, 1915), 17, has restored DAerd from Dion. 40. 220; see also Addenda. 260, Ehocarum F enta 9, where Vitelli has collated Dion. 15. 273. L. eye tt Works of Pindar, Lon- Sent Mamaiing: Sh, 1008, ” makes use of Dion, 37. 135 in Pindar, Ol. as wel as of 26 S7 and

xxiii

RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

Orphica, and a certain Latin poets, Ovid, Claudian, and perhaps Virgil."

About 500 changes have been made in the text — since 1911, including the defence of readings in LQ

Son 'C. Joot on Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyeeaune a ane

392. R.C, Jebb on So ;

ivrwp, add the parallel from Dion. $1, 681 A,

Souumae (J rw of Pha ir — 249) cites

160, 48, 428 mrpoe

authors, now seems in the light of recent investigation more than probable. The parallels between Latin and the — works of certain late Greek writers have been oxpleined on the theory of common Hellenistic sources; but Julius Braune, Nownos wad Ovid (Greifewald, . 1935, 41 pages), attempts to direct use of Ovid's Meta- morphoses by Nonnos. Alt his method ye or leaves oe’ to be desired, his are accepted by RK. Keydell, Gnomon, xi. (1935), 508, who also discusses the debt of Nonnos to Claudian, his fellow country- man (604-605). Whether Nonnos read Virgil is more doubtful, —— not impossible, since the passages in which he might be supposed to have used the Aeneid, for example, have their proetras likewise in Apollonius Rhodius. This is the conservative view of L. Castiglioni, ‘“* Epica Nonniana "; Rendiconti del R. Istituto Lombardo di Scienze ¢ Lettere, serie ii., vol. lev. (1992), 325- 326. Q. Cataudella, “* Sulla a oar di Virgilio nel Mondo iano,” Chronique d’ aypte, vii. (1982), 392-888, without giving proof, at a direct rela between xxiv

a ee ae Se te hee

a eS en = pew

— ” ne

a

_ RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

ail Mibisendetions earlier than 1911, rejection of transpositions, and lacunae, and the

_ emendations,

establishment of new lacunae. It is significant that somewhat more than one-fifth of these changes _ Fepresent restorations of readings in L&2 which had — been displaced emendations received into Lud- _ wich’s text. Collart has used palacographical argu- ments in the main, and several critics have employed

of lines.* In spite of Ludwich’s full of the traditional readings it is quite that a fresh collation of (L) would produce | results.* Since further criticism of the text must proceed on

Nonnos and Virgil. No commentator has remarked upon

_ the marginal notes by the third hand in (L) at Dion. 37, 652 :

ecg ng~ ferge~ re yaell ao m genera “,T “ © ul y-

Wissowa, “* Nonnos ™ (1996), 906-911, 914-015. * R. Keydell, “ Zur Komposition der Bacher 13-40 der des Nonnos"; Hermes, ixii. (1927), 393-434;

Dionysiaca _ “Eine Nonnos-Analyse"; L' Antiquitéd Classique, i. (1992), 179-202; Paul Collart, Nonmos de Panopolis » Etudes var la

ot le Texte dea Dionysiaques (Le Caire, lmpri- hag bee netitut francais d’Archéologic orientale, 1930). Luadwich's emendations in his text amount to almost 200,

7 Gee add Gaeeber tt enon rison to the size of the poem ; a few of these he later retracted. pened ry beg pe em

RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

the basis of the material for the purpose which has rare ge , it has been deemed advisable to collect in wi » practioner gy yn ar to date, following, as closely as possible the form used by Ludwich in his critcus. His method of abbreviation by the

above the line and immediately following the erties name the articles or books in in which

emendation or change first will facilitate SS a tS hope ae additional apparatus to students, L. R. Likp, . however, only the first 24 books, lies in crip in the Staatsbibliothek at Berlin. In the collection emendations which follows all references have been : and the line-numbers of collateral passages wherever wrongly cited. Certain obvious abbreviations have poe a om =collatus, ete.; corr. = correxit; = ; dubit. =dubitavit ; = improb, = improbavit, -erunt; Met. = Metabole or of the Gospel of St. John; recep. =recepit, + restaur. =

restauravit. ae

te: xvi

ADDENDA CRITICA

he

mt “ah

es

+) en ee a

ike

es i

prea Hiss lh asf jee hte ala SMe dealt nil i

xxvii

eS

RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

cogwéns LQ, defend. Maas* 442-443 (coll. Ioh, Gaz. 2. 14 Friedlander ; Aristoph. Lysist. 90 cum scholiis ; 5. 613).

