Textual Notes on Strabo and Thucydides
1. Strabo’s report on the Soanes (XI. 2. 19: Xρῶνται δ’ οἱ Σόανες φαρμάκοις πρὸς τὰς ἀκίδας θαυμαστῶς, καὶ τοὺς ἀφαρμάκτοις τετρωμένους βέλεσι λυπεῖ κατὰ τὴν ὀσμήν, in accordance with Casaubon’s edition) may be read without conjectures or assumptions about a lacuna if we regard the verb λυπεῖ as connected with φάρμακα and therefore used in the singular. The following translation is proposed: “The Soanes use poisons for their arrows in a remarkable manner: [the poisons] vex with their odour even those who are wounded by unpoisoned missiles”.
2. In Thucydides’ account of new poleis (Thuc. I. 7. 1) the verb κτίζομαι means ‘create’; a more exact translation of [πόλεις] τείχεσιν ἐκτίζοντο is thus “the cities … were created by walls’. The emphasis in this case is placed not on building and fortifying the cities but on their territorial formation.
The following changes are proposed for the text of the ‘New Apuleius’ (a set of suumaries of Plato’s dialogues in Latin, published in 2016 by J. Stover as Apuleius De Platone book 3):in 12.3, instead of Stover’s conjecture ait, restore the manuscript reading et; in 13.3, instead of the manuscript reading autem, read ante mortem; in 13.28, instead of Stover’s conjecture indifferentes, restore the manuscript reading indifferentem; transpose the words iurisconsulto… uirtutem (15.8-9) after the words partes esse (15.4), thus restoring the manuscript order of sentences (and possibly no lacuna is to be postulated in 15.7); in 18.3, instead of Stover’s conjecture primo, restore the manuscript reading primos; in 22.15, instead of the manuscript reading figulam and Stover’s conjecture figlinam, read figulinam; in 23.9, instead of Stover supplement <qui>, supply <si>; in 24.10, instead of the manuscript reading quoque, read quidem; in 25.2, instead of the manuscript reading disposuerit, read deposuerit; in 26.2, instead of the manuscript reading nolunt, read nolint; in 26.4, instead of the manuscript reading deinde finitionem / dein definitionem and Stover’s conjecture dein definit, read deinde punitionem and delete the sign of lacuna after deliquerit; in 27.7, instead of the manuscript reading uirtutes, read uirtutis; in 28.4, instead of the manuscript reading dein de, read dein<de> de; in 31.18-19, instead of the manuscript reading bona principis sufficiant naturales et bene scriptas and Stover’s conjecture bono principi sufficiant naturales legibus scriptis, read bono principi sufficiant naturales et sine scriptis; in 32.8, reject Stover’s supplement <esse inuenire nec inuentum in omnes> and attempts to reconstruct strict syntactical correspondence between the Latin phrase and its Greek source (Plat. Tim. 28c), and possibly delete the sign of lacuna; in 32.40-41, instead of the manuscript reading bonos et bonum genium read et bonos bonum genium or better bonos et genium bonum.
NB: For the note on 22.15, see corrigendum with correction of some arguments in Aristeas 20 (2019) 533-534.
1. In the text of Passio S. Sebastiani (BHL 7543), 13, AASS 2.267, instead of …ita illic refectio, quam os susceperit, melliflua in gustu hoc unicuique sapit, quo fuerit delectatus, a new reading is proposed: ...ita illic refectio, quam os susceperit, melliflua in gustu. Hoc unicuique satis, quo fuerit delectatus. Besides, examination of the available part of the manuscript tradition (which is huge and nearly unexplored) possibly points to instability of the transmitted text as well. 2. In the text of Chromatius of Aquileia’s Sermones, 26.94–98 Étaix–Lemarié, instead of post multas uirtutes et mirabilia, quae fidem credentium confirmauit, a new reading is proposed: post multas uirtutes et mirabilia, quae fidem credentium confirmarunt (if r could be mistaken for the left vertical line of u, then it is easy to imagine a corruption of -rũt to -uit). 3. A new approach to the solution of the problem posed by senseless and unmetrical ductor iacet in Corippus, Iohannis 4.1 is proposed: the word ductor could originate as a gloss to rex, which could in its turn be a corruption of res (the verb has to be corrected as well, but here no clearly preferable decision seems to occur). The best of the preceding conjectures, that of L. Nosarti, is criticized on palaeographic grounds.