PhA 082 - The Enchireidon and It's Three Christian Adaptations PDF

THE ENCHEIRIDION OF
EPICTETUS AND ITS T H R E E

CHRISTIAN ADAPTATIONS
PHILOSOPHIA ANTIQUA
A SERIES OF STUDIES
ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
F O U N D E D B Y J . H . W A S Z I N K f A N D W.J. V E R D E N I U S f
EDITED BY
J. MANSFELD, D.T. RUNIA

J.C.M. VAN WINDEN
VOLUME LXXXII
GERARD BOTER
THE ENCHEIRIDION OF
EPICTETUS AND ITS THREE
THE ENCHEIRIDION OF
EPICTETUS AND ITS THREE
TRANSMISSION AND CRITICAL EDITIONS
BY
GERARD
BOTER
' 6 8^
BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON KLN
1999
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Epictctus.
[Manual. English & Greek]
The Enchciridion of Epictctus and its three Christian adaptations
/ transmission and critical editions by Gerard Botcr.
p. cm. (Philosophia antiqua, ISSN 0079-1687 ; v. 82)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 9004113584 (alk. paper)
1. EthicsEarly works to 1800. 2. Conduct of lifeEarly works to
1800.
I. Botcr, Gerard.
II. Title.
III. Series.
B561.M52E5
1999
188dc21
99-20798
CIP
Die D e u t s c h e Bibliothek - C I P - E i n h e i t s a u f n a h m e
Boter, G e r a r d :
The Enchciridion of Epictctus and its three Christian adaptations :
transmission and critical editions / by Gerard Botcr. - Leiden ; Boston
; Kln : Brill, 1999
(Philosophia a n t i q u a ; Vol. 82)
ISBN 9 0 04 I I 3 5 8 4
ISSN
ISBN
0079-1687
90 04 11358 4
Copyright 1999 by Konmklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
ForJeanette
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Preface
xi
xiii
T H E TRANSMISSION O F THE TEXTS

PART O N E
THE AUTHENTIC
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
ENCHEIRIDION
Catalogue of'manuscripts of Epictetus' Encheirdion

T h e affiliation of the manuscripts and the editio
prncejjs of'Epictetus' Encheiridion
T h e First family
T h e lemmata in S
Tt
T h e selection MSS ()
T h e AC-group
T h e second family
U
T h e editions after the editio princefjs and the manuscripts related to the editions
From Haloander to Wolf
T h e editions after Schegk and Wolf up to Schweighuser
Schweighuser's editio maior
Critical work on the Encheidion after Schweighuser's edition
Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheirdion
Catalogue of manuscripts
T h e text of the lemmata in Simplicius'
commentary
T h e text of Simplicius' commentary
T h e indirect tradition
T h e constitution of the text of Epictetus' Encheiridion
3
19
19
22
23
25
31
51
55
58
58
71
82
84
87
87
93
111
114
118
PART T W O
[NILUS]' ADAPTATION
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
Introduction
Catalogue of manuscripts of [Nilus]'adaptation
T h e authenticity and character of [Nilus]'adaptation
Authenticity
T h e Christian character of [Nilus]' adaptation
O t h e r deviations from the authentic Encheiridion
princef)s of [Nilus]' adaptation
T h e relationship of M and
G
T h e stemmatical position of the MSS other
than MP
T h e constitution of the text of [Nilus]' adaptation
149
151
156
156
157
160
165
165
170
172
184
PART T H R E E
THE PARAPHRASIS
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
CHRISTIANA
Introduction
Catalogue of manuscripts of the Paraphrasis
Christiana
T h e character of the Paraphrasis Christiana
princeps of the Paraphrasis Christiana
T h e relationship of M and
T h e apographa of M
T h e relationship of the other manuscripts
T h e commentary on the Paraphrasis Christiana
T h e constitution of the text of the Paraphrasis
Christiana
197
199
206
213
213
215
216
237
239
PART FOUR
THE ADAPTATION OF VATICANUS GR. 2231
XVIII. T h e adaptation of Vaticanusgr. 2231

Description of Vaticanus gr. 2231
257
257
CONTENTS
T h e character of the adaptation of Vaticanus

gr. 2231
T h e constitution of the text of the adaptation of
Vaticanus gr. 2231
IX
259
262
T H E TEXTS
PART O N E
EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRJDION
T h e organization of the apparatus criticus

Conspectus siglorum
Text and translation
Lectiones variantes minores
Lectiones variantes ad rem orthographicam pertinentes
267
270
276
342
346
PART T W O
[NILUS]' ADAPTATION
Conspectus siglorum
Text
351
353
PART THREE
THE PARAPHRASIS
CHRISTIANA
Conspectus siglorum
Text
Lectiones variantes minores
Lectiones variantes ad rem orthographicam pertinentes
369
371
389
392
PART FOUR
Conspectus siglorum
Text
395
396
INDICES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Index verborum Epicteti Encheiridii
Index fontium Epicteti Encheiridii
Index auctorum Epicteti Enchciridion laudantium
Index locorum potiorum
Epicteti Encheiridion
[Nili] Encheiridion
Paraphrasis Christiana
Encheiridion Vaticani gr. 2231
Index codicum
Index siglorum
Bibliography
415
427
432
434
434
434
434
435
436
438
441
LIST OF STEMMATA
Epictetus' Encheiridion
stemma codicum et editionum
Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheiridion
stemma codicum et editionis principis
[Nilus]' adaptation
Paraphrasis Christiana
Stemmata codicum
18
86
164
212
274
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the course of my work on the text of Epictetus' Encheiridion I have

