Didymos of Alexandria by Schwabe Verlag

SBA_41_UG_SBA 40 UG.qxp 03.07.17 13:17 Seite 1

S BA 41

Bruce Karl Braswell (1933–2013) studied Classics in Toronto, Oxford, Bonn, and Berlin and taught at the Free University of Berlin and the University of Fribourg (Switzerland). His publications range from Homer to Milton and include commentaries on the Fourth Pythian and the First and Ninth Nemean Odes of Pindar as well as an edition of the Greek grammarian Epaphroditus (with Margarethe Billerbeck).

Bruce Karl Braswell

Didymos of Alexandria

Commentary on Pindar

Braswell

Modern studies of Pindar have largely neglected ancient scholarship on the poet. This is not entirely by chance, since the almost 1000 pages of the scholia vetera on the odes presuppose an acquaintance with the language and conventions of the Hellenistic grammarians who commented on the Pindaric texts. While the scholia have not undeservedly been criticized for containing a sizeable amount of dross, they have nevertheless preserved the comments of major figures of Alexandrian scholarship such as Aristarchos and Didymos whose interpretations are not only of historical interest but can often contribute to a better understanding of ancient texts. The Pindaric scholarship of Aristarchos was the subject of two special studies, both of which appeared as long ago as 1883, while Didymos has fared even less well. The only collection of the remains of his Pindar commentary was published by Moritz Schmidt in his 1854 edition of all the fragments of the grammarian known to him. This was based on Boeckh’s partial edition of the Pindar scholia published in 1819. The present edition, which draws on Drachmann’s critical edition, not only offers a revised Greek text but also an English translation with explanatory notes and full indices. An extensive introduction, which situates Didymos in the scholarship of late Ptolemaic Alexandria, includes the first modern critical catalogue of all the works which are expressly attributed to him. While the present work is primarily addressed to advanced students and professional classicists, it is hoped that the presentation will ease the entry of others into the fascinating field of ancient scholarship which has now established itself as a special discipline.

S C H W E I Z E R I S C H E B E I T R ÄG E Z U R A LT E RT U M S W I S S E N S C H A F T

I S B N 978-3-7965-2901-6

Schwabe Verlag Basel www.schwabeverlag.ch

783796 529016

Schwabe

S BA 41

SCHWEIZERISCHE BEITRÄGE ZUR ALTERTUMSWISSENSCHAFT (SBA) Herausgegeben im Auftrag der Schweizerischen Vereinigung für Altertumswissenschaft von Margarethe Billerbeck

Band 41 Herausgegeben von Margarethe Billerbeck, Leonhard Burckhardt und Alexandrine Schniewind

Bruce Karl Braswell

Didymos of Alexandria Commentary on Pindar edited and translated with Introduction, Explanatory Notes, and a Critical Catalogue of Didymosâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Works

Schwabe Verlag Basel

I-IV SBA_41_Titelei_2_Auflage_I-VIII_Titelei_SBA_39.qxp 27.04.17 09:36 Seite IV

Publiziert mit Unterstützung des Schweizerischen Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Signet auf der vorderen Umschlagseite: Schwan, römisches Bronzebeschläg aus Augst

Copyright © 2017 Schwabe AG, Verlag, Basel, Schweiz 2. Auflage; korrigierter Nachdruck der 1. Auflage von 2013 Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Das Werk einschliesslich seiner Teile darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages in keiner Form reproduziert oder elektronisch verarbeitet, vervielfältigt, zugänglich gemacht oder verbreitet werden. Satz: Arlette Neumann-Hartmann, Fribourg Gesamtherstellung: Schwabe AG, Druckerei, Basel/Muttenz, Schweiz Printed in Switzerland ISBN 978-3-7965-2901-6 rights@schwabe.ch www.schwabeverlag.ch

Table of Contents Preface ....................................................................................................... Prolegomena .............................................................................................. Bibliographical Abbreviations ................................................................... Sigla ...........................................................................................................

9 13 15 19

Introduction I.

