[image ALT: Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]
Bill Thayer

[image ALT: Cliccare qui per una pagina di aiuto in Italiano.]

[Link to a series of help pages]
[Link to the next level up]
[Link to my homepage]

This page has been carefully proofread
and I believe it to be free of errors.
If you find a mistake though, please let me know!

Diodorus Siculus

p. vii Introduction to Books XXI‑XXXII

The last twenty books (XXI‑XL) of the Library of History begin with the battle of Ipsus, fought in 301 B.C., and in their original complete form carried the account down to the author's own day, closing with the events of 61/0 B.C.1 Though Diodorus is now held in scant esteem as a historian — in marked contrast to his high repute in the XVIth century —, and though his work is admittedly derivative in character and hence of uneven worth, depending on the reliability of his sources, still the loss sustained by the disappearance of these books is scarcely to be measured in terms of their intrinsic merit. Had they survived intact, they would have given us, as nothing now does, a single, continuous, and detailed narrative of events in the whole Mediterranean world during two and a half crucial centuries, and a historical perspective that we now sadly lack. As it is, no more than a fraction of the original survives, mostly in brief excerpts or, occasionally, in longer but freely condensed paraphrase. Even these sorry fragments, however, preserve the record of many incidents otherwise p. viiiunknown or give us a glimpse of historical traditions different from those that were destined to prevail.

By far the greater part of the fragments come from the historical anthologies compiled in the Xth century for Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, though of the fifty-three original collections only four are preserved: the Excerpta de Legationibus (Περὶ πρεσβειῶν),2 de Virtutibus et Vitiis (Περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας), de Insidiis (Περὶ ἐπιβουλῶν κατὰ βασιλέων γεγονυιῶν), and de Sententiis (Περὶ γνωμῶν or, better, Περὶ γνωμικῶν ἀποστομισμάτων), each including some passages from Diodorus. Next in importance come the fragments from Books XXI‑XXVI known as the Eclogae Hoeschelianae, and the relatively long extracts from XXXI‑XL preserved in the Bibliotheca (or Myrobiblion) of Photius. Finally, there are the miscellaneous fragments drawn from the Church Fathers or from writers of the Byzantine period, of which those found in Georgius Syncellus are the most significant, those from Tzetzes the most exotic.

These sources preserve or reflect the text of Diodorus with varying degrees of fidelity. The most reliable are the Constantinian collections, as can readily be seen by comparing their excerpts from the surviving books with the originals.3 The procedure followed by the excerptors was quite simple. From the complete text they selected the passages appropriate p. ixto their several rubrics, and these they copied out substantially as they stood, omitting whatever seemed irrelevant to their purpose (with or without careful bridging of the gap), and resorting occasionally to mere paraphrase of the original. As they had little interest in history as such, but only in the lessons of history, they would prefix to each selection no more than a summary indication of the situation, often with scant attention to grammatical niceties.4 For the reconstruction of the lost books it is of capital importance that in each of these collections the excerpts invariably appear in proper sequence, according to the original, though unfortunately without indication of the original division into books.

The Hoeschel fragments are quite different in character, and are almost certainly independent of the Constantinian collections. Here the division by books is indicated, and the selection of material was made along different lines, the primary interest of the editor being in the march of events rather than the isolated exemplum.5 Above all there was a keen interest in Sicilian affairs,6 evidenced in particular by several lengthy passages of considerable historical importance, which in form, however, are clearly summaries of the original account rather than verbatim extracts. Unfortunately, the carelessness or ineptitude of the compiler was such that his barbarous p. xstyle often obscures or even distorts the narrative. Where, as in 22.1.2‑3, we can set his account of events side by side with a Constantinian passage, it is possible to see how far the distortion has gone, but very often no such control exists.