received help from many scholars and institutions. It is my pleasure
to express my gratitude to them.
Obviously, my work would have been altogether impossible without the reproductions of MSS I have received from the libraries in
which they are preserved. For many MSS I have obtained microfilms
from the collection of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes in
Paris. A special word of thanks should be directed to Dr. E.K. Litsas of
the Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki, who has sent
me reproductions of two Athos MSS, as well as doing all he could to
obtain p h o t o g r a p h s of E s p h i g m e n o u 3, which, alas, proved to be
missing when Dr. J. Tavlakis visited the Esphigmenou monastery on
my behalf.
T h e librarians of the Biblioteca Marciana (Venice), the Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (Florence),
the National Library (Athens), the British Library ( L o n d o n ) , the
Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden) and the Bibliothque
Nationale (Paris) have kindly given me the opportunity to study the
MSS preserved in their libraries in situ.
I have obtained codicological and palaeographical information
f r o m various scholars and librarians: Dr. F. Arduini (Venice), Dr. E.
Arnold (Munich), Dr. B.C. Barker-Benfield (Oxford), Dr. Chr. Baltoyanni (Athens), Prof. P. Canart (Vatican City), Dr. M. Eschler (Bern),
Dr. P.G. Ferrara (Naples), Dr. Chr. Forstel (Paris), Dr. O. Gantier
(Paris), Dr. M. G e r m a n n ( B e r n ) , Dr. G. G u i l l e m i n o t - C h r t i e n
(Paris), Dr. H. Haalberg (Uppsala), Dr. J.J. Hall (Cambridge), Dr. U.
Kirsten ( D r e s d e n ) , Dr. D. Lecco (Paris), Dr. V. L e o n o v (St.Petersburg), Dr. E. Lugato (Venice), Dr. S. Marcon (Venice), Dr. G.
Mathieu (Besanon), Dr. A. Fiber (Warsaw), Dr. K. Schellbach
(Dresden), Dr. L. Selvaggi (Turin), Dr. M. Simpson (Edinburgh), Dr.
M.C. Vicario (Florence).
Prof. D. Harlfinger (Berlin) and Prof. E.V. Maltese (Albisola) have
given me various pieces of information, and sent me xeroxes of works
I was unable to get hold of in the Netherlands.
Prof. I. H a d o t (Paris), whose edition of Simplicius' commentary
on Epictetus' Encheiridion has been on my desk ever since its publication, has e n c o u r a g e d me f r o m the outset; I owe h e r for many
valuable remarks on several aspects of my work.
Prof. A. Carlini (Pisa) has always been ready to c o m m e n t on
problems about which I asked his opinion. In addition, he invited me
to come to Pisa in October, 1995, to lecture on the Christian adaptations. O n this occasion I made the acquaintance of Carlini's pupil Dr.
Francesco de Nicola (Pavia), with whom I have exchanged countless
letters 011 the transmission and the text of the Paraphrasis Christiana,
which was the subject of Dr. De Nicola's doctoral dissertation.
Prof. M. S p a n n e u t (Lille) has given me information on the commentary 011 the Paraphrasis Christiana, and 011 the indirect tradition of
Ench.
With the m e m b e r s of the Amsterdamse Hellenistenclub I have discussed three papers, on [Nilus]' adaptation, on the Paraphrasis Christiana, and 011 the authentic Encheiridion. I have greatly profited from
their remarks. I am especially indebted to Prof. C.J. Ruijgh, Prof. S.R.
Slings and Prof. I. Sluiter, who have given me advice on many other
occasions as well.
T h e Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) has
given me financial support for visiting libraries in Athens, L o n d o n ,
Paris, Rome and Venice.
Mrs W.A. J o h n has undertaken the arduous task of correcting my
English. Prof. D. den Hengst has been ready to correct my Latin.
Finally, I wish to thank Prof. J. Mansfeld, Prof. D.T. Runia a n d
Prof. J.C.M. van W i n d e n for a c c e p t i n g my b o o k in the series
Philosoj)hia Antiqua.
Amsterdam
summer 1998
1. Brief sketch of the origin and reception of Epictetus 'Encheiridion

Arrian is almost universally acknowledged as the a u t h o r of the
Diatribes, but there has been much discussion about the extent to
which he put his stamp on the text of the Diatribes. According to some
scholars he presents us with a more or less stenographic account of
Epictetus' lectures. According to others he follows the example of
X e n o p h o n ' s Memorabilia, and moulds Epictetus' oral lectures into
freely adapted written compositions. T h e r e are also many intermediate positions 1 . Stellwag 11-13, however, argues that Epictetus' Diatribes
were c o m p o s e d by Epictetus himself; this hypothesis has recently
been revived by Dobbin (xxi-xxiii).
In a letter to Massalenus-, referred to by Simplicius (P 4-9, p. 192
H a d o t ) , Arrian states that in composing the Encheiridion h e picked
out the most vital and necessary elements of Epictetus' philosophy,
which would most strongly i n f l u e n c e the souls of the readers 3 .
Simplicius adds that the same thoughts and the same formulations
can also be f o u n d in the Diatribe54. In reality verbatim quotations from
the Diatribes in the Encheiridion are few and far between. Comparison
between the two is h a m p e r e d by the fact that the Diatribes are only
partly extant 5 .
Epictetus enjoyed a certain popularity both with pagan a n d
christian authors in antiquity a n d in the Byzantine period 6 . In the
1
For Arrian's authorship see Arrian's letter to Lucius Gellius, which precedes
the Diatribes in the codex Saibantinus = Bodleianus misc. gr. 251 (the source of all
the other extant MSS). For the character of the Diatribes see Spanneut, RAC 600603; Radt 364-368 with references; Dobbin xx-xxiii with references.
2
Or Messalinus, as Saumaise conjectured; see Hadot's apparatus.
3
, ' ,
,
' .
4
'
' . Hadot, Simplicius 152-153, argues
that it should not be taken for granted that the word refers to the
Diatribes as we have them.
5
See Spanneut, RAC 602. I hope to devote a special study to the relationship
between the Diatribes and the Encheiridion.
6
An excellent survey is given by Spanneut, AC616-675.
first place his name is m e n t i o n e d in various sources 7 . Next there are