The Last of the Ptolemaic Grammarians ............................................ 27 1. Didymos Chalkenteros ................................................................... 27 1.1. The Evidence for his Life and Times ...................................... 27 1.2. Overview: Didymos and the Alexandrian Scholars and Grammarians from Aristarchos to Herakleides ....................... 35 2. Didymos as viewed in Antiquity .................................................... 36 2.1. Senecaʼs Criticism of Didymos ............................................... 36 2.2. Didymos Bibliolathas .............................................................. 38 2.3. Macrobiusʼ Praise of Didymos ................................................ 39 3. The Works of Didymos: A Critical Catalogue ............................... 40 3.1. Lexicographical Writings (nos. 1–7) ....................................... 40 3.2. Critical and Exegetical Commentaries and Treatises on Authors (nos. 8–47) ........................................................... 46 3.3. Treatises on Grammar (nos. 48–54) ........................................ 88 3.4. Miscellanea (nos. 55–69) ........................................................ 93 3.5. Dubiae sedis fragmenta (nos. 70–86) ...................................... 101

II.

Pindaric Scholarship before Didymos ................................................ 105

III. Didymosʼ Commentary on Pindar ...................................................... 1. The Use of Historians .................................................................... 2. Citation of Earlier Poets ................................................................. 3. Relevance of the Myth to the Victor celebrated ............................. 4. Textual Criticism ........................................................................... 4.1. Defence of Manuscript Readings ............................................ 4.2. Conjectures ............................................................................. 4.3. Misplaced Ingenuity in Exegesis .............................................

113 113 116 119 119 119 119 120

Table of Contents 4.4. Misinterpretation of the Text .................................................. 4.5. Overinterpretation of the Text ................................................ 5. Authenticity ................................................................................... 6. Explanation in Terms of Cause and Accident ................................ 7. Aesthetic Criticism ........................................................................

120 120 120 120 121

IV. Didymosʼ Achievement ...................................................................... 123 Synopsis of Readings ................................................................................ 127 Ὑπομνήματα Πινδάρου – Commentary on Pindar I.

Olympian Odes (Fr. 1–24) ................................................................. 131

II.

Pythian Odes (Fr. 25–35) .................................................................. 177

III. Nemean Odes (Fr. 36–62) .................................................................. 195 IV. Isthmian Odes (Fr. 63–67) ................................................................. 247 V.

Paeans (Fr. 68) .................................................................................. 257

VI. Dubia (Fr. 69–72) .............................................................................. 261 VII. Falsum (Fr. 73) .................................................................................. 265 Bibliography .............................................................................................. Concordances of the Fragments ................................................................ Index of Pindaric Texts discussed in the Scholia ...................................... Index of Fontes .......................................................................................... General Index ............................................................................................ Index of Greek Words discussed ............................................................... Index of Passages cited .............................................................................

267 291 293 294 297 303 305

To MARGARETHE

Preface When scholars of the Latin West rediscovered the epinikia of Pindar, the only substantial aid they had in understanding this difficult poetry were fragments of ancient commentaries and treatises. These were preserved in the margins in a number of manuscripts of the odes. In 1515 Zacharias Kallierges published in Rome a magnificent quarto volume of the poems which left ample room for the scholia.1 The edition, which largely reflects the Vatican manuscript tradition (B), enjoyed a tirage of perhaps a thousand copies which would make modern Pindarists envious. This edition, with the scholia readily available, opened the way for the Latin translations and commentaries from Lonitzer (Basel 1528/1535) to the culmination of Pindaric studies in the Renaissance in the work of Erasmus Schmid (Wittenberg 1616). The scholia of the editio Romana furnish much of the explanation found in the commentaries of this period where they are often translated literally.2 The systematic study of the scholia began with the publication of the second volume of August Boeckhʼs Pindar edition (Leipzig 1819).3 His edition of the scholia held the field until A. B. Drachmannʼs edition (Leipzig 1903–1927), which incorporated the Ambrosian tradition (A).4 In the scholia the names of two grammarians stand out: Aristarchos and Didymos. The former is cited 76 times and the latter 78, both vastly more than any other. This is not by chance, since we owe to Didymos the preservation of Aristarchosʼ interpretations which he often mentions either in agreement or more often in dissent.5 It was Didymosʼ commentary on Pindar which in the Antonine period served as the basis of the scholia.6 The opinions of other grammarians reported in the scholia presumably derive in large part from the 1

2 3

4 5 6

The editio princeps published by Aldus Manutius in 1513 was a pocket size volume containing only the odes. On the two editions v. Irigoin (1952), 399–420, and, for a brief account, Braswell (1995), 74–76. On Kallierges’ edition v. the preliminary report of Fogelmark (2006). These have been studied in some detail for the Ninth Nemean in a monograph which I hope to publish in the near future. Between Kallierges and Boeckh five editions of Pindar were published with the scholia: Brubach (1542), Oliva Paulus Stephanus (1599), ed. Oxon. of West and Welsted (1697), Beck (1792–1795), Heyne (1798–1817). On these editions v. Fogelmark (1976). An edition of the scholia vetera on the Nemeans and Isthmians was published by Eugen Abel (Berlin 1884), which despite its limitations remains useful. Irigoin (1952), 56. Irigoin (1952), 67, 102–4.

