Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:58:42.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Manuscripts and Editions of Heliodorvs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. M. Rattenbury
R. M. Rattenbury
Affiliation:
The University of Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 19 , Issue 3-4 , July 1925 , pp. 177 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1925

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

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.