references to the Epictetean corpus. Direct quotations are not very
frequent; the majority of them are f o u n d in Stobaeus, who quotes 21
passages f r o m the Encheiridion, against only four passages f r o m the
f o u r extant books of the Diatribes, this serves to illustrate that the
Encheiridion gradually came to be the best known of the Epictetean
writings 8 .
In the sixth century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius, wellknown for his commentaries on Aristotle, devoted a full-scale commentary to the EncheiridiorP. In the preface he states that the Encheiridion often repeats phrases from the Diatribes (see above), but in his
commentary he hardly ever refers to the Diatribes. Simplicius rather
tries to explain the Encheiridion by itself, paying much attention to the
c o h e r e n c e of the whole 1 0 . In a n u m b e r of places the text of the
Encheiridion serves as a starting-point for reflections which exceed the
scope of the commentary proper 1 1 .
So great was the influence of the Encheiridion on monasticism that
it was adapted to suit the needs of Christians on no less than three
occasions. T h e first of these adaptations is falsely attributed to Nilus
Ancyranus (Nil, first edited by J.M. Suarez [1673]), the second is
known as the Paraphrasis Christiana (Par, first edited by M. Casaubon
[1659]), the third one is f o u n d in Vaticanus gr. 2231 ( Vat, discovered
by M. Spanneut, as yet unedited). N o n e of these adaptations can be
dated with certainty; a terminus ante quern is furnished by the date of
the oldest extant MSS 12 . In Nil and Vat the text of the authentic
Encheiridion is only slightly modified, but in Par the text has underg o n e a complete metamorphosis 1 3 .
7
See the testimonia collected by Schenkl III-XV.

For a discussion of the indirect tradition of the Encheiridion, see pp. 114-117;
for a full list of authors referring to the Encheiridion, see pp. 432-433.
9
Fortunately, this commentary can now be consulted in the recent edition by I.
Hadot, accompanied by a detailed and informative introduction. For a list of
Simplicius' works, both extant and lost, see Hadot, Simplidus 4-6.
10
For a full philosophical analysis of Simplicius' commentary, see Hadot,
Simplicius, chs. Ill and IV, pp. 51-113. For a discussion of the way in which
Simplicius handles the text of the Encheiridion, see pp. 111-113 below.
11
The most interesting case in point is Simplicius' commentary on Ench 27
(Simplicius ch. XXXV), which for the greater part is a refutation of Manicheism
(cf. Hadot, Simplicius, 114-144).
12
For iVi/Ven. Marc. gr. 131 (eleventh century), for Par Flor. Laur. 55,4 (tenth
century), for Vat Vat. gr. 2231 (early fourteenth century). Vat must have been
c o m p o s e d after Simplicius' commentary, because it borrows a phrase from
Simplicius; see p. 260, n. 2.
13
For Nil see pp. 157-163, for ftzrsee pp. 206-211, for Vat see pp. 259-262.
8
T h e oldest extant MSS of the authentic Encheiridion belong to the

f o u r t e e n t h century, and are thus much later than the oldest witnesses
to the text of M / a n d Pari4. This might be taken as an indication that
u p to ca. 1300 A.D. the Byzantine world paid more attention to the
christianized versions of the Encheiridion than to the original text.
From the f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y on we find an ever increasing
n u m b e r of MSS of the Encheiridion, some giving a selection, others
containing the complete text. In the fifteenth century it was translated into Latin twice, first by Niccol Perotti in 1450, then by Angelo
Poliziano in 1479 15 . Perotti's translation did not gain great popularity, but Politian's translation has been endlessly reprinted since the
editio princeps of 1497.
T h e first edition of the complete Greek text of the Encheiridion was
published in 1529"'. Since then, there has been a constant flow of
editions of the Greek text and of translations into many languages 1 7 .
A real critical edition of the Greek text, however, has hitherto never
been made. All the editions published in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries d e p e n d on the editio maim by J. Schweighuser (1798).
It is my aim to fill this gap.
2. Aim and method of the present work

T h e need of the preparation of a critical edition of Epictetus' Encheiridion has long been felt i s , but at the same time scholars have recoiled from the enterprise because of the a m o u n t of work involved 19 .
14
Apart from the MSS mentioned in note 12 (p. xiv), there are other MSS
written before 1300 A.D., especially for Par (see the catalogues, pp. 151-153 and
199-205).
15
See Oliver, Perotti; , Poliziano, Boter, Translations. Cf. pp. 28, 99-100, 104.
16
In the editio princeps of Simplicius' commentary (1528), the chapters of Ench
have been added as lemmata, but in many cases these lemmata are abbreviated (see
pp. 106-107).
17
See Oldfather, Contribuions and Supplement, nrs. 114-725, for the years up to
1952; for later years see L'Anne Philologique.
18
Cf. Carlini 215, . 4.
19
See for instance Oldfather (Loeb edition) II, 480, n. 2: "Another [reason] is
the very slight probability that any really notable contributions to knowledge might
result therefrom. As an intellectual problem the preparation of a new edition of
the Encheiridion presents certain interesting features, but as a practical undertaking
it is outranked by a good many other possible investigations." Maltese XXVII: "(...)
un compito davvero poco seducente, che non promette all'editore risultati pari alia
fatica." Oliver, Politian 186: "(...) a text that has a manuscript tradition so complex
that it has dismayed the courage, or baffled the perseverance, of prospective editors
for the past century and a half."
W h e n I envisaged the preparation of a critical edition of Ench in