Preface

same source. This alone would make Didymosʼ commentary of considerable interest to historians of scholarship and to Pindarists in particular. Considering the very different general assessment of the two scholars, it is not surprising that the work of Aristarchos on Pindar has received more attention than that of Didymos.7 The only previous edition of Didymosʼ commentary is that of Moritz Schmidt in his 1854 edition of all the fragments of the grammarian known to him.8 Schmidtʼs edition of the Pindar commentary was based on the edition of the scholia in Boeckhʼs Pindar edition of 1819 and which made only limited use of the Ambrosian tradition of the scholia.9 Nevertheless, Schmidtʼs edition of Didymos, though now badly in need of replacement, represents a considerable achievement.10 Besides the historical interest of Didymosʼ Pindar commentary, a closer examination of it suggests that it is not without value for understanding a number of disputed passages in the odes. This is a point well worth emphasizing, since the interpretations of ancient scholars reported in the Pindaric scholia have been criticized for their failure to recognize the conventions of encomiastic poetry and, in particular, their readiness to resort to guesswork to explain the text.11 Moreover, Didymos himself has had a rather bad press.12 7

8 9 10

11 12

For Aristarchos see Horn (1883), Feine (1883), Cohn (21895), esp. 872,32–873,6, and Vassilaki (2009) as well as Irigoin (1952), 51–56. For Didymos see Irigoin (1952), 67–75, whose chapter on the grammarian has long been the best introduction to his scholarship on Pindar. Still useful are the accounts in Cohn (1903), 450–51, and Deas (1931), 19–27. The privately printed pamphlet of Carnevali (1980) is limited to a discussion of five fragments, while Braswell (2011) discusses a number of fragments in a preliminary study for the present edition. On Didymosʼ scholarship more generally the accounts in Wilamowitz (1889), 157–66, Susemihl (1891–1892) II 195–210, Schmid/Stählin (1920), 432–34, and Pfeiffer (1968), 274– 79, remain valuable, but are to be supplemented by Montanari (21997), 550–52, and Montana (22006), 1–6. For Alexandrian scholarship in its historical setting Fraser (1972) provides an excellent orientation. For a recent survey of Pindaric scholarship in Alexandria v. Negri (2004). On some aspects of the way ancient readers approached the text of Pindar v. Braswell (2012). Schmidt (1854), 214–40. Boeckh (1811–1821) II, pp. iii–iv. On Cod. Re v. p. 23, n. 24 below. Cohn (1903), 446, while fair, is perhaps too severe in his criticism of Schmidtʼs performance considering the range of material included and the state of the texts available to him at the time. This however does not excuse his occasional lapses of judgment. See Lefkowitz (1985), 269–82, (1991), 147–60. See esp. West (1970), 288–96, Harris (1989), 36–44, not to mention the earlier attacks of Roemer (1912). For a recent example from a classicist writing for a broader educated public v. Mary Beard, ‟Cleopatra: The Mythˮ, New York Review of Books 58, no. 1 (Jan. 13 – Febr. 9, 2011), 10, according to whom the leading intellectual under Cleopatra ‟was a secondhand compiler by the name of Didymusˮ

