in memory of Eric HandleyDicaeopolis brushes the informer aside and closes his deal with the starving Megarian: ΔΙ. … λαβὲ ταυτὶ τὰ σκόροδα καὶ τοὺς ἅλαςκαὶ χαῖρε πόλλ’. ΜΕ. ἀλλ’ ἁμὶν οὐκ ἐπιχώριον.ΔΙ. πολυπραγμοσύνη νῦν ἐς κεϕαλὴν τράποιτ’ ἐμοί. 833 Even before Douglas Olson's thorough study of the tradition in his commentary on Acharnians it was clear that the oldest manuscript, R, has as much weight as the agreement of the others that editors report. In 833 it reads πολυπραγμοσύνη, the (...) others –σύνης. A scholion runs λείπει τὸ ἕνεκα, ἕνεκα τῆς πολυπραγμοσύνης, plainly written for a text that had –σύνης, which is also the lemma in one manuscript; the lemma in the other that has one is –σύνῃσιν. It has not been shown, however, either that this scholion is ancient or that its agreement with all the manuscripts but R overrides the testimony of R. As regards attestation, therefore, the tradition offers two readings of equal weight, or three if –σύνῃσιν is taken to be a relic of a text different from the one that prompted the scholion. (shrink)

Since the Farnesianus emerged in the 15th century, a passage where Festus sets himself against his predecessor Verrius Flaccus has been interpreted in four different ways. These are discussed and an emendation proposed that does not depend on any of them but has a consequence for what Festus published.

Ambros. S 81 sup. (s. xvi) includes parts of the pseudo-Ovidian Halieutica and of Grattius’s Cynegetica. Their descent from Paris B. N. Lat. 8071 (s. ix) is reaffirmed against the recent but already influential view that they came from a lost manuscript discovered by Iacopo Sannazaro.