1987, I decided at the outset that the edition should be based on all
t h e sources available to me. T h e r e f o r e my p r o j e c t necessarily
included the preparation of critical editions of the three Christian
adaptations of Ench as well. Fortunately a new edition of Simplicius'
commentary was already in preparation by I. Hadot; it was published
in 1996. But because the tradition of the lemmata in the MSS of
Simplicius' commentary differs from the tradition of the text of the
c o m m e n t a r y itselfas Mme H a d o t wrote me, I had to study the
lemmata in all the Simplician MSS myself.
Despite the great n u m b e r of MSS (over one h u n d r e d in all) I have
not excluded any MS from my investigations, not even MSS written in
the 16th-18th centuries. In the First place I wanted to be absolutely
certain that I had not neglected any primary source; in the second
place these MSS reflect the scholarly activities of the periods in which
they were produced.
For the identification of MSS I have consulted Friedrich-Faye in
the first place; further, I have checked many catalogues myself; finally, I have f o u n d some MSS in Sinkewicz. With the exception of Leid.
Voss. gr. Q 54, Loud. Add. 11887 a n d Venetus Marcianus gr. App. Cl.
XI 13 (which I have collated in situ), I have studied all the MSS on
p h o t o g r a p h s or microfilm. Dresdensis Da 55 was heavily damaged in
the Second World War, and is nowadays hardly legible; I have used
Heyne's collation, which is reported by Schweighuser; Dr. Kerstin
Schellbach has c h e c k e d s o m e readings on my behalf. I have
consulted most of the major primary MSS in situ. For Ench I have seen
[Atheniensis 373], A [Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1164], SiC [Vaticanus gr.
327], SiG [Venetus Marcianus gr. 261], [Laurentianus 31,37],
[Parisinus gr. 3047] ; for Nil I have seen both M [Venetus Marcianus
gr. 131] a n d [Parisinus gr. 1220]; for Par I have seen M
[Laurentianus 55,4], [Parisinus gr. 1053], V [Venetus Marcianus
gr. 127] and A [Atheniensis 521]; for Vat I have consulted the codex
unicus V [Vaticanus gr. 2231]. I have also briefly inspected a n u m b e r
of secondary MSS in situ.
I have invented a system of labelling the MSS with sigla which, I
h o p e , will be convenient for the user of this book. T h e sigla themselves are always printed in bold type; when it must be made clear to
which tradition a given MS belongs, this bold siglum is p r e c e d e d
by an italic siglum: or Ench (the authentic Encheiridion), or Nil
([Nilus]' adaptation), o r Par (the Paraphrasis Christiana), Vor Vat
(the adaptation of Vaticanus gr. 2231), S (Simplicius' original lemmata), Si (the supplemented lemmata in Simplicius' commentary), Simp
(Simplicius' commentary itself). But, for instance, when discussing
the transmission of Par, I have not d e e m e d it necessary to add the
italic siglum Par on every occasion.
In collecting the material of the indirect tradition I have profited
f r o m the discussions in S p a n n e u t ' s informative articles in DS a n d
RAC. Prof. S p a n n e u t has given me some additional information per
litteras, the same goes for Prof. E.V. Maltese.
T h e discussion of the transmission of the text is roughly the same for
Ench, Nil, Par and Vat.
First t h e r e is a brief catalogue of MSS, in which the essential
information about a MS is presented. I have not u n d e r t a k e n a fullscale codicological study myself: as a rule I only give the information
available to me from other sources.
T h e affiliation of the manuscripts is depicted in a stemma codicum et
edilionum. Some MSS of Ench derive from later editions; these MSS
are not always represented in the stemma.
T h e discussion of the stemmatological relationship of the MSS is
meant to be exhaustive. I primarily rely on the internal evidence, that
is, the readings of the MSS; but whenever there are other indications,
such as omissions corresponding exactly to one or more lines of text
in the exemplar, I mention these as well. Vat constitutes an obvious
exception, because this text is transmitted in one MS only.
For each of the four texts there is a chapter on the constitution of
the text, in which I explain the editorial principles followed by me;
next, there is a philological discussion of a n u m b e r of individual
readings.
In the case of M / a n d Vat, all the information about the readings
of the MSS is given in the apparatus below the text. But for Par, and
to a much higher degree for Ench, the n u m b e r of witnesses would
make this way of presenting the material ill-digestible. T h e r e f o r e the
orthographical variant readings and the readings of the less promin e n t primary MSS are reported in two separate apparatus after the
text itself.
Even so, the apparatus of Ench does not make for easy reading;
however, I would rather bear the odium of giving too much information to the user of my text than incur the reproach of withholding
essential information.
For all the texts I have maintained the chapter n u m b e r s f o u n d in

previous editions, in o r d e r to avoid confusion with the existing
secondary literature. In cases where o n e c h a p t e r in the previous
editions should in fact be split into two chapters, as for instance Ench
14, I have n u m b e r e d these chapters as 14a a n d 14b. In the opposite
case the current chapter n u m b e r is added in the text between square
brackets (for instance Par 58-[59]); in such cases the line numbers of
the bracketed chapter continue those of the preceding chapter.
T h e r e is no internationally accepted standard for the punctuation
of o u r classical texts. I have decided for a very sober punctuation,
adding c o m m a s only when they appear to be indispensable. Initial
capitals are used for the first word of a chapter and for proper names.
T h e English translation accompanying the Greek text of Ench is my
own, but, not being a native speaker of English, I have constantly
consulted existing translations, especially those by Oldfather, White
a n d H a r d . In many cases I have a d o p t e d p h r a s e s f r o m these
translations: I have aimed at clarity, not at originality.
T h e book is concluded by a n u m b e r of indexes: an index verborum of
Ench, an index of source passages in the Diatribes and fragments, an
index of authors referring to Ench, an index locorum potiorum, an index
codicum and an index siglorum. Finally there is a bibliography.
T H E TRANSMISSION
OF THE TEXTS
PART O N E
THE AUTHENTIC
ENCHEIRIDION
CHAPTER ONE
CATALOGUE OF MANUSCRIPTS OF EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRIDION
This catalogue offers a brief description of the MSS containing the