Preface

If the present edition presents a more balanced assessment of Didymos as a scholar, it will have succeeded in one of its principal aims. Anyone beginning the study of Greek scholia a generation ago could well have received the impression that he was wandering along a lonely path. There were occasional studies, but they were few and far between. The pitfalls awaiting the beginner were outlined by W. J. Slater in a cautionary essay published over two decades ago.13 Since then a renewed interest in ancient scholarship has brought some most welcome help, notably Eleanor Dickeyʼs guide to ancient Greek scholarship14 and the internet Lessico dei Grammatici Greci Antichi of Franco Montanari and his colleagues in Genova.15 At present a group of classicists centred on the Université de Franche-Comté in Besançon has undertaken ‟un projet de traduction commentée des scholia vetera de Pindareˮ, the first fruits of which were published in a collective volume of essays.16 My own work has much benefited from the unstinting help of Margarethe Billerbeck and her Fribourg équipe. In particular, I owe special thanks to Dr. Arlette Neumann-Hartmann for allowing me to consult in advance her Lustrum Forschungsbericht on recent Pindaric studies and, subsequently, for undertaking the arduous task of formatting the present manuscript. Mario Somazzi has again aided me in various ways with the text. The Fondation Hardt in Vandœuvres provided the ideal setting for reviewing and supplementing the manuscript as it was nearing completion. To all the members of the staff I should like to express my gratitude for their continuing engagement which has made this unique institution a welcoming centre of studies for classicists from all over the world. To the Swiss National Science Foundation I am indebted for support of a project on the history of Pindaric scholarship which allowed me to undertake the monograph mentioned above; the present publication complements the original project. I am further indebted to the same institution for a generous grant for the publication of the present volume. My sincere thanks are due to the editors of the Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft for their acceptance of my work for publication and to Dr. Reto Zingg of Schwabe Verlag for his advice in seeing it through the press. Fribourg, December 2012

13 14 15 16

Bruce Karl Braswell

of whose works ‟we have only a few scraps ... (probably not a great loss).ˮ For a more positive assessment of Didymos v. Harding (2006), esp. 31–39, 41. Slater (1989). Dickey (2007). See LGGA in the list of bibliographical abbreviations. Traduire les scholies de Pindare (2009).

Prolegomena In preparing this edition I have kept in mind two groups of potential readers, those whose interests are primarily in the poetry of Pindar and those who are interested in ancient scholarship as a special discipline. Since these two groups do not necessarily overlap, I have attempted to explain for each what the other may well take for granted. If readers new to either field should be encouraged to pursue their interest further, the collateral result would justify the additional effort required. Considering the conventional notion that both subjects are too recondite to be approached by beginners, I hope to have proved the contrary by providing a translation of almost all of the Greek and Latin texts quoted as well as annotation where necessary. For the texts of Pindar which are commented on in the scholia I have made my own choice of readings drawn mainly from the editions of Turyn (1948) and of Snell/Maehler (1987/1989). The line numbers of both are given.17 I am also responsible for the translations, for which I have often been unable to find a more felicitous rendering than that of William Race (1997). For the text of the scholia I have generally adopted that of Drachmann along with his apparatus criticus. In the case of those on the Nemeans and Isthmians the edition of Abel (1884) has sometimes been of use. For parallels from other authors I have used the standard critical editions indicated in the Index of Passages Cited, but have not hesitated at times to prefer another reading which is duly noted. Greek authors are in principal cited according to the abbreviations in the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell/Scott/Stuart Jones18 and Latin authors according to the index volume of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.19 In some cases, notably with Pindar, I have used an expanded form for greater clarity.20 With some hesitation I have in part adopted the system of referring to secondary literature solely with the name of the author and the date of publication which can then be deciphered from the bibliography. When a publication is cited only once or twice, I have generally preferred to give the necessary information where it is needed. The achievement of authors whose works have been preserved only fragmentarily cannot be judged without reference to the context in which they are 17

18 19 20

Most readers will probably be using editions which follow the line-numeration of the latter. However, Turynʼs numeration (indicated below that of Sn./M.), which is faithful to Boeckhʼs colometry, is to be preferred; v. Itsumi (2009), xviii–xvix. Oxford, 1925–1940 (Supplement, 1968). Editio altera, München, 1990. For example, Ol. not O. for the Olympians and Is. not I. for the Isthmians.

Prolegomena

preserved. In the case of Didymos who stands at the end of a long tradition of Ptolemaic scholarship this obviously means taking into account other interpretations found in the same context. Accordingly the full text of a scholion is normally included. While I have not attempted a general assessment of Didymosʼ scholarship outside his Pindaric studies, in order at least to situate his contribution in this field I have included a critical catalogue of all the works which can be attributed to him with certainty. Until now we have had to rely on the selective list in Cohn (1903), which is much in need of revision and expansion. Our understanding of the full range of Didymosʼ achievement as a scholar will only be possible once his other works, fragmentary as they are, have been critically edited and studied in detail. May the new catalogue be the starting-point of a such an enterprise. The text of scholia presents notorious difficulties which result from the fact that they are extracts either drawn from original works or from scattered notes of readers, in short a conglomerate written in the margins of manuscripts.21 The mixed bag of Pindaric scholia has furnished much welcome help in the elucidation of the poet since it was first published in the editio Romana, but it has never been studied in the detail it deserves nor has it been made readily accessible by a translation into a modern language. It is hoped that the present edition of the fragments of Didymosʼ commentary preserved in the scholia will make a contribution not only to our knowledge of ancient scholarship but also to a better understanding of Pindarʼs poetry.

