LIFE offers various amusements, and anyone these days who can choose among them will come late to the study of hiatus in Greek prose. Germany in the 1880s, so it seems, was less fortunate, and few greater excitements were known to young or old than the hunt for hiatus; but now that we no longer strait-waistcoat our classical authors and the austerity of those times is discredited, few collectors of hiatus are to be found, and there are people even in (...) Germany who have never identified a single specimen. Yet there is nothing to be said for underrating an author' stylistic pretensions, still less for encouraging others to do the same; and the textual critic, whose path is slippery enough at the best of times, can ill afford to dispense with footholds. There has been no broad study of hiatus in Greek prose since 1841, when Benseler in a long and original book De hiatu in oratoribus et historicis Graecis went through the text of 27 authors and attempted to determine their practice. (shrink)

In a brief article under the present title, Adam Parry raised a simple but profound question: were there certain things that the inherited vocabulary of oral poets did not allow them to sayF; The mere raising of this question, whatever his answer, is enough to make the article one of the more important contributions to Homeric studies in the last fifty years. As it happens, his answer was affirmative, and it has not been contested. Contested it will now be.

When did Livy write his history? How many books had it, and what did the lost ones cover? Such answers as can be given to these questions come almost entirely from the one extant summary, the Periochae. The manuscripts of the Periochae disagree, however, on a matter of considerable interest: out of a hundred or so, only three, supported by a lost fourth, have been cited as adding to the title Ex libro CXXI the subtitle qui editus post excessum Augusti (...) dicitur. When the latest editor, P. Jal in the Collection Budé , declares himself unconvinced of its authenticity , he leaves the reader to decide whether authenticity means truth, authorial origin, or presence in the archetype; but whatever it means, seeds of suspicion have been sown. (shrink)

Statius' Silvae owe their preservation to a copy made in Switzerland for Poggio in 1417 by a local scribe. This copy, brought to light by G. Loewe in 1879, was recognized for what it was by A.C. Clark and A. Klotz twenty years later, and since then its descendants have had at best historical interest. To extract much of that from them an editor must endeavour to survey all the extant material, and A. Marastoni in the recent Teubner edition claims (...) to have done just that: ‘omnes manuscriptos libros veteresque editiones iterum contuli’ he says at the opening of his preface, and the reviewers echo his words. (shrink)

Heliodorus has been edited twice in the last thirty years, by Colonna and by Rattenbury and Lumb.Colonna's text is erratic, but in another respect his work on Heliodorus has been productive: he has put it beyond doubt that Book 9 ofAethiopicawas written after the third siege of Nisibis, which took place in A.D. 350. There is no point in repeating Colonna's arguments here; they merit mention because no one has taken any notice of them.

These H, British Library Harl. 647, was written in Lorraine but crossed before AD 1000 to England, where it later belonged to St. Augustine's Canterbury; Cicero's verses in minuscule occupy the foot of each page, and the rest is given over to the appropriate illustration, painted only at the extremities and filled out to the requisite shape with scholia from Hyginus in small capitals. D, Dresden Dc 183, left France not before 1573; illustrations and scholia occur only in a preceding (...) work, the scholia Sangermanensia. (shrink)

Recent months have brought forth a new edition of Nemesianus and a 294-page study of the textual tradition that he shares with Calpurnius. The edition, prepared by P. Volpilhac for Budé , offers nothing new on the tradition beyond reports of a few manuscripts known to previous editors; but Luigi Castagna's book I bucolici latini minori: una ricerca di critica testuale makes an earnest attempt at solving once and for all the problems that survived the last contribution of any weight, (...) Giarratano's edition . Though most of what Castagna says is true, however, his readers may be cushioned against the sharper points by an undue amount of padding, which also fails to hide gaps. Before he proceeds to his own edition of Nemesianus, therefore, a few things can usefully be said. (shrink)

In I910 the bookseller Hiersemann of Leipzig bought at Sotheby's a manuscript of Metamorphoses described as a ‘manuscript of the twelfth century, finely written on vellum, bound in oak boards, covered with stamped leathe’ it was one of the many manuscripts of Ovid owned by Sir Thomas Phillipps, Phillippicus 1038. Its whereabouts since 1910 are unknown. Also unknown are the whereabouts of Phillippicus 2709, a thirteenth-century manuscript of Metamorphoses.

Fuhrmann's work on the manuscripts of Anaximenes', finally made public in his Teubner text , has left the ground clear for critical operations. A solid start was made by Spengel and Kayser ; but that there are still serious flaws in the text has recently been shown by R. Kassel . The main purpose of the following notes is to air difficulties, some afresh, some for the first time.The second example is apt, the first not, because the author is discussing (...) not outright illegality, which falls within the compass of TO, but two ways of bringing within the compass ofacts that are not expressly illegal. Deletion of the first example must therefore be considered. It should not be thought, however, that there is anything wrong with the asyndetic coupling of two examples that both lead off with. (shrink)

IT has long been recognized that Circe's instructions to Odysseus at Od. 10. 516–40 were composed after their fulfilment at 11. 2 3–50.2 Something similar in Iliad 9 seems to have been overlooked.Agamemnon–s offer to Achilles at 122–57 is reported by Odysseus at 264–99 in more or less the same words.

There are still many passages in Heroides where editors prefer a poor variant or cling to an indefensible text. Some of these I touched on in reviewing Dome's new edition , but shortage of space made it necessary to reserve others for discussion elsewhere. As Dörrie goes astray more often than most of his predecessors, this article may be regarded as a continuation of the review; but I do not discuss any passage where he is alone in his misjudgement.

Heliodorus has been edited twice in the last thirty years, by Colonna and by Rattenbury and Lumb . Colonna's text is erratic, but in another respect his work on Heliodorus has been productive: he has put it beyond doubt that Book 9 of Aethiopica was written after the third siege of Nisibis, which took place in A.D. 350 . There is no point in repeating Colonna's arguments here; they merit mention because no one has taken any notice of them.

Thomas Marshall, who became Rector of Lincoln College in 1672 and died in 1685, left to the Bodleian his collection of books and manuscripts. Two lists of the manuscripts appear in Edward Bernard's Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae , i . 272–3, 373–4, but both omit what is now called MS. Marshall 140, which F. Madan in the Summary Catalogue describes as follows.

In a recent article I tried to disperse the fog in which modern editions envelop the transmission of the Livian Periochae and Floras' Epitoma de Tito Liuio. Working from editions and catalogues, and without looking at more than a few readily accessible manuscripts, I argued that the Periochae reached the Middle Ages in the company of Floras and nothing else; that the mainstream of the medieval tradition, which probably issued from the region south-west of Paris, derived first from a manuscript (...) that presented Florus and only 1–7 of the 142 Periochae, Λ, and then from one that presented Florus alone, e; that after appearing for several centuries only in N and P the complete text of Florus and the Periochae saw a revival in the Italian Renaissance, probably thanks to Petrarch and Boccaccio; and that most Italian manuscripts contaminate the text of e with the complete text. Pending visits to libraries, I left open several questions: whether Λ derived from the source of NP; whether e derived from Λ; whether the Italian manuscripts of the complete text all derive from one source; whether, if so, it was P; whether any of them have escaped contamination in Florus; and whether contamination had already begun in France. (shrink)