No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Analecta Gelliana
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Not only was Gellius' preface received in the fifteenth century at the end of his work instead of the beginning, but it arrived almost or wholly without the Greek, which had to be patched up by guesswork; between siluarum and quidam early editors read ‘ille κηρ⋯ον, alius κ⋯ρας ⋯μαλӨε⋯ας’, the first two names in the similar passage, Plin. N.H. pr. 24. Salmasius, in the preface to his Plinianae exercitationes, printed a text ‘ex vestigiis antiquae scripturae optimi exemplaris [sc. MS P = Paris, BN lat. 5765] partim etiam coniecturis nostris correctiorem’; following κ⋯ρας he gave, in the right place but with the wrong accent, ‘alius Κ⋯ρια’. But when eleven years later he came to annotate Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Ἐγχειρ⋯διον, alerted by Simplicius' statement (taken from Arrian's own epistle dedicatory) συν⋯ταξεν ⋯ Ἀρριαν⋯ς, τ⋯ καιριὼτατα κα⋯ ⋯ναγκαι⋯τατα ⋯ν øιλοσοø⋯ᾳ κα⋯ κινητικώτατα τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν ⋯πιλεξ⋯μενος ⋯κ τ⋯ν Ἐπικτ⋯του λ⋯γων, he remarked: ‘Quidam et inscripsere libros suos olim τ⋯ κα⋯ρια, quod maxime ad rem quam tractabant pertinentia eo opere persequebantur’, citing Gellius with ‘alius κα⋯ρια and commenting ‘Ita enim ex veteri codice ibi scribendum est, non ut vulgo editur, κ⋯ριον [sic]'. Nevertheless, editors preferred his first thoughts to his second; Hertz, in his separate edition of Gellius' preface (Progr. Breslau, summer 1877) and in his editio maior (Berlin, 1883–5), gives three parallels:
Plin. N.H. pr. 24, ‘Κηρ⋯ον inscripsere quod uolebant intellegi fauom’, where the Latin translation guarantees the reading;
Clem. Alex. 6.1.2.1 (pp. 422–3 Stählin-Früchtel-Treu) ⋯ν μ⋯ν οὖν τῷ λειμ⋯νι τ⋯ ἄνӨη ποικ⋯λως ⋯νӨοȗντα κ⋯ν τ⋯ παραδε⋯σ⋯ [‘orchard’] ⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯κροδρ⋯ων øυτε⋯α οὐ κατ⋯ εἶδος ἕκαστον κεχώρισται τ⋯ν ⋯λλογεν⋯ν (ᾗ κα⋯ Λειμ⋯ν⋯ς τινες κα⋯ Ἑλικ⋯νας κα⋯ Κηρ⋯α κα⋯ Π⋯πλους συναγωγ⋯ς øιλομαӨεȋς ποικ⋯λως ⋯ξανӨισ⋯μενοι συνεγρ⋯ψαντο), where again the sense requires the honeycomb;
Philost. VS 565 ⋯πιστολα⋯ δ⋯ πλεȋσται Ἡρώδου κα⋯ διαλ⋯ξει κα⋯ ⋯øημερ⋯δες ⋯γχειρ⋯δι⋯ τε κα⋯ καίρια τ⋯ν ⋯ρχα⋯αν πολυμ⋯Өειαν ⋯ν βραχεȋ ⋯πηνӨισμ⋯να, where hertz emends κα⋯ρια to κηρ⋯α.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1993
References
1 Plinianae exercitationes in Caii Iulii Solini Polyhistora (Paris, 1629), vol. i, sig. b2vGoogle Scholar.
2 Notae et animadversiones in Epictetum et Simplicium (Paris, 1640), pp. 4–5Google Scholar.
3 Clement continues τοȋς δ' ὡς ἔτυξεν ⋯π⋯ μν⋯μην ⋯λӨοȗσι κα⋯ μ⋯τε τῇ τ⋯ξει μ⋯τε τῇ øρ⋯σει διακεαӨαρμ⋯νοις, διεσπαμ⋯νοις δ⋯ ⋯π⋯τηδες ⋯ναμ⋯ξ, ⋯ τ⋯ν Στρωματ⋯ων ⋯μȋν ὑποτὐπωσις λειμ⋯νος δ⋯κην πεπο⋯κιλται, a sufficient reproach to those who believe in Gellius' protestations of modesty and haphazardness.
4 Th. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen (Berlin, 1882), p. 94 n. 1Google Scholar, cites Macr. Sat. pr. 5; for literature as a source of honey, cf. Meleager, A.P. 4.1.10 = HE 3935, anon. A.P. 9.190.1 = FGE 1214.
5 Broccia, Giuseppe, Enchiridion: per la storia di una denominazione libraria (Note e discussioni erudite 14; Rome, 1979), pp. 22–3Google Scholar, who also notes (p. 22 n. 39) that the Suda s.v. ‘Ηρώδης (H 545) apparently understood Philostratus’ καίρια as λ⋯γους αὐτοσχεδ⋯ους; if so, it was wrong. The sense is rather ‘things to meet a speaker's need’: cf. Ameling, W., Herodes Atticus (Subsidia epigraphica 11; Hildesheim, 1983), i. 120–1 with n. 19Google Scholar.