text of Ench, I will indicate the date, scribe, material, size, n u m b e r of
folia, folia on which Ench is found, n u m b e r of lines per page, sigla,
and give some bibliographical references. T h e stemmatic position of
the MSS is indicated summarily.
1. Atheniensis Benaki Museum 45 (T.A. 16) (olim Edirne, Gymn. 1135
(124))
15th century; paper; 195 137 mm.; ff. IV, 87; Ench ff. l r -9 v ; 26-28
lines; siglum Mm. At the bottom of fol. I1 there is an owner's note
' . See Lappa-Zizika 8c
Rizou-Kouroupou 85-87.
Mm derives from HPC [Laur. 55,7]; Mm is the source of the common ancestor of R [Laur. 74,13] and Vv [Vat. gr. 100]. See pp. 34-36.
2. Atheniensis National Library 373
15th century; oriental paper; 114 75 mm.; ff. 209; Ench ff. 166'-196 v ;
13-16 lines; siglum T. The MS is heavily damaged by moisture, and in
many places very difficult to decipher. See Sakkelion-Sakkelion 63-64.
is a primary MS; it derives from the same source as the supplemented lemmata in SiC [Vat. gr. 327], See pp. 19, 51-53.
3. Bern, Brgerbibliothek, Bernensis 691
second half of the 16th century; paper; 152 105 mm.; pp. 81; Ench
pp. 1-70; 16 lines; siglum V. See Hgen 502; Omont, & m e n r . 122.
V derives from G [Uppsal. gr. 25], See pp. 63, 65-66.
4. Berolinensis gr. 175 (Phill. 1579 = Meerm. 289 = 21 ? Clar. = 125'Pel.)

15th-16th century; paper; 192 140 mm.; ff. 17; Ench ff. l r -13 v ; 25
lines; siglum O. See Studemund-Cohn I 77.
derives from HPC [Laur. 55,7], See pp. 34-35.
5. Besanon, Bibliothque Munidpale 420 (Gollob nr. 12)
16th century; <Iacobos Episkopopoulos> (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger
II 86, nr. 192 (= I 144)); paper (parchment binding); 164 110 mm.;
ff. 32; Ench ff. 1-32 (= the whole MS); 15 lines; gilt-edged; siglum Aa.
See Gollob, Bes. 18.
Aa derives from a lost apograph of N e [ed. Paris 1540], See pp. 6162.
6. Bucharest gr. 645 (78)
A.D. 1771; paper; 210 250 mm.; ff. 62; Ench ff. 25' -42' ; siglum Ii. See
Litzica 358.
Ii is a gemellus of J j [Buch. gr. 1030]; the lost source of these MSS
derives f r o m the edition by Maire 1651 (or o n e of its n u m e r o u s
derivatives). See p. 77.
7. Bucharest gr. 1030 (miscellaneus)
18th-19th century; paper; 190 145 mm.; ff. 224; Ench ff. 93'-105 v ;
siglum Jj. See Camariano 160-164.
J j is a gemellus of Ii [Buch. gr. 645]; the lost source of these MSS
derives f r o m the edition by Maire 1651 (or o n e of its n u m e r o u s
derivatives). See p. 77.
8. Cantalnigiensis 1920 (Ii. VI. 41)
17th century; paper; 133 75 mm.; ff. 90; Ench ff. 2'-23 r ; 25-28 lines;
siglum Kk. See Babington 539-540.
Kk derives from SzHe [Heinsius 1639/1640 edition of Simplicius'
commentary]. See pp. 75-76.
9. Dresdensis Da 55
14th century; oriental paper; 227 160 mm.; ff. 8; contains chs. 3, 5a,
5b, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22-29 4 , 31, 33 9 , 33'^, 34, 35, 38, 39,
42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b with scholia; siglum . T h e MS was b o u g h t in
1754 "ex auctione Boerneriana Lipsiae habita". In the great fire of
Dresden at the end of the Second World War, was heavily damaged
by water, and in many places it has become quite illegible; the MS
c a n n o t be r e p r o d u c e d . Fortunately, was collated by Heyne, whose
collation is reported by Schweighuser. In a n u m b e r of places Frau