Many of the Photian fragments are likewise condensations of the original text, as can be seen by comparing the long narrative of the First Servile Revolt (34/5.2.1‑24) with the scattering of parallel passages (ibid. 24b‑48) from the Constantinian collections. Here again the historian must reckon with the possibility of distortion or over-simplification, but there is always at least the compensation that in such summaries we have a complete and connected story, not merely a series of isolated scenes torn from their context. The material selected by Photius is rich in interest, notably his accounts of the Jews in Books XXXIV/XXXV and XL, and he is again helpful in determining the division of the later books, despite some confusion in the recorded attribution by books, either on his part or that of later copyists.

History of the Fragments

The history of the several groups of fragments under consideration, though not without interest and significance, may here be recounted briefly. The first to be discovered were some of the excerpts made by Photius, which appeared, partly in Greek and partly in Latin, in the first complete edition of Diodorus, that of H. Stephanus (Geneva, 1559). L. Rhodoman, whose reprint of Stephanus' text with a Latin translation (Hanau, 1604) was to remain for near a hundred and fifty years the standard edition p. xiof Diodorus, included these fragments as given by Stephanus, but also, despite some repetition, added an appendix containing the Photian excerpts in their entirety.7

Meanwhile, in 1582, Fulvius Ursinus (Orsino) had published at Antwerp part of the Constantinian De Legationibus, Diodorus included.8 It is hard not to believe that Rhodoman knew of this edition, especially since he gave some assistance to Hoeschel when the latter published the rest of the collection, under the title Eclogae Legationum, at Augsburg in 1603. But whatever the reason for his oversight, Rhodoman failed to include these fragments in his edition, and it remained for Wesseling to unite them with the full text of Diodorus.

As an appendix to his Eclogae Legationum Hoeschel also published the fragments of Diodorus that are now known by his name. A year later, in substantially the same form, but now accompanied by a Latin translation, a brief commentary, and a list of corrections, they were reprinted by Rhodoman in his 1604 edition of Diodorus. Hoeschel, in his Preface, makes p. xiionly this statement concerning the fragments: "His corollarium addidimus Eclogas librorum Diodori Siculi amissorum, quas e Codice Ludovici Alemanni Florentini doctiss. R. Thomson Anglus mecum amice communicavit." In the same year, however, he wrote to a friend, commending Rhodoman "qui suam mihi ἀγχίνοιαν καὶ εὐστοχίαν probavit in libro πρεσβειῶν πέρι· quod constabit, cum notas edidero[;] nunc enim textus, quem vocant, impressu est modo."9 Since the promised Notes never appeared, the exact relationship of the two editors remains an unresolved problem, though Rhodoman constantly speaks as if he alone were responsible for all the emendations to the text, those that appear in the margin of both editions no less than the ones found only in his notes. As a purely arbitrary solution to the problem I have attributed to both men the marginal emendations, to Hoeschel alone the changes indicated in the text proper, and of course to Rhodoman alone those that appear only in his commentaries. After 1604 no more is heard either of the original manuscript or of Thomson's copy of it. Thus the two editions, of 1603 and 1604, have for us the value of manuscripts, and the text of Hoeschel is cited in the critical notes as H, that of Rhodoman, wherever it shows a significant variant, as ed. Rhod.

In 1634 H. Valesius (Valois) published, from a manuscript (P) purchased in Cyprus for Nicolaus Peirescius in 1627, the text of the collection De Virtutibus et Vitiis. In the interim the manuscript was for a while in the hands of Claudius Salmasius (Saulmaise), p. xiiiwho copied parts of it and made many emendations to the text. This copy was discovered by Büttner-Wobst in the Bibliothèque Nationale (Codex Parisinus 2550), and since time and neglect have caused the Peiresc manuscript to deteriorate, the copy is not only of some importance for the actual text, but also attests Salmasius' prior claim to many emendations made independently by Valesius and others later.

The next important contribution came more than a century later, when Petrus Wesseling produced his great edition in two folio volumes (Amsterdam, 1746). This edition, which is still fundamental to all students of Diodorus, brought together all of Diodorus that was then known, and Wesseling himself collected and added a number of isolated fragments found in later authors.

