From what is said in these letters and from the identity of the correctors' hands, we are justified in inferring that Cod. Vat. 3250 is the "mendosissimum Codicem" which served as copy for the printed edition, and further, according to Ludovicus' statement, that the MS itself was written "superiore anno❞—that is, in 1489, if the date given on the last page is really the date of the first appearance of this edition. The fact that the undated edition just mentioned is apparently the same, raises a suspicion as to the truth of the "superiore anno." If the MS was written in 1489, Iacobus Cardinalis Papiensis and Ioannes Episcopus Aleriensis had both been dead for some years, and the way in which they are spoken of is misleading. If they were still alive, the MS must date before 1475, and "superiore anno" is wrong. As regards the text of the MS, it appears that it reproduces for the most part the Medicean, but with an admixture of ɛ, and that the editors, in making corrections, had before them MSS of the > class. For example, out of 37 test passages, the scribe followed M in 32 and ɛ in 5, but in 8 instances more the corrector has inserted the & readings. The MS is undoubtedly of some value in helping us to trace out the commingling of the two traditions, and because of its connection with these two early Roman editions. XI. Codex Urbinas 322.-This is a parchment MS of the XVth century, in folio, having 238 leaves measuring 35 by 24 centimetres, and with 34 lines on a page. It is admirably written, with illuminations at the beginning of the books and colored capitals at the beginning of the letters. The Greek words inserted in the text, in red ink, and the glosses in the margin are in the same hand as the text, but slightly smaller. In those cases where the Greek is omitted, space has usually been left. The MS contains: Ir-13г, epp. ad Brutum liber I. 13r-42r, epp. ad Q. fratr. libri III. 43r-44v, ep. ad Octavianum. 45r-238, epp. ad Atticum libri XVI, complete in bk. I. For a collation of this MS see Lehmann, pp. 43-4. His conclusion is as follows: "s (i. e. cod. Urb. 322) cum simillimus codicis Medicei, non tot aut tam gravibus lectionibus cum C, Z, W consentit quam E, N, H, O, R, P=ɛ; cum vero s multis neque levibus lectionibus cum & consentiat, & vero non pendeat ex M, s quoque sui iuris esse neque ex M ortum esse iudico: nisi forte quis naturali quodam sensu interpolationes odorandi praeditus dicet, id quod non facile probari potest, parentem codicis Urbinatis esse ortum ex M, istum vero parentem, antequam s describeretur, ex interpolationes accepisse." It is altogether probable that this second alternative is the true one, but "non facile probari potest." XII. Codex Ottobonianus 1413.—This is a parchment MS of the XVth century, in small folio, having 273 leaves measuring 25 by 17 centimetres, and with 30 lines on a page. At the beginning of each book and letter, space has been left for illuminations and capitals, which have never been filled in. The Greek words are usually wanting, but in a few cases they have been inserted by a later hand. There are no glosses. The MS contains: Ir-16г, epp. ad Brutum liber I. 54r-272v, epp. ad Atticum libri XVI, complete in bk. I. 273r, ep. Plutarchi ad Traianum. An examination of this MS confirms Lehmann's judgment (p. 45) "simillimus Medicei," in spite of the absence of the Medicean lacuna in bk. I, and shows its entire lack of independent value. XIII. Codex Ottobonianus 2035.-This is a paper MS of the end of the XVth or early XVIth century, having 192 leaves measuring 28 by 21 centimetres, and with 34 lines on a page. The writing is only mediocre. The Greek words have regularly been inserted in a hand which is either that of the scribe or of the same time. In the few cases where the Greek has been omitted, space has been left. There are many glosses both of the Greek words and of others, which date from about the same period, but were written in a different ink, which has faded badly. According to the Inventarium, "in fine legitur, 'Liber Augustini Maffei,'" but this line is not now to be found. 371-192r, epp. ad Atticum libri XVI, complete in bk. I. The readings in the test passages in this MS agree in every case with ▲ except one: II 1. 5 duxi rescribere (2) instead of duxi scribere (4); and a very few and absolutely unimportant cases where the MS varies slightly from both ▲ and ɛ. XIV. Codex Ottobonianus 2041.