Kerstin Schellbach of" the Schsische Landesbibliothek has checked
on my behalf. See Schnorr von Carolsfeld I 297.
derives from , which goes back to ; is a primary witness with
restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25-28.
10. Edinburgh, University Library 234
16th century; paper; 103 73 mm.; ff. 258; Ench ff. l v -79 r ; contains the
Greek text on the left pages, Politian's translation on the right pages;
14 lines; siglum Hh.
Hh derives f r o m the same lost MS as [Escor, gr. 39] a n d Ff
[Lond. Burney 80]; this lost MS derives from HPc [Laur. 55,7], See
pp. 34-35, 37, 39-40.
11. Edinlmrgh, University Library 3076 (La.III.437)
second half of the 16th century; <Iacobos Episkopopoulos> (cf.
Besanon 420); paper; 153 105 mm.; ff. 29; Ench ff. 1-29 (= the
whole MS); the text breaks off at c. 5 2 ' , 3 , at the
e n d o f f . 29 v (the last folium); 25 lines; gilt-edged; siglum Nn. See
<Sharp-Finlayson> 519.
Nn derives from a lost apograph of Ne [ed. Paris 1540]. See pp. 6162.
12. Esconalensis gr. 39 (R.III.5)
A.D. 1514 (notes on f. l r and f. 77 v ); J u a n Vergara; paper; 208 150
mm.; ff. 98 (+ 23a, 31a, 67a, 94a); Ench 2'-20 r ; 22 lines; siglum P. See
Revilla I 163-167.
derives from the same lost MS as Hh [Edinburgh Univ. Lib. 234]
and Ff [Lond. Burney 80]; this lost MS derives from HPC [Laur. 55,7],
See pp. 34-35, 37-38.
13. Florentinus Laurentianus 31,37 (miscellaneus)
14th century; paper; 225 150 mm.; ff. 377; Ench ff. 156'-159 v (numbers at the top of the page, repeated at the bottom of the page below
the right corner of the text) = 158'-161 v (numbers at the right corner
of the page); f. 156 is displaced 1 , and belongs after f. 159; 38 lines;
1
The composition of f. 156 is rather confusing: f. 156 v contains Ench 48-51, and
thus gives the sequel to f. 159v; f. 156 r starts with a text on the tusks of the elephant,
then has a blank of a few lines, after which follows Ench 52; the text of Ench 52 is
surrounded by scholia which have nothing to do with our text, and deal with words
like , etc.
contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17-19b, 22-29 4 , 31, 33 9 , 33'*,
34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52; siglum . See Bandini II
114-119.
is a gemellus of [Vat. gr. 1314]; the lost source of these MSS
d e p e n d s on , and thus on ; is a primary witness with restricted
i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25-26.
14. Florentinus Laurentianus 55,7
14th-15th century; paper; 2 2 8 / 2 3 0 150/155 mm.; ff. 438; this MS
has two folio numberings: Ench is f o u n d on ff. 271 v -278 v (top of the
folio) = 277 v -284 v (bottom of the folio); 33 lines; siglum H . See
Bandini II 244-268.
derives from A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164]; the n u m e r o u s corrections
in are mainly borrowed from NiL is the source of [Berol. gr.
175], M m [Athen. Benaki Museum 45], a n d the lost c o m m o n
ancestor of [Escor, gr. 39], Ff [Lond. Burney 80] a n d Hh [Edinburgh Univ. Lib. 234], See pp. 33-35, 37.
15. Florenlinus Laurentianus 74,13
15th century; paper; 206 128/132 mm.; ff. 346; there are three folio
numberings in this MS: at the top and at the bottom of the folio and
in the extreme u p p e r corner (cut off on some folia): Ench is f o u n d on
ff. 191 r -199 v (top of the folio) - 212'-220 v (bottom of the folio) = 222 r 230 v (extreme u p p e r c o r n e r of the folio); 29 lines; siglum R. See
Bandini III 102-115.
R is a gemellus of Vv [Vat. gr. 100]; the lost source of R and Vv
derives from Mm [Athen. Benaki Museum 45], R is the source of S
[Rom. Angel, gr. 80], See pp. 35-36.
3 0 / 1 1 / 1 5 1 3 (Rome); J o h a n n e s Phroulas (subscription on f. 146'; cf.
Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 111-112, nr. 189); p a r c h m e n t ; 225 150
mm.; ff. II, 146, I; Ench ff. l'-12 r ; 22 lines; also contains Simp, siglum
N. See Bandini III 234-235; Hadot, Tradition 27-31, 105.
derives from Y [Neap. III.E.29]. See p. 48.
17. Florentinus Laurentianus CS 163
16th century; paper; 131 86 mm.; ff. 60; Ench ff. 6'-38 v ; 16 lines;
siglum W. See Rostagno-Festa 164.
W derives from G [Uppsal. gr. 25]. See pp. 63, 65-66.
18. Florentinus Laurentianus Redianus 15 (miscellaneus)

Ench 15th century, probably a b o u t 1490 (the text of Ench in was
written by Antonios Damilas, who also copied .SJ [Par. gr. 1960] a n d
SH [Bon. 2359]; SJ is dated 2 7 / 8 / 1 4 9 1 by Damilas, SH 2 3 / 2 / 1 4 9 0 ;
all t h r e e MSS were copied in Crete); Antonios Damilas (subscription
o n fol. 31 v ; cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 37-38, nr. 22); paper; 208
153 mm.; ff. II, 221, I; Ench ff. 14'-31 v ; 25 lines; siglum B. See Rostagno-Festa 219-220.
derives f r o m , a n d thus goes back to C [Ambr. gr. 481]. See pp.
40-42, 108-109.
19. Karlsruhe K. 508
16th century; paper; 222 161 mm.; ff. 10; Ench ff. l'-lO 1 (= the whole
MS); 27-33 lines; siglum Ee. This MS comes f r o m the library of Christ.
J o a c h . Haller von Hallerstein. See Brambach 95.
Ee is a gemellus of H a [ H a l o a n d e r ' s editio princeps 1529]; the lost
source ol Ee a n d H a derives f r o m Y [Neap. III.E.29]. See pp. 48-50.
20. Kozani, 13
18th century; Ench ff. 81 v -96 v , breaking off after 34,7 ; 20-21 lines;
siglum Oo. See Sigalas (I have not been able to consult this work).
O o derives f r o m Mh [ed. Maire 1646]. See pp. 77-78.
21. Leidensis Perizonianus gr. 5
s e c o n d half of the 16th century; p a p e r ; 161 107 mm.; ff. I, 24;
Ench ff. 2'-22 v ; watermark Briquet 207; 18 lines; siglum Z. O n f. I v
t h e r e is a note: "31 d'agosto B e r n a r d i n u s Midius d o n o dedit Fabio
B e n e v o l e n t i o . 7 5." S u b s e q u e n t owners are Jos. Scaliger, Daniel
Heinsius, J. Rutgers, P. Francius a n d J. Perizonius. See De Meyier, Per.
116.
is a gemellus of Xx [Vat. gr. 1862]; the lost source of these two
MSS derives f r o m the edition by Trincavelli 1535 (or o n e of its
derivatives), b u t t h e r e are cases of a g r e e m e n t with o t h e r late MSS.
See pp. 63-64, 76, 79.
22. Londiniensis Add. 11887
s e c o n d half of the 16th century; <Iacobos E p i s k o p o p o u l o s > (cf.
Besanon 420); paper; 164 110 mm.; ff. IV, 33 (+ 9 il ), IV (between
ff. 9 a n d 10 t h e r e is o n e u n n u m b e r e d folio); watermark: m o n o g r a m
IG o n a c r o w n e d e s c u t c h e o n with the n a m e I. G u r a r d (Briquet
9458); Ench ff. 1-33 ( - the whole MS); siglum Pp. Previous owners:
prince Galatzin, Butler. See Additions 2, 15; Richard, Inventaire 20.
P p derives from a lost apograph of Ne [ed. Paris 1540], See pp. 6162.
23. Londiniensis Burney 80