The collection De Sententiis was discovered by Cardinal Angelo Mai in a Vatican palimpsest (V), and published by him in 1827, in Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus edita, vol. II. Unfortunately the chemicals that he used on the manuscript to bring out the original text have wrought serious damage. Nonetheless Boissevain, by diligent inspection of the manuscript over a period of five months, was able to recover numerous true readings where Mai and others had failed. Thanks to his efforts, therefore, the present edition offers an improved text of these fragments that differs in many instances from the standard text of Dindorf's Teubner edition.

The last major discovery, that of the Excerpta de Insidiis, followed hard upon Mai's publication of V. The Escorial manuscript (S), which is our sole source p. xivhere for Diodorus and for most of the other authors represented in the collection, was copied in 1830 by C. Aug. L. Feder. For some reason, however, it was not until 1848 that he first published, at Darmstadt, a part of the text, including the extracts from Diodorus.10 In the same year, at Paris, the Escorial fragments of Polybius, Diodorus, and Dionysius were brought out by Carolus Mueller in vol. II of the Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum apparently from a copy he himself had made of the manuscript. Neither edition, however, was conspicuous for its accuracy, and it was again not until 1905, with de Boor's edition of the entire collection, that a sound text for this portion of Diodorus became available.

The rest of the story is not one of discovery but of consolidation. In this sphere the chief contributor was Ludwig Dindorf, who between 1826 and 1868 brought out four separate editions of Diodorus, and whose services, especially as regards Books XXI‑XL, entitle him to be ranked beside Wesseling himself. Of these editions the second, third, and fourth are still of great value.11 The second (Dindorf2), published by Hartmann at Leipzig, 1828‑1831, is indeed indispensable for the fragments, since it is the only complete edition with critical apparatus; unfortunately it is rare and difficult to come by. Although the collections of fragments were here still printed as separate units, as in the Wesseling edition, a table was now provided (vol. II 2, pp213‑245) to show their arrangement in chronological order. Dindorf p. xvalso made many additions to the section of miscellaneous fragments and did much to improve and elucidate the text of V, just published by Mai.

The third edition (Paris: Didot, 1842‑1844), though based on a new recension of the Greek text by Dindorf, was actually the work of Mueller,12 who for the first time arranged the fragments chronologically and by books, and provided the Latin translation (for the most part ultimately the work of Rhodoman).

Finally, Dindorf re-edited the text for the Teubner series (Leipzig, 1866‑1868), keeping Mueller's chronological arrangement13 of Books XXI‑XL, but adding the Escorial fragments, and incorporating many emendations of his own and of other recent scholars, notably Herwerden. Since the Vogel-Fischer edition was never carried beyond Book XX, Dindorf4 has remained the standard text for Books XXI‑XL, and it is therefore all the more regrettable that Dindorf did not here provide a critical apparatus.14

Since Dindorf's day the chief contribution to the study of the fragments is the splendid critical edition p. xviof the Constantinian corpus, published at Berlin by Weidmann (1903‑1910), under the general title Excerpta historica iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta. The volumes relevant to Diodorus are the following:

I Excerpta de Legationibus, ed. C. de Boor, 1903.
II Excerpta de Virtutibus et Vitiis, pars I, ed. T. Büttner-Wobst, 1906.
III Excerpta de Insidiis, ed. C. de Boor, 1905.
IV Excerpta de Sententiis, ed. U. P. Boissevain, 1906.

Though the avowed aim in this series was to recover the text of the Byzantine excerptors, rather than that of the original authors, the editors have placed in their debt all students of classical as well as Byzantine Greek. And for the fragments of Diodorus their care in recording the readings of the manuscripts has made possible a much improved text, above all in the De Sententiis and the De Legationibus.

The Present Edition

It is now a century and a quarter since the last critical edition of the fragments of Books XXI‑XL was published, and neither that edition (Dindorf2) nor the Excerpta Historica are readily available. Had the Vogel-Fischer edition of Diodorus gone on to include these books, taking account of the improved text of the Constantinian additions, it might have been practicable to accept it as a standard text, which could be reproduced with a minimum of change. As it is, no single edition can now be regarded as "standard," and though the editor has leaned p. xviiheavily on Dindorf4, it seems essential to justify the text now presented by providing a much fuller critical apparatus than is customary in this series.