IV. 31 Bwooodos LPM, recep. Keydell* 102.—104 wer Castiglioni? 314.—178 als willow dédy Keydell* 14 (coll. 20. 96); wé@or, primus Cunseus, — 198 Castiglioni* 320,241 post 241 lacunam sta’ ee con) 480 onion LA 223 toll i Se 11. 177% 14, 173 40. 440),

v. xtpas LPM, recep. Stegemann 231-232.—136 ef. Bestat jos 1788, 46 Wifstrand 13.8 170-108 collosationam versuum mutavit Ludwich® 374; mutationem clus improb, Keydell® 104, Collart® 00. 188 Cppov Bs Mane! 2587-180 . Mans? 2587 ad dynos coll. 4. 225 dypos m Maas : ; 426; 5. 320; 25. 38; 315: 463; 483; 37. 519 Ludwich®

91; dopds Koechly, recep. Tiedke* 311-312 (coll. — nee

15. 16; 107; 26. 183; S36. 180; 496; 37.37; Met. B 16). —303 évrod Collart® 86, n. 3 (coll. 493; SOT; Ludwich?

190 4s r14)-—seT int auabuprt Bars Bdos Sens eae | Keydell? 381.—431 tionem versuum Marcelli

et Koechlii non recep. Keydell’ 178. VI. 75 coll. 2. 906 6 eee

—85 dacoddpos |? mn ey Stegemann 95.—1 2-3-1 Graefe, . Collart® 90-91 a ae pocgr defend. ket 320, 248-259 - ——s —— =. ctwa ddépor ie achmen kann.” rhea hey dell S81 “coll. B45. 101;

36. 349). Oat . St 63, 68, n. 1 ay 89.—247-248 afer wie 10, defend. | atque recep. Stegemann 89. ig dubit: Keydell* 102.—292 Senge LQ, restaur. Ludwich? 374 (coll. 13. 326; 37. 173; 80. 49; add. 25. 307 Lind). 848 aan SIC 811 354 xaddowrs Keydell* (coll. ee = cyvpebynoay Keydell* 383 (coll. 13. 566-568 ; Vu. 95 ) drevdfovew LQ, defend. Castiglioni#® 311.—102 oid re ris Beéryros Collart' 263-265 ct idem*® 91;

reqs beérros L, recep. Keydell* 106.176 “ . worapoio fiir Asovvoou cinzusetzen, Durch dieselbe / |

XXxVvili

atl

_ RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

’ hat Tiedice, Hormen; vii. 318 den Vers 19, 597 hergestellt.”

179, n. 8.—234 «ai run Gracfe, recep. Keydell* 2 47, 293).

VII. 137 exdqpopédow Keydell* 39 (coll. 47. 543).

‘ roe Crt anes Ludwich® 375 (coll. 26. 323; 45. 278).—81

defend. Wifstrand 185 (coll. 42. 461).—120 joni* 250.—128 Sebeoxopdry Koechly, joro, Att. Acc. Torino, liv. (1918-1919).

defend. V. M Ker aa Jahn, Hermes, iii. (1869), 320; improb.

07.—130 eg got 150 A A nan 186.—-169 et 171

an terete deters 1? FD. cate 10. 958 224: “35. 226 ; 44.785

soe ace wal 2. S32; 14. 384; 43. 38; usui oat age oy 5. 602 ; tamed 32. 196; ie, wi 34. 905;

39. 401); dubit. Keydell* 105. X. G3 olereigne viv tentavit Castiglioni* 311.—221 dye Castigtion#® 250-251 (coll. 10. 225; 220; 232; 236-237; 39. B delevit Tiedke’® 110 (coll. 45. by Met. I 108; 109; Tiedke, Quacstiuncula Nonniana, ii, Hermes, xv.