16th century; c j o h a n n e s Phroulas> (see Hadot, Addenda 394-395);
paper; 205 135 mm.; pp. 116; Ench pp. 71-116; 20 lines; a 17thcentury collation of this MS is f o u n d in Leidensis Perizonianus gr. O.
3, ff. 11 -8V; siglum Ff. See Forshall I, ii, 35-36.
Ff derives f r o m the same lost MS as [Escor, gr. 39] a n d Hh
[ E d i n b u r g h Univ. Lib. 234]; this lost MS derives from HP c [Laur.
55,7]. Ff is the source of Gg [Oxon. Bodl. 16991], See pp. 34-35, 3739.
24. Mediolanensis Ambrosianus gr. 481 (L 43 sup.)
15th century; paper; 232 155 mm.; ff. V, 272, I; Ench 117'-132 r ; 25
lines; siglum C. On f. 272 v there is a note Ioannis Dominici Zoni archipreslryterj sancti Martinj de Liuiano Liber; the MS was bought in Venice
in 1603 (possibly by Gabriele Severo). See Martini-Bassi I 574-576.
C is a gemellus of Ww [Vat. gr. 894]; their c o m m o n source is a
gemellus of A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164]; thus C is a primary witness; it is
the source of a lost MS, which is the direct or indirect ancestor of
many other MSS. See pp. 19-21, 31-32, 40.
25. Monacensis gr. 529
14th century; oriental paper; 226 140 mm.; ff. 256; Ench ff. 132'134 r ; 17-24 lines, with scholia beside and below the text; contains chs.
43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52 with scholia; siglum . Large parts of
are heavily d a m a g e d by moist, a n d have become quite illegible.
comes f r o m the Alte Stadtbibliothek in Augsburg. See Hardt V 318329.
is closely related to A [Vat. gr. 1823], and thus derives via
from ; is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See
pp. 19-20, 25, 27-28.
26. Monacensis gr. 567
16th century; paper; 175 110 mm.; ff. 60; Ench ff. l r -32 v ; 16 lines;
siglum D. See Hardt V 438-439.
D derives f r o m , a gemellus of [Laur. Red. 15]; the lost source
of these MSS derives from C [Ambr. gr. 481]. See pp. 40, 42-43.
27. Neapolitanus II.C.37 (Barb. 96, Farnesianus <36>; miscellaneus)

late 14th-ear1y 15th century; paper; 220 144 mm.; ff. Ill, 486, III;
Ench 212 v -232 v (numbers written above the right u p p e r c o r n e r of the
text) = 234 v -254 v (numbers written in the extreme right u p p e r corner
of the folia); 26-27 lines, with many interlinear scholia; contains chs.
3, 5b, 5a, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22, 23, 27, 24, 25, 26, 28, 291"4,
31, 33 y , 33 1 2 , 34, 35, 38, 42, 39, 43, 46, 48a, 48b with scholia; siglum
. See Mioni, Neap. I 1, 254-262.
is a gemellus of [Vat. gr. 952], and thus derives from via
a n d ; is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See
pp. 19-21, 25, 27-30.
28. Neapolitanus III.E.29 (Borb. 351)
16th century (before 1513); paper; 300 220 mm.; ff. Ill, 87, II; Ench
l'-8 v ; 30 lines; also contains Simp] siglum Y. See Cyrillus II 466; Hadot,
Tradition 27-32, 105.
Y is a gemellus of L [Vind. phil. gr. 37]; the lost source of these two
MSS d e p e n d s indirectly on C [Ambr. gr. 481]. Y is the source of
[Laur. 81,22] and of a lost MS ji, which was the ancestor of Ee [Karlsr u h e K. 508] and Ha [Haloander's editio princeps 1529]. See pp. 43-45,
47-49.
29. Neapolitanus Girolamini C.F. 2.11 (olim XXII. 1)
15th century; paper; 290 210 mm.; ff. Ill, 474, II; Ench 130'-132'; 36
lines; contains chs. 3, 5b, 5a, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22, 23, 27,
24, 25, 26, 28, 291"4, 31, 33 9 , 33'*, 34, 35, 38, 42, 39, 43, 46, 48a, 48b;
siglum . See Martini I 2, 397-415.
derives from the same lost MS as [Vat. gr. 1858] and the lost
source of [Neap. U.C.37] and [Vat. gr. 952]; thus derives via
a n d f r o m ; is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t
value. See pp. 19-21, 25, 27-30.
30. Oxoniensis Bodhdanus 16991 (=D'Orville 113 = Auel. X 1.4,11)
ca. 1500 A.D.; paper; 210 156 mm.; ff. I, 336; Ench 157'-167 r ; 22-23
lines; siglum Gg. See Madan IV, 64-65.
Gg derives from Ff [Lond. Burney 80]. See p. 39.
31. Oxoniensis Canonicianus gr. 23
e n d of the 14th century; paper; 172/176 118/124 mm.; ff. 136; Ench
132 v -134 v ; 23-28 lines; c o n t a i n s chs. 11-21, 24^,10-11 (-),
24M5-18 (-), 29>"7, 30, 33 4 , 33 W '\ 33 9 , 33', 3 3 " , 3313*16,