In general, it has been my intention to record all significant variations from the manuscript readings. But obvious or routine corrections — of accents, marks of breathing, augments — and minor changes in orthography15 have as a rule been made tacitly. So also with some more substantial changes where there seemed no possibility of doubt as to their correctness. On the other hand, a number of inconsistencies in orthography16 have been allowed to stand, though Dindorf in his final edition tended nearly always to standardize the spelling.

Since the evidence for the text of most of the fragments is in each case only a single manuscript, the amount of emendation and correction required is inevitably large. Nevertheless, the text presented here is essentially conservative. Occasional Byzantine forms, such as καταπτωθείσης (26.8) and δίδειν (31.8.5), have been allowed to remain, and likewise some Byzantine constructions. Especially in the non-Constantinian passages, where the text is more often a paraphrase than a faithful transcript, attempts to make the Greek conform to Diodorean usage are both misguided and futile. The Hoeschel excerptor, for example, freely uses the genitive absolute where a circumstantial participle, agreeing with its noun, would be in order, as at 23.19: τοῦ δὲ ἀπολύσαντος p. xviii. . . ἀπέστειλεν ὁ ἄρχων. This may at times (as perhaps here) be the result of hasty and careless condensation and occasionally at such places (e.g. 22.10.1) I have ventured to indicate a lacuna. But on the whole it is both safer and simpler to accept the construction as it stands, recognizing it as characteristic of the excerptor's own inelegant style. Emendation seems equally out of place where, in the Constantinian passages, the Byzantine editor has imperfectly adapted his introduction to the text proper. So at 22.6.2 the editorial Ὅτι Πύρρος ὁ βασιλεὺς is followed by εἰπεῖν, which probably stood in the original text and if so was needlessly emended by Dindorf to εἶπεν. Again, at 23.2, the words Ὅτι Φοίνικες καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι ναυμαχήσαντες, though effectively explicit as to the situation, accord ill with the following participle and verb, which refer to the Carthaginians alone. As a final example we may cite 27.11: Ὅτι οἱ Καρχηδόνιοι σιτοδείας ἐμπεσούσης οἱ καχέκται τῶν πολιτῶν κτλ. Here again Dindorf emends, reading τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις, although it seems evident that the words οἱ Καρχηδόνιοι were added by the excerptor, concerned only to make clear to his readers who these otherwise unidentified καχέκται were.

In preparing this edition I have relied entirely upon the printed record, and have not re-examined the manuscripts. Since the Constantinian collections have been well and critically edited,17 and the manuscript of the Hoeschel fragments is now lost, it is perhaps only in the case of Photius, last edited by p. xixI. Bekker (Berlin, 1824‑1825), that a fresh study of the manuscripts might have produced significant results. For Suidas I have used the Adler edition (Leipzig, 1928‑1938). Other minor sources are cited by the last available editions, which in each case are identified in the notes on their first appearance.

Dindorf4 has long been the standard edition by which the fragments of Books XXI‑XL are cited. For this reason it seemed desirable at all costs to preserve the long-familiar numbering of the fragments, by book, chapter, and paragraph, as found there. Fortunately the work of Mueller and Dindorf in arranging the fragments has on the whole stood the test of time, though in the light of our present historical knowledge some changes were obviously called for. Yet to renumber completely, in accordance with some new arrangement of the fragments, seemed certain to lead to unnecessary confusion, as has notoriously been the case with the fragmentary books of Polybius. Under the circumstances, therefore, it seemed best to make only such changes in order as were, in the editor's judgement, imperative,18 but to keep the Dindorf4 numbering intact. Obviously such a compromise solution entails some inconvenience, but it is hoped that this has been minimized by full cross-references given before and after the relocated passages.19