On the formation of the two recensions, the Ambrosian (A) and the Vatican (V = B, D et al.), v. Irigoin (1952), 106–15, 121, and Daude (2009), 20–21 with n. 5.

Bibliographical Abbreviations An. Par. = Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis edidit John Anthony Cramer, I–IV. Oxford, 1839–1841 (repr. Hildesheim, 1967). Bekker, AG = Bekker, Immanuel, Anecdota Graeca, I–III. Berlin, 1814–1821 (repr. Graz, 1965). 2 Bergk = Bergk, Theodorus, Poetae lyrici Graeci, ed. altera auctior et emendatior. Leipzig, 1853. 4 Bergk = Bergk, Theodorus, Poetae lyrici Graeci, ed. quart., I–III. Leipzig, 1878–1882. BMCR = Bryn Mawr Classical Review. Internet: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu. BNJ = Brillʼs New Jacoby. Internet: www.brillonline.nl. Brugmann, Gr. Gr. = Brugmann, Karl, Griechische Grammatik. Lautlehre, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre, Syntax, vierte vermehrte Auflage bearbeitet von Albert Thumb. München, 1913. CAF = Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta edidit Theodorus Kock, I–III. Leipzig, 1880–1888. Chantraine = Chantraine, Pierre, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. I–IV (continuous pagination). Paris, 1968–1980. CPG = Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum ed. E. L. a Leutsch et F. G. Schneidewin. I. Göttingen, 1839; ed. E. L. a Leutsch. II. Göttingen, 1851 (repr. Hildesheim, 1965). DBDI = Dizionario biografico degli Italiani. Roma, 1960–. DHA = Dialogues dʼHistoire Ancienne. Besançon. DNP = Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike hrsg. von Hubert Cancik, Manfred Landfester und Helmuth Schneider. 16 vols., Stuttgart/Weimar, 1996–2003. Supplemente 7 vols., Stuttgart, 2004–2012. DPA II = Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques publié sous la direction de Richard Goulet. II: Babélyca dʼArgos à Dyscolius. Paris, 1994. FGrHist = Jacoby, Felix, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin, 1923–1930, Leiden, 1940–1958, 1994–. FHG = Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum collegit, disposuit, notis et prolegomenis illustravit Carolus Müllerus, I–V. Firmin Didot. Paris, 1841– 1873.

Bibliographical Abbreviations

Frisk = Frisk, Hjalmar, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, I–III. Heidelberg, 1954–1972. GCS = Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Berlin. Gr. Gr. = Grammatici Graeci. I 1 (G. Uhlig), I 3 (A. Hilgard), II 1–3 (R. Schneider/G. Uhlig), III 1–2 (A. Lentz), IV 1–2 (A. Hilgard). Leipzig, 1867–1910. IEG = Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, ed. M. L. West, I–II, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1989–1992. IG II2 = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vols. 2–3, editio minor, pars tertia: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Berlin, 1940 (repr. Chicago, 1974). IG III = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. 3: Inscriptiones Atticae aetatis Romanae. Berlin, 1878–1882. IG XII (5) = Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. 12, Part 5: Inscriptiones Cycladum. Berlin, 1903–1909. LGGA = Lessico dei Grammatici Greci Antichi. Internet: www.aristarchus.unige.it/lgga. LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. I–IX (double vols). Zürich/München/Düsseldorf, 1981–1999. MP3 = Mertens/Pack 3 online Database. Internet: www2.ulg.ac.be/facphl/services/cedopal/pages/mp3anglais.htm. 3

OCD = The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., ed. by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. Oxford, 1996.

PCG = Poetae Comici Graeci ediderunt R. Kassel et C. Austin. Berlin/New York, 1983–. PG = Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1884–1904. PLRE = The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I (A.D. 260–395) ed. by A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris; II (A.D. 395–527), ed. by J. R. Martindale. Cambridge, 1971, 1980. P.Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Graeco-Roman Memoirs of the Egyptian Exploration Society. London, 1898–. RAC = Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart, 1950–.