(1880), 48).—308 yp Maas* 265 oi 2. 315; 20.

wie Koch, <poe wope (vel Sina tuheonipley Suoriow Castig joni? 25 aet-eee

coll, ¢ SS. 255 sqq.;: 40. 1453).—a02 recep. Keydell* 106. XI. 18 LQ, recep. Keydell’ 19.—205 Saydooas ot 54 (ol 2. 275; U1. 14).—227 Gre<oder Casti- recep. Ludwich* 92 (corr. aS Bo fee See 2. 45; rat] "160 31. SO; 25. 65; 196; 48. 871).- ve * 253 (coll. 11. 902; 40. 127) et defend.

Sdiuver vel Bépwor Collart? 104, n. 2.— SAD bed Newradde raveds todas, ofes sic interpunxit Keydell’ 20 (coll. 480).—412 wde . Cast ' 2453 (coll. 37. 2462;

625): improb. K P 106; retract. Castiglioni® 316.— 5 442 collocavit Castiglioni' 253-255 (coll. 16. 360 ff.; 17. 313 f1.); improb. Keydell* 104.—485-12. 117 denuo recognovit Stegemann 128-155. —492 (-as) LQ, recep. Stegemann 130.403 brédepor Castiglioni' 255

xxix

RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

et defend. idem* 316 contra Keydell® 104.—499 dphor LQ, recep. Stegemann 132.

XII. 2 20: tacos Ls rene =i

106, — 57 LPM, recep. a Adeoay LQ, di . Stegemann 154.—58 & LQ, defend. Stegemann 100 foveras — recep. “up 156. —I117 é _—— Stegemann -— 143 annie” ore fend. Tied e! 299.—152 Pec vaéros FM recep. Castiglionl® Sil;

208-209 (coll. 4. 266; 9. 169; Hesiod, eRe Rhod. 1. 1076; 2. 1273).—-176 wéler

255-256 (sed cf. 48. 580).—250 abrds du

327.—323 wdépfé (pro Spdeaw) Tiedke* 306 ees nF Il. 176; 19. 131; 98.08; 4S. 65; 44. 107 .. 45. 233; 48. 688). — S41 ebréxrow LQ, defend. Collart* n. 3 (coll, 335-236). —357 olvor acc. a an citavit Keydell® 17.—360 dowerov Castiglioni® 314 (coll. 4

XIII. 45 ydporros roan : yepaod Ludwich; “ correc- tiones inutiles Collart® 116, n. 158 ee ce épeOpas LQ, recep. Maas* 130.—141 wapaxdréero I 5 (coll. 24. 46; 4 a 48. 649; pee ae “alart

(coll. 298; 6. 124; S31; 8. a 13. 122; 192; 31. iat, LO, defend. Keydell 3.496 pers 2 ahs 20 (coll. 32. 78

© . ; Met. = 84; 10148 odor Ea 30 (coll. 448).

XIV. 26 ay LQ, defend.

dell* 39 (coll. A Rhod. i. 1129 f.; G Boesch, Apollonii Rhodit clacutinéil Diss. Bettin, 3 p. 44

sine lacuna Col 117, ef. n. 3.—200 ° LP "defend. Tiedke* 312-313 (coll. op eae :; 13.178 25. 121: 47. 518; Joh. Gaz. ii. 125).—209 39.—237 évebhuaro Castiglioni' 256 (coll. 11. yr cha XXX

~—

ae

. RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

_Keyaett ” satire 3 10. 140).—256-257 delere vel transponere

Maas* 444. Castiglioni' 256-257, sed rp ide 3 319-980 re Keydell* as = — a4 > alg soe racfe, recep. Maas* ~- 404 cf. aides 47. 22. Gave. S Graecfe, recep. Keydell* 102 (coll. 10. 166).—10 Tiedke* 450 (coll. 43. 31; 48. 600).—

112 alge? y. recep. Maas’ § 40 (coll. 47. 4; 372) et G. Gnomon, v. 422 ; sed improb. St on 238 (coll. 12. 112).—211 Ba age miglich ware.” ke* 314. —226 “ I] faut sans doute ponctuer apres p_pav.” Collart? 193-124.—-204 ex apparatu “ <ofée LD ausgefallen” Lud- wich 93, n. 1.