p. xx An effort has been made to date the fragments as accurately as possible and where a precise year could not be assigned to a passage, an indication of the possible limits is usually given, either in the margin or in the notes. Diodorus, here as earlier in his work, followed the annalistic pattern, and since the Constantinian excerpts appear to reflect the original order with complete fidelity,20 it is generally possible to obtain at least approximate dates even for events not otherwise recorded or for which the other evidence is not decisive.21 To a lesser degree this principle of arrangement and dating applies also to the Hoeschel and Photius fragments, though some of the long narratives in each, being compilations rather than actual excerpts, may obscure the original order by bringing together related events from the accounts of several years.

A comparison of my marginal dates and the dates given in the Argumenta Librorum of Dindorf4 will show many changes. Some of the new dates may be regarded as securely established, others will no doubt have to be modified as further evidence is forthcoming. For the Roman chronology I have relied chiefly upon T. R. S. Broughton's invaluable Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1951‑1952), while for the Greek world the single most helpful work was p. xxiB. Niese's Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten (Gotha, 1893‑1903), which, though now outdated in part, is still the only broad study that takes account of and attempts to place all recorded events of the period.

My footnotes, though necessarily more ample than in the earlier volumes of Diodorus in this series, have been kept as brief as possible. The primary purpose throughout has been to provide the reader, chiefly by the identification of names and the citation of parallel passages in other authors, with the means of setting each fragment against its historical background. Nor are the citations from other historians intended to be complete, and in general preference has been given to authors earlier than Diodorus, especially Polybius, who was one of his chief sources for Books XXII‑XXXII.

Obviously, the notes could not attempt to provide a full commentary, though such a work would be desirable. The annotations of the Wesseling edition, which incorporate the more important notes of preceding editors, still constitute the only substantial commentary available. Dindorf2 reprints these, with his own notes to the Vatican fragments (V) and some slight additions, while for the De Insidiis there are only the brief notes of Feder and of Mueller. Book XXXVII, so far as it deals with the Marsic War, was edited with a commentary by Krebs (Weilburg, 1862).

A few other works of some importance may also be mentioned. Of translations the most useful is the German version of J. F. Wurm (Stuttgart, 1827‑1840), whose interpretations and occasional emendations of the text have been unduly neglected. H. van p. xxiiHerwerden's Spicilegium Vaticanum (Leyden, 1860) deals primarily with the text of V, which he had himself re-examined, but also provides a running commentary, almost entirely textual, on many of the other fragments as well. Though intolerant of the work of others and not infrequently perverse in his own interpretations, Herwerden yet contributed much to the study of the fragments. Slighter contributions, again mostly textual, were made by Reiske, Hertlein, Madvig, Kallenberg, and Cobet, and there have been a number of studies devoted to the question of the sources used by Diodorus. Except, however, for the incidental and scattered remarks of some historians, relatively little sustained attention has been paid since Wesseling's day to the actual content of these later books.22

The Manuscripts

The manuscript basis for what little has been preserved of Books XXI‑XL is extremely slight. The four Constantinian collections — and only four out of fifty-three survived at all, it may be remembered — seem each to have survived to the revival of learning in only a single exemplar. Two late and imperfect copies exist of the De Insidiis, both from a single archetype, only one of which, however, contains the fragments from Diodorus. Of the De Legationibus there are a number of manuscripts, but all again are late copies (none earlier than the late XVIth century) of a single earlier manuscript now lost. This original had been bequeathed to the Escorial Library by Juan p. xxiiide Paez and perished there by fire in 1671. None of the copies has individual authority, and since it has not been found necessary to cite them except by their consensus (represented by the siglum O), it may suffice to refer for a detailed description of each to de Boor's Introduction, pp. ix‑xvi.

The Hoeschel fragments, as stated earlier, come from a manuscript now lost, which is represented for us only by the printed texts of Hoeschel and Rhodoman. These have been carefully collated for the present edition.