Bibliographical Abbreviations

RE = Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, hrsg. von Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Karl Mittelhaus und Konrat Ziegler. Stuttgart/München, 1893–1980. SdA = Die Schule des Aristoteles hrsg. von Fritz Wehrli. I–X, 2. Aufl., Suppl. I–II. Basel, 1967–1978. SGLG = Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, hrsg. von Klaus Alpers, Ian C. Cunningham, Hartmut Erbse, Alexander Kleinlogel. Berlin/New York/Boston, 1974–. SH = Supplementum Hellenisticum edd. H. Lloyd-Jones et P. Parsons. Texte und Kommentare 11. Berlin/New York, 1983. SIG = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum ed. W. Dittenberger, editio tertia. I– IV. Leipzig, 1915–1924. SVF = Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta collegit Ioannes ab Arnim. III: Chrysippi fragmenta moralia, fragmenta successorum Chrysippi. Leipzig, 1903 (repr. Stuttgart, 1968). TLG = Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Digital Library of Greek Literature. University of California, Irvine. Post TLG E. July 2011. Internet: www.tlg.uci.edu. TrGF I = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. I. Didascaliae tragicae, Catalogi tragicorum et tragoediarum testimonia et fragmenta tragicorum minorum. Editor Bruno Snell. Editio correctior ... curavit Richard Kannicht. Göttingen, 1986. TrGF II = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. II. Fragmenta Adespota, Testimonia Volumini 1 Addenda, Indices ad Volumina 1 et 2. Editores Richard Kannicht et Bruno Snell. Göttingen, 1981. Vorsokr. = Diels, Hermann; Kranz, Walther, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Griechisch und Deutsch, 6th ed., I–III. Berlin, 1934–1937 (corr. repr. 1952). ZPE = Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bonn.

Sigla Ammonios, Περὶ ὁμοίων καὶ διαφόρων λέξεων (De adfinium vocabulorum differentia) Cod. B Hagion Oros (Mount Athos), Μονὴ Ἰβήρων, cod. 792, saec. XV/XVI. Cod. C Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus graecus 2669, saec. XVII. Cod. D London, British Library, Arundel, cod. 550, saec. XVIinc. Cod. E Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 1008 (olim XI, 4), saec. XV. Cod. G Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vindobonensis phil. graecus 172, XVex vel XVIinc. Cod. M Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 864 (olim 490), saec. XV. Cod. N Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 890 (olim 620), saec. XV. Cod. O Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. T. 2. 10, saec. XV. Cod. P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus graecus 2652, saec. XV. η= Cod. E + Cod. G θ= Ald + B (+ C + D) π= N+ρ ρ= O+P Ald Editio princeps Venetiis apud Aldum Manutium: Dictionarium Graecum … cum interpretatione Latina Joannis Crastoni, anno 1497. Antoninus Liberalis, Μεταμορφώσεων συναγωγή (Metamorphoses) Cod. P Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Palatinus graecus 398, saec. IX.22 Athenaios, Deipnosophistai Cod. A Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 447 (olim III, 14), saec. X.

Codex A in Diller (1952).

Sigla Cod. C Cod. E

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Parisinus suppl. gr. 841, saec. XVex. Epitome. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus 60,2, saec. XVex. Epitome.

Et. Gen. = Etymologicum Genuinum Cod. A Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Vaticanus graecus 1818, saec. Xex. Cod. B Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laur., Laurentianus S. Marci 304, saec. Xex. Et. Gud. = Etymologicum Gudianum Cod. d Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Barberinianus graecus 70, saec. XI. Cod. w Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Guelferbytanus graecus 29–30, anno 1293 (= editio Et. Gud. Sturziana). Cod. z Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, suppl. graecus 172, saec. XIII (= Et. Sorbonicum). (On the codices of the Et. Gud. v. A. Cellerini, ‟Introduzione allʼEtymologicum Gudianumˮ, Roma, 1988) Harpocration Cod. A Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, graecus 3 (olim C. 4. 17), saec. XV. Herennius Philo, Περὶ διαφόρους σημασίας (De diversis verborum significationibus) Cod. P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, suppl. graecus 1238, saec. XIVinc. Homer, Ilias Cod. A Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venetus Marcianus graecus 822 (olim 454), saec. X. Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones Cod. B Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, Bononiensis 701, saec. V. Cod. H Roma, Biblioteca Apost. Vat., Palatinus lat. 161, saec. IX. Cod. M Montpellier, Faculté de médecine 241, saec. IX. Cod. P Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 1662 (Puteanus), saec. IX. Cod. R Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 1663 (Regius), saec. IX. Cod. S Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 1664, saec. XII.