¹ Parsons, P. J., ZPE 25 (1977), 1–50.Google Scholar

² Ibid. 20, ad B iii 2.

³ Wagner, R. (ed.), Apollodori Bibliotheca (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 72–3.Google Scholar

⁴ Heyne, C. G. (ed.), Apollodori Atheniensis Bibliothecae Libri Tres (Göttingen, 1782 ¹, 1803 ²), ad loc.Google Scholar

⁵ Müller, K. (ed.), Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, i (Paris, 1841), p. vGoogle Scholar. Again, this is not as clear as one would like, since Müller cites M⋯λορκον from Paris, gr. 2722 at 2.5.1.2 rather than 2.5.1.4, but he gives this entry against M⋯λορχον in the ‘editio Heyniana’, which is the latter passage.

⁶ Wagner, op. cit., pp. xiiiff.

⁷ Falkenburg, G. (ed.), Nonni Panopolitae Dionysiaca (Antwerp, 1569), pp. 304 and 881–2.Google Scholar

⁸ Koechly, A. (ed.), Nonni Panopolitani Dionysiacorum Libri XLVIII (Leipzig, 1857), i, pp. lxxii and 255.Google Scholar

⁹ Ludwich, A. (ed.), Nonni Panopolitani Dionysiaca (Leipzig, 1909), i.360.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Presumably this arose from mistaking a suprascript J = ου for a suprascript s = ης. For these contractions, see Thompson, E. M., A Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography (Cambridge, 1911), pp. 94–5.Google Scholar

¹¹ Pfeiffer, R. (ed.), Callimachus (Oxford, 1949), i.63Google Scholar, ad fr. 59.16sq.

¹² E.g. Aldus Manutius (Venice, 1502), Antonius Francinus (Florence, 1521), G. Xylander (Basel, 1568), Thomas de Pinedo (Amsterdam, 1678).

¹³ Berkel, A. (ed.), Stephani Byzantini Gentilia per Epitomen, antehac De Urbibus Inscripta (Leiden, 1688), ad loc.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Meineke, A. (ed.), Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum Quae Supersunt (Berlin, 1849), i.455, ad loc.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Lentz, A. (ed.), Herodiani Technici Reliquiae (Leipzig, 1867), i.266.20, 289.17.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Lobel, E., Oxyrhynchus Papyri, xviii (London, 1941), no. 2169.Google Scholar

¹⁷ R. Pfeiffer, op. cit.

¹⁸ Meillier, C., Cahiers de Recherche de l'lnstitut de Papyrologie et d'Egyptologie de Lille 4 (1976), 257–360.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Parsons, op. cit. 4.

²⁰ I have taken the dates for these manuscripts from Geymonat, M. (ed.), P. Vergili Maronis Opera (Turin, 1973), pp. xix–xx.Google Scholar

²¹ Velius, Longus, De Orthographia (GL Keil VII [Leipzig, 1880], p. 49)Google Scholar reports that the first-century grammarian Verrius Flaccus rendered the Greek υ by u: for evidence of this spelling preserved by the capital manuscripts of Vergil, see Ribbeck, O., Prolegomena Crilica ad P. Vergili Maronis Opera Maiora (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 452–3.Google Scholar

²² Thomas, R. F., CQ 33 (1983), 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Havet, L., Manuel de critique verbale appliquée aux textes latines (Paris, 1911), §1076.Google Scholar

²⁴ The fascination of the author of the Panegyricus Messallae with Callimachean allusiveness is evident throughout his poem. For discussions of Statius' enthusiasm for Callimachus, see Thomas, R. F., CQ 33 (1983), 103–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hollis, A. S. (ed.), Callimachus, Hecale (Oxford, 1990), p. 34Google Scholar. Martial displays his adherence to Callimachean aesthetics at Epigr. 4.49 and 9.50, where he contrasts his own brief epigrams with bombastic epics, and at Epigr. 4.23 he obliquely hopes that Thalia would place his own Latin epigrams on a level with Callimachus' Greek epigrams.

²⁵ Kulcsar, P. (ed.), Mythographi Vaticani I et II (Corpus Christianorum, Series Lalina, XCIc), (Turnhout, 1987), p. 24.Google Scholar

²⁶ Hagen, H. (ed.), Appendix Serviana (Leipzig, 1902), pp. 376–7.Google Scholar

²⁷ P. Kulcsar, op. cit., p. 239.

²⁸ Assmann, E. (ed.), Lucii Ampelii Liber Memorialis (Leipzig, 1935), p. 4.Google Scholar

²⁹ Richard Thomas has suggested to me that the commonness of Greek names ending in -archus may have influenced many Latin scribes to alter Molorcus to Molorchus; the commonness of Greek words beginning with orch- may also have contributed.

³⁰ Lorimer, H. L., CQ 32 (1938), 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar, asked ‘Why does our language lack so desirable a word as “immendation”, known to me only on the lips of a contemporary scholar?’ If enough scholars use it, this deficiency of our language relative to German, which has long had Schlimmbesserung, will be made good.

³¹ For another instance, only recently detected, where Aegius made an immendation in his text of Apollodorus under the influence of the spelling of Latin MSS., see Kenney, E. J., CQ 39 (1989), 274–5Google Scholar, with the follow-up by Lehnus, L., ZPE 80 (1990), 16.Google Scholar

³² Parsons, op. cit. 43.

³³ R. F. Thomas, op. cit. 94.

³⁴ Maass, E., Analecta Eratosthenica (Philologische Untersuchungen, 6, 1883), 124–31.Google Scholar

³⁵ Pfeiffer, R., Kallimachosstudien (Munich, 1922), pp. 104ff.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. fr. 3 Pf. and F. Jacoby, FGrHist, no. 305, F 4 and 8, and the addendum on p. 757, with Jacoby's accompanying commentary, especially p. 19: ‘die neuen fragmente 4 und 8 scheinen zu bestätigen, dass diese Argolika nicht nur den grammatikern der guten zeit, sondern schon dem Kallimachos unter dem doppeltitel ᾿Aγ⋯ας κα⋯ Δερκ⋯λος vorlagen und dass er dieses buch vielleicht als das zu seiner zeit modernste und ausführlichste (wie für Athen Philochoros) für die vielen argivischen geschichten benutzte, die er besonders in den Aetia erzählte’.

³⁷ I am grateful to George Goold, Edward Courtney, and Massimo Gioseffi for information regarding the readings of various manuscripts, to Ihor Ševčenko for a discussion of contractions in Greek manuscripts, and to Richard Thomas for his comments on an earlier draft of this article; also to the Editor for alerting me to the recent note by Vian, F., REG 104 (1991), 585, n. 4Google Scholar, where Vian observes that Greek MSS offer only the form M⋯λορκος. Unlike Vian, I attribute the preference for ‘Molorcẖus’ not to ‘poètes et grammariens latins’, but to the scribes of their MSS.