XVL. 116 Ludwich, im Maas' 2587; a wey Bey ® il. ~ pe 46. 281).-—-119

ti, s00)-—141 post i461 Tocunam statult "Keydellt 983; ok

. iin Sdecoey del orépraan «abége tentavit ibidem, re LO cor egies ary peel gt Heexor Grace a Maas* —@234 waphenag? Kocchly, recep. Lad 5.

— 346 “Tyre lapous typographi : “Tere restaur. Maas! 2588. XVII. 6 re (pro Sediqr) Collart® 124.45 post 51 collocavit 0.12 “Tl semble qu'on pulse sup- primer le vers intrus sans ind ear do tagtere.” Collart’ 126, mn. 2.— 146 dplevese Castigiioni® 257 (coll. 9. 203; 248; 16. 245; iy (ation in = ne Q delevit Ludwich' 6.—222 @. 117 ¢ 17. 340;¢ 28. 216).-— ine Patan jifetrand 178, n. 1 (coll. 32. Si; =. 240).— K If 384 (coll. 17. ae tlean, ;. 130).—s00 inna wich, paral aged 2587 Tiedke® 446; retract. ct "Epe@pelar G ie probavit Ledwich' 6 (coll. 31. 948; Met. A G3; N 145).

XVIIL. 8 deepeldeor LO, Tiedke* 307 (coll. 10. 78 ; 385; 19. 56; O2; 28. 283; 210).—16 rerairas Struve, ae sine lacuna Collart*® 128.—17 Castiglioni' 258 ( 11. 380 eqq.;: 12. 197 ; Hesiod, . 800; Ap. Khod. a re S842) iepeahs Regia, S66: eetoaeh

— ? ways r et Maxed ultimum vocabulum versus mutilati Collart* 10 _ 10, 235; 18. 23).—36 deeppilece LQ, dubit. Tiedke' (coll. 40. 532).— 139 dyelBew Castigtioni* 258-259 (coll.

xxxi

RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

.

19. 199 et idem? S16: 10, 241; 11.3; 25.31; 28. 685

143); im Keydell* 104.175 dow LQ, dubitanter

recep. Wifstrand 12 (coll. 182 Lind).-255 adyén

Keydell' 14 (coll. 10. 205).—275 drjrys Maas* 131. Maas* 131 (coll. 36. 118; 41. 302; S387; - Sre-aes

os aed ntwirrt ').—281 = 29. 177; coll. 1. 263

41. 58 sqq. Maas* 131.—321 sar Preset of coll 11 ache

emendatus Castiglioni* 252).—324

Grm06 (o coll, 14. 373; 21. 189; 39. payee rp

1. 6. 224; 13. 590; 14. 282; 15. 306; 99.93; 28. rnp 30. 113; 36. 379; 38. 191; 43. 137; 47, 228).

XIX. 4 calvouoe Keydell' 15 (coll. 3. 228; 90. 8; 42. 362).—129 “ plate dente, poe eee wahr- scheinlich ™ 1 (coll, 5. 486; LL. 23; 18, 114; 40. 355; Met. © wor Paul. Sil. Soph. ii, 331 —141 nefopnadves Castiglioni' 259 (coll. 22. 369).—-177 wer Keydell* 40 (coll. 159; 14, 99).—226 2 (ol. 206).—283 dllecaw LQ, recep. K 40 (coll. 13,

568; 18. 258).—S27 “ vielleicht worapolo su lesen ist” Tiedke* 318; ef. 7. 176.