6 As emended by Wyttenbach, edn. x.1146; condensed at ΣΕ Od. 5.295 (i.274 Dindorf).
7 Quaestiones Homericae on the Odyssey, ed. Schrader, H. (Leipzig, 1890), pp. 36–7Google Scholar; cf. those on the Iliad (Leipzig, 1880–1882), pp. 397–8Google Scholar. On the survival of the flat-earth conception that the south is lower than the north, see F. Buffière, 2nd edn. of Heraclitus, p. 119 n. 4; cf. e.g. Verg. Georg. 1.240–1.
8 JbClPh, Suppl.2 3 (1857–1860), 677Google Scholar.
9 J. F. Gronovius invoked the butt of Mart. 11.51, no more a real person here than at 4.37.2, 7.55.5, or in the jurists.
10 For the luxurious P. Sittius see RE Sittius 2; but his son(?) the Catilinarian and Caesarian might also have left fine baths.
11 Well described in Verzeichniss der Handschriften im Preussischen Staate. I. Hannover. 1–3. Göttingen (Berlin, 1893–1894), i. 35–6Google Scholar; it contains extracts of ever-increasing fullness from bks. 1–7 and a δ text of 9.1. cap.-14.1.22 ‘impari(litas)’. Bks. 6–7 take the same order as in VPR, MS Vat. lat. 1532, and the Florilegium Gallicum: 5.21.1 is followed by 6.1.1 on a new line (‘VI’ m2mg), 6.20 by the heading ‘Liber Sextus’ and the mutilated text of 7.1.1, beginning ‘In homines fecisse dicantur’, 7.17 by ‘Explicit liber sextus Incipit Septimus et primo capitula eiusdem’ [sc. of bk. 9].
12 Müller describes the text as given (from Hertz's προ⋯κδοσις of 1853) as ‘unmöglich’; cf. Goodyear, F. R. D., CR2 21 (1971), 389Google Scholar = Papers on Latin Literature (London, 1992), p. 272Google Scholar.
13 Cf. Marshall, P. K., Martin, J., and Rouse, R. H., Medieval Studies 42 (1980), 367Google Scholar: ‘this is surely right’.
14 C's reading reappears in London, British Library, MSS Burney 174, 175, 176, Add. 16981; BL Harley 2768 reads omnium in eo meo quidem iudicio.
15 See Schulze, Wilhelm, Orthographica (Marburg, 1894; repr. Sussidi eruditi 14; Rome, 1958), pt. 1Google Scholar; Ed. Fraenkel, , JHS 38 (1948), 136Google Scholar = Kleine Beiträge zum klassischen Philologie (Rome, 1964), ii. 351Google Scholar.
16 Cf. West on Hes. Op. 770, Σ Ar. Plut. 1126.
17 See Cunningham's first edition (Oxford, 1971), p. 219.
18 Adversaria, i (Cambridge, 1831), p. 586Google Scholar.
19 Contrast ⋯βδ⋯μας and δεκ⋯τας at Zonaras i.594 Tittmann.
20 Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969), pp. 98–100Google Scholar; Oliver, J. H., Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civil and Cultural Policy in the East (Hesperia, Suppl. 13; Princeton, NJ, 1970), pp. 66–72Google Scholar.
21 170s: Follet, S., REG 90 (1977), 47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; she would identify Gellius' Stoic with Demonax (51–2), who at Luc. Demon. 24 mocks Herodes’ obsession with the dead Polydeucion (on her dating a topical allusion, but Lucian was not concerned with topicality: even Epictetus, d. c. 135, is a butt at § 55). 160s: Ameling, W., Herodes Atticus, i. 113–17Google Scholar, Hermes 112 (1984), 484–90Google Scholar.
22 Holford-Strevens, L. A., Latomus 36 (1977), 96–100Google Scholar, Aulus Gellius (London, 1988), p. 12 and n. 26Google Scholar, cf. Marshall, P. K., CPh 58 (1963), 146–7Google Scholar; Beall, S. M., ‘Ciuilis eruditio: Style and Content in the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius’ (Ph.D. Diss., U. of Calif, at Berkeley, 1988), 12Google Scholar.
23 At leisure either because it was his decury's free year (Suet. Aug. 32.3) or because he had earned the ius trium liberum (Fr. Vat. 197).
24 Follet 50, cf. Ameling, , Boreas 11 (1988), 65–6Google Scholar.
25 MDAI(A) 100 (1985), 393–404Google Scholar, Boreas 12 (1989), 119–22Google Scholar, in answer to Ameling, ibid. 11 (1988), 62–70.
26 Since Pausanias wrote his description of Attica before Herodes' Odeion had been begun (7.20.6), his silence on the rebuilding of Agrippa's at 1.8.6 may be similarly explained; but bk. 1 cannot be securely dated.
27 Ameling, , Herodes Atticus ii. 171, nos. 174–5Google Scholar.
28 Cf. Hermann Göring's even more grotesque cult of Carin von Fock.
29 On Ameling's argument from the development of the curse-formula (Herodes Atticus ii. 23–6), see Meyer, , Boreas 12 (1989), 120Google Scholar.