-This is a paper MS of the same period as the preceding, having 246 leaves measuring 35 by 24 centimetres, and with 32 lines on a page. It is more carelessly written than No. 2035, and the colored capitals at the beginning of the letters have frequently been left unmade. The books are numbered from the beginning, so that the first book of the Letters to Atticus is numbered "ad Atticum V." Spaces have been left for the Greek words, which have only infrequently been inserted. There are many glosses, both of Greek and Latin words, and a few corrections in the margin by a probably somewhat later hand. The MS contains: 2r-13v, epp. ad Brutum liber I. 13V-42v, epp. ad Q. fratr. libri III. 42v-234г, epp. ad Atticum libri XVI, complete in bk. I, but XVI 3-15 are missing, and the order in XVI 16ABCDEF is confused so that they run ABECFD. 234r-236г, ep. ad Octavianum. 236r-239r, vacant. 239r-245r, ex historiis latinis Corneli Nepotis Vita Pomponii Attici. 245v, ep. officialium studii Florentini ad Iohannem Lamolam. XIIII Iul. 1446. 246r, ep. Caroli Aretini ad eundem III kl. Aug. 1446. This MS is precisely similar to No. 2035, agreeing with it even in its slight divergences from both ▲ and ε, and is of equal worthlessness. Of these fourteen MSS in the Vatican, the only ones of importance are: Cod. Urb. 322, which represents a commingling of the two texts, but has an independent value; Cod. Vat. 3250, which, though an interpolated text, is of assistance in tracing out the course of these interpolations; and Cod. Pal. 1510, which belongs to the class entirely. SAMUEL BALL PLATNER. VI. NOTE ON ACHARNIANS 947. Βοι. μέλλω γέ τοι θερίδδεν. θέριζε καὶ τοῦτον λαβὼν πρόσβαλλ ̓ ὅποι βούλει φέρων πρὸς πάντα συκοφάντην. 947 The use of the verb θερίζειν in Ach. 947 is peculiar, and the explanations hitherto offered are not satisfactory. The difficulty is no new one, for it is clear that the ancient commentators did not understand the passage. The following are the scholia: μέλλω γέ τοι θερίδδεν: διότι πολλοῦ ἐθέριζον διὰ τὸν πόλεμον (Rutherford <οὐκ ἐθέριζον). μέλλω γέ τοι θερίδδεν: ὡς γεωργός φησι "μέλλω θερίζειν καὶ μέλλω κερδαίνειν πολλὰ καὶ καρποῦσθαι.” θερίδδεν: καταβάλλειν, ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν θεριζόντων ὅτι τὰ δράγματα τιθέασιν. (τινὲς δέ φασι τὸν Δικαιόπολιν εἰρηκέναι, μέλλοντα λαβεῖν τὰ τοῦ Βοιωτοῦ φορτία.) The writer of the first scholion seems to have taken @epicew in its common meaning of 'reap' or 'gather in a harvest.' In the second we are told that θερίζειν is equivalent to κερδαίνειν Or καρποῦσθαι 'make a proft. In the third the commentator has attempted to give to θερίζειν a meaning transferred from some action performed in the process of reaping. The fourth scholion, which is not in the Ravenna manuscript, throws no light upon the meaning of θερίζειν, but may indicate a distribution of the parts different from that adopted in our texts. Suidas, s. ν. θερίζειν, merely repeats the first and third explanations of the scholiasts. Many modern commentators are inclined to agree with the statement of the scholiast that θερίζειν is here equivalent to καρποῦσθαι, κερδαίνειν. Ribbeck and Müller do not hesitate to accept this explanation. Elmsley and Dindorf express themselves doubtfully. Elmsley suggests that the verb is used for εὖ πράττειν; Dindorf claims that it has the force of 'pack together,' convasare, and gives this definition in his Stephanus. Blaydes seems uncertain whether to explain the verb as meaning 'pack up' or 'make a harvest,' 'make a good thing of this.' It is as difficult to believe that epige could come to mean 'pack up' as that it could mean 'throw down,' which one of the scholiasts gives as its equivalent. But in many languages verbs meaning 'to reap' or 'to harvest' are used with the sense of making a gain or profit. Let us then see if epige can be so used here. Those who hold that θερίζειν here is equivalent to κερδαίνειν point in support of their claim to verses 905-6: Βοι. λάβοιμι μέντἂν κέρδος ἀγαγὼν καὶ πολύ, and 956-8: Δικ. πάντως μὲν οἴσεις οὐδὲν ὑγιές, ἀλλ ̓ ὅμως εὐδαιμονήσεις συκοφαντῶν γ' ούνεκα. These passages may show that the notion of making a profit would be in keeping with the context, but they give us no reason for introducing that notion into a word in which it does not belong. It is not necessary to find in l. 957 a reference to l. 947 ; it is sufficiently introduced by the line preceding. Bearing this in mind, we proceed to examine the usage of the verb depice. In Aristophanes there are three other examples of it-Birds 506 and 1697, and Plutus 515; in all three places it has the common meaning 'reap,' 'harvest.' The verb is used metaphorically in Aesch. Suppl. 646 (Wecklein): "Αρη τὸν ἀρότοις θερίζοντα βροτοὺς ἐν ἄλλοις, and in the more general sense of 'cut off, shear off,' it appears in Soph. Ajax 237 and Tyro fr. 598 (Nauck), Eur. Suppl. 717. With a different application Euripides uses epígew in the sense of 'cut off, bring to an end,' in Hypsipyle fr. 757: ἀναγκαίως δ' ἔχει βίον θερίζειν ὥστε κάρπιμον στάχυν . . which Cicero renders tum vita omnibus Metenda ut fruges. Sic iubet necessitas. |