The Photius fragments present a more serious problem. It is now known that all extant manuscripts of the Bibliotheca derive from two extant manuscripts, the tenth-century Codex Marcianus Ven. 450 (A), and the eleventh-century Codex Marcianus Ven. 451 (M). Bekker fortunately relied chiefly on A, which represents by far the better tradition. Of the three other manuscripts used by him, B is in fact only a copy of A and its variants are therefore to be classed either as errors or as the scribes' own conjectures. Bekker's C and D (the latter actually a mere copy of C) are poor and late representations of the M tradition, but M itself has never, so far as I know, been utilized for the text of Diodorus. Ideally, the present text should have been based on personal inspection of both A and M, but the editor's regret that this was not done is at least tempered by the pronouncements of A. Severyns23 on the decided inferiority of the M tradition.

Where it has been necessary to cite the manuscripts p. xxivfor the minor fragments, the standard sigla for each author are used.

It remains to express my deep gratitude to the many colleagues who have generously given me assistance and advice. Above all, my thanks are due to my good friends and former teachers L. A. Post and A. D. Nock, the one, for services far beyond the call of editorial duty, the other, for his detailed and critical examination of my entire manuscript. Nearly every page owes something to each, and the occasional emendations of the Greek text credited to them represent only a small part of their real contribution. Professor T. R. S. Broughton allowed me to consult him repeatedly on problems of chronology and Roman history, and also read through the entire work, partly in proof and partly in manuscript. Through the courtesy of Professor Albert Wifstrand, who copied out for me his marginalia on these books, it has been possible to improve a number of passages in the text with his unpublished emendations. At my request Dom Anselmo M. Albareda, O.S.B., Prefect of the Vatican Library, kindly examined pages 353‑354 of Codex Vaticanus Graecus LXXIII (V); unfortunately not a word could now be deciphered there, even with the help of ultra-violet rays. Others to whom I am indebted for help include Professors Maurice T. Avery, Benedict Einarson, Willy Peremans, H. C. Youtie, and Mr. V. G. Peterson. The Research Council of Florida State University generously provided a grant for assistance in reading proof on this volume. To all these and the many others who are not named I offer my warmest thanks.

Francis R. Walton

Florida State University

April 1957

p. xxv Sigla

Eclogae Photianae

A Codex Venetus Marcianus 450, saec. X
B Codex Parisiensisº Regius 1266.

Eclogae Hoeschelianae

H Lost original, represented by the printed texts of Hoeschel (1603) and Rhodoman (1604).

Excerpta Constantiniana

O Consensus of the best copies (or descendants) of the lost Codex Scorialensis I Θ 4. Excerpta de Legationibus.
P Codex Turonensis C 980 ("Peirescianus"), saec. XI. Excerpta de Virtutibus et Vitiis.
S Codex Scorialensis Ω I 11, saec. XVI. Excerpta de Insidiis.
V Codex rescriptus Vaticanus Graecus LXXIII, saec. X/XI. Excerpta de Sententiis.

The Loeb Editor's Notes:

1 The last narrative fragment (Book 40.5a) preserved concerns the Catilinarian Conspiracy, 63 B.C. For a discussion of the conflicting evidence on the terminal date of the work, and the possibility that Diodorus originally intended to carry it on to 46/5 B.C., see Oldfather's Introduction to Vol. I, pp. xiv‑xv, xviii‑xix.

2 This collection is divided into two parts: Περὶ πρεσβειῶν Ῥωμαίων πρὸς ἐθνικούς, which contains only one passage (31.15.2) from Diodorus, and Περὶ πρεσβειῶν ἐθνῶν πρὸς Ῥωμαίους.

3 Boissevain, in his apparatus criticus to the De Sententiis, conveniently records all the excerptor's departures from the standard text.

4 Striking examples of careless introductions are found in 23.11, 27.4.8, and 27.11. See below, p. xviii.

5 Here too, however, there are many sententia, and some curious correspondences with the De Sententiis (cp. 21.21.9‑10 and 23.15.10‑12) may suggest that the Hoeschel excerptor was familiar with that collection.