XX. 69 cum dcooxordAe coll. 16. 186; 38. 75; 48. O44 Ludwich' 5.—93 4% aéovew Ludwich, dubit. Keydell* 102. meg a » Canigiiond 900 (coll, #14190 252; 5. 185)s

cl 104 0O)—1

Castiglioni*® 261 (coll. 20. 343; 21. Pear pF ey 4 dyna) Tiedke* 309 (coll. 25. 336 ff; 40, 278)5 od ak Keydell* 105.242 wérpq@ LPM, restaur. Ladwich' 6 (coll, 2. 629; 3. 160; 4. 411; 446; 456; 5. 259; 17.2013 21. Keydell 10 36. ag tow» ons joni' 261 ‘

104.329 sy yi a 86; 48. 697).—-S41 ds & ye é yet ot nad S41 faisait sans doute suite pritivement a 332 " Collart® 143.-— 357 ante 357 signum athetescos posuit Maas* 131,

XXI. 2 AdBer Scaliger, recep. sine lacuna Collart® 143, n. 1.—74-75 transpositionem non recep. Collart® —— 77 wrelby LQ, Maas* 131-132.--80

Tiedke® 454 (coll. 5. 335; 11. 173; 77 $5. 5; 36. 372; 37. 288; 353; 519; 537 ; 39. 902; Met. Il 73; T 22).-222-226 post 247 collocationem non recep. Collart® 148-149.—-222-224 post 221 collocavit Castiglioni* 261-263; improb. Keydell* 104.—224 “ jv <> @ddjep for-

xxxii

ae ee

~

OE

=e mill

RECENT TEXT-CRITICISM

tame” Castigiioni® 263; sed vid. 5. 471; 6. 314; 316; BB. 226.256 Sypor Koechley; dpérpew Cunacus; recep.

ae Tiedke* 312.—3u4 lades Struve, recep. sine la- s ‘Gane Collart" 140, n. 3.

corr. Paschal, Classical Philo-

5 ogy, i 12), 131 adh wad maid Ludwich; “objektlose” ; ;

“Tl y « en réalité plus d'une lacune, car

iiickabispes y avoir plus de lien entre 42 ct 43 qu'entre 41

et 42 et wai rére est un bien artificiel.” Collart® 150, n. 2.

08 rdéor ( Oe mm Sane appear ai 61).—

113, darren 1 17h. ded (gre a] ist (coll 2 ‘aby 5 94. 64, 96. 900)1 med a pera LQ, recep. Keydell* 41,288

recep. Ludwich® 92-03 (coll. 15. 358; 16.

362). —299 perd nara fades improb. Maas! 2587 (tmesin non

admittit Nonnos). og 103 o¢ (pro pe) Ae aoe. -108. pores wich; “sinnlose™ Keydell’ 1 20 “Avrodigs 263 (coll. 6. 166 ; 20. 146; 24. Sa: 25. 375: 20. s 31. 962).—132 et ordinem pristinum servavit 153-196 ya 1 ie ager y 162 non recep. nn. io yrerr ) sine lacuna 161 me oan — 180-181 Selave Vane Cotlarts 161.—219 taped PF 386 (coll. 92. 155; 2.65; 19. 85; 7 rede Gon

Met. A 1 ie odo LP, defend, Maas’ 122 (cf. Quacst. Noon. spec.; 1873, pP- Sh—®76 <r’ aeoriae Cention S19:

XXIV. 122 122 transposuit 22, 42, 39, 40, 41 (hoc ordine) Col 151.—-123 +° LO, defend. Callari® 151.— am Keydell® 41 (coll. 2. 1290).—206 dey Ludwich® a76 ong 11. 462; 13, 201; 15. 326; 22. 2).—o50

Maas’ 23, idem®* 192, n. 1; retract. idem’ 6, n. be Castigtioni® 266 (coll. 24. 276).

ke* 309 (coll. 14. 905; 24 187; 27. Pg 200; 2D. 122; 36. 424; 37. 487).

XAXV. 223 dre xalocow LO, recep. Maat 132 (coll. 2 145; 25. 262).—307-908 “ Sie sind unverstAndlich, passen tows + an die andern Stclen, an die man sle ver setzt hat.” 410, 0. 1.—308 perpfoas dpudborw wooing Colla 165, n. 1.—S55 wdVeew LO, recep. Stegemann 87.307 peOpde LOL, recep. Ludwich® 376 et Stegemann