In this paper I discuss Housman’s principle of textual criticism that apographs are of no importance in the establishment of a text, and suggest reasons why this should not be a universal rule, with reference to the text of Isaios. Housman was emulated in his notoriously acerbic criticism of other scholars by William Wyse, the major editor of Isaios, and I assess the contributions of three scholars who, exceptionally, met with Housman’s approval and made contributions to the text of Isaios.
§ 28 has been usually emended by the editors on the evidence of the (obviously corrupt) reading
hunc ad perficiendum adoravi
transmitted by the
— “Belles Lettres”,
— “Teubner”). On the contrary, I suggest following the text of the codex Erfurtensis (...
ad perficiendum adhortatus sum
), only in the light of colometry and after extensively analyzing the evidence of some Ciceronian clausulae I propose to read
The paper deals with the expression πρὸ τοῦ πολέμ0υ to be found at the locus indicated in the title, which is either amended or regarded with incomprehension by the editors of Achilles Tatius. However, the expression cannot originate from him, as otherwise one would have to suppose that the author of the novel directly opposes the plot he had created. It is more likely that the expression may originally have been a marginal remark that only entered the text in the course of its transmission. In view of this, the expression needs to be deleted, not amended; in which case the problematic nature of the locus immediately disappears.
In the present paper a number of difficult passages in the poems of Catullus are discussed:
1.9; 2.8; 4.23; 6.12/17; 10.9; 32.9–11; 36.9; 38.7s; 44.19/21; 54; 55. 13–22; 58b; 64. 219; 65. 5/8; 6.28/74; 67.1; 68.85; 80.8; 84.5; 100.6; 107.3; 110.7; 111.2; 113.7s.
In the present note three — possibly corrupt — places in the Catullus’ poems are discussed: 10. 27, 14. 14 and 40. 1. Two old conjectures are defended for the first two, and a new proposal is made for the last one, all based on the common palaeographical ground, inferred from the MSS error in 40. 1.
It is a controversial question whether lines 19–20 of Propertius 4. 8 should be left where they stand in the MSS, or they should be placed after the first distich of the poem, or they should be expelled from the text altogether. This article argues for the second of these solutions. That results in an introductory section (lines 1–2 and 19–20) that is not entirely consistent with the rest of the poem. It is argued that these inconsistencies need not be attributed to textual corruption or to the clumsiness of an interpolator, but they can simply be explained by the fact that Propertius gave the poem a slightly different plot from what he had in mind as he wrote the first lines.