6 The pronounced emphasis on Sicily points to that island as the probable place of origin for the composition.

7 The full text of the Bibliotheca had been published by David Hoeschel at Augsburg in 1601. Rhodoman mentions this edition at one point in his Preface and (inconveniently) keys his notes to its pages rather than his own. Though I have not seen the Augsburg edition I assume, therefore, that Rhodoman used it for his text. It is curious, however, that in the Preface he thanks, not his friend Hoeschel, but Abraham Drentwedius of Augsburg for making the Photian excerpts available to him — whether by gift of a manuscript or of the printed volume he does not say.

8 Some of the emendations ascribed to Ursinus are certainly by Ant. Augustinus, archbishop of Tarragona, who had had a MS. in his own possession copied and sent to Ursinus with his annotations (see de Boor's edition of the Exc. de Legationibus, Preface, pp. xiii‑xiv).

9 Quoted by Wesseling in his Praefatio (but with a comma after edidero).

10 I have seen and used only the reprint of 1849, which lacks the Latin translation of the 1848 edition.

11 Pace F. Vogel who, speaking to be sure primarily of Books VI‑X (in vol. II of his Teubner edition, p. vii), minimizes Dindorf's work on the fragments.

12 For convenience' sake this edition is cited simply as Dindorf3, without mention of Mueller. And, in fact, though the chronological disposition of the fragments, the major contribution of this edition, was Mueller's work, the groundwork for this had been laid by Dindorf, in the table mentioned above.

13 The numbering of the fragments is for the most part the same, since the new fragments were generally fitted into place as supplementary chapters (e.g. chap. 5a between chap. 5 and chap. 6), but enough changes were made to make it unsafe to cite by the Didot numbers.

14 Bekker's Teubner edition of Diodorus (1853‑1854), though the first to include the Escorial fragments (here printed as a separate appendix), gives no critical notes for Books XXI‑XL, and has little value.

15 e.g. Μεσσήνη for Μεσήνη (passim) or Κεντοριπίνων for Κεντοριππίνων (22.13.1).

16 e.g. θαλαττοκρατούντων side by side with θαλάσσης (23.2.1), Καμαρίνας and Καμαρίνης (23.18.1), νηῶν and νεῶν, and variant forms of the name Syracuse, including even Συρακόσιος and Συρακούσιος together in 21.16.5.

17 Rarely, as twice in 27.7, the critical edition differs from the Vulgate without the fact being noted or explained. In such cases, and wherever else it is uncertain if a given reading was intended by the editor, the reading in question is designated as "ed. Büttner-Wobst," "ed. Wesseling," etc.

18 But such a passage as 22.5, for instance, was not transposed, since its exact date is not certain; it could, however, and perhaps should, stand somewhat later in the book, either after chap. 7 or after chap. 9.

19 In addition, some passages printed separately by Dindorf have been combined, whenever fragments from different sources could be reconciled or fitted together (e.g. 26.11, where three separate fragments overlap; 32.9d and 10.1). The most extensive re-arrangement of this sort occurs at 23.15 (= 23.14.3‑4 and 15 Dind.), where much unnecessary duplication has been eliminated.

20 See the notes on 29.10 and 29.9, where Mueller and Dindorf disregarded the evidence of the manuscript.

21 So 24.10, on the capture of Hecatompylus, and 24.12, on the cruelty of Regulus' widow, can be dated to the period 247‑241 B.C., since the passages (24.5 and 25.2.1) that precede and follow them in the Exc. de Virtutibus can be dated, and accordingly set the limits.

22 I have discussed a number of passages, including (from the present volume) 24.1.2, 25.8, 25.19, 29.13, and 29.27, in A.J.P. 77 (1956), 274‑281, 408‑414.

23 Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclus. Première partie: Le codex 239 de Photius, vol. I (Liège, 1938), pp374, 379.

[image ALT: Valid HTML 4.01.]

Page updated: 10 Dec 08