34-37, 43, 45,2-5, 48b,1-6 (-), 51; siglum Tt. T h e selection from Ench begins at the top o f f . 132v, without any title. See Coxe,
Bodl. Ill, col. 31-32.
Tt derives f r o m the same source as A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164], C
[Ambr. gr. 481], a n d Sib, although it shows traces of contamination
with [Athen. 373] ; Tt is a primary witness. See pp. 19, 23-25.
32. Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 247
16th c e n t u r y (after 1519); <Gentian Hervet> (cf. GamillschegHarlfinger I 49-50, nr. 47); ff. 131; Ench ff. l r - l l v ; 25 lines; paper;
2 2 7 / 2 2 9 159/161 mm.; also contains Simp, siglum Q . Cardinal
Reginald Pole was the first owner of Q . See Coxe, Coll. 89; Hadot,
Tradition 20-22, 25-27, 103.
Q is a gemellus of [Vat. Barb. gr. 76], a n d thus d e s c e n d s
indirectly from C [Ambr. gr. 481]. See p. 45.
33. Parisinus gr. 1054 (Fontebl.-Reg. 2992)
14th-15th century; paper; 211 132 mm.; ff. Ill, 286, III; Ench and Nil
ff. 180 v -182 v ; 24-28 lines; siglum Ss; catalogued as containing excerpts
f r o m Ench, Ss has Ench 3, 5a and 5b, while its remaining contents belong to Nil (chs. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31a); cf. pp. 170-171. See O m o n t , Inventaire I 212.
In Ench 3, 5a and 5b Ss is related to . See pp. 30-31.
34. Parisinus gr. 2072 (Colb. 4348, Regius 3114) (miscellaneus)
first q u a r t e r of the 16th century; c j o h a n n e s Phroulas> (see Hadot,
Tradition 12); paper; 208 145 mm.; ff. II, 282, V; Ench ff. l r -15 r ; 24
lines; also contains Simp; siglum (Schweighuser's Pe.\ for the lemmata in Simp Schweighuser indicates this MS with the siglum Pc.).
See O m o n t , InventaireU 187; Hadot, Tradition 7-13, 16-20, 100-101.
is a gemellus of F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023]; their lost c o m m o n
ancestor, , is a gemellus of J [Vat. Pal. gr. 149], and thus derives
indirectly from C [Ambr. gr. 481], See pp. 43-44.
35. Parisinus gr. 2122 (Bigot.-Reg. 3487,2)
16th century; <Manuel Probatares> (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II
135, nr. 350 (= I 254)); paper; 143 94 mm.; ff. IV, 40, XXIX; Ench 3'35 r ; 16 lines; siglum X (Schweighuser's Pd.). See O m o n t , InventaireU
197.
X derives from G [Uppsal. gr. 25], See pp. 63, 65-66.
36. Parisinus gr. 2123 (Teller. Rem.-Reg. 3487,3)

Besanon 420); paper; 154 102 mm.; ff. VII, 38, IX; Ench ff. 1 '-38' (=
the whole MS); 15 lines; gilt-edged; siglum Bb (Schweighuser's Pf.).
See O m o n t , InventaireU 197.
Bb derives from a lost apograph of Ne [ed. Paris 1540], See pp. 61-62.
37. Parisinus gr. 2124 (Mazarin.-Reg. 3487)
early 16th century (Dr. Chr. Forstel of the Bibliothque Nationale
writes me that the watermark is similar to Piccard, Anker V 214 (Grz
1511); the o t h e r watermarks of the same type shown by Piccard
b e l o n g to t h e p e r i o d 1501-1527); <Zacharias Kallierges> (see
Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 75, nr. 156 (= I 119)); paper; 166 120
mm.; ff. I, 18, I; Ench ff. l'-18 v (= the whole MS); 21 lines; siglum U
(Schweighuser's Pg.). See O m o n t , InventaireU 197.
U is primarily based on SiC [Vat. gr. 327], but has u n d e r g o n e
intensive contamination from a n u m b e r of other MSS. See pp. 55-57.
38. Parisinus gr. 3047 (Medic.-Reg. 3357)
A.D. 1420; Georgius Chrysococces (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 56,
nr. 95); paper; 219 140 mm.; ff. II, 200, I; Ench ff. 76v-83v; 25 lines;
contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 11, 15, 19a, 19b, 22, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 23-29 4 ,
31, 33 9 , 33 12 , 18 (iterum), 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51,
52; siglum . See O m o n t , Inventaire III 99.
is a gemellus of [Vat. Urb. gr. 132]; the lost c o m m o n ancestor
of these two MSS is a gemellus of the lost source of [Laur. 31,37]
a n d [Vat. gr. 1314], and thus is descended indirectly from ; is a
primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 2527.
39. Parisinus Sufjpl. gr. 200
Besanon 420); paper; 161 107 mm.; ff. 30; watermark: m o n o g r a m
IG on a crowned escutcheon with the n a m e I. G u r a r d (Briquet
9458); Ench ff. l r -30 r (= the whole MS); 15 lines; gilt-edged; siglum Cc.
See O m o n t , Inventaire III 230.
Cc derives from alost apograph o f N e [ed. Paris 1540]. See pp. 61-62.
40. Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1023 (Coisl. 332)
first quarter of the 16th century; <Johannes Phroulas> (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 106, nr. 248 (= I 189)); paper; 206 140 mm.; ff.
VI, 192; Ench ff. l'-15 r ; 24 lines; also contains Simp, siglum F. See
Astruc-Concasty III 105; Hadot, Tradition 7-13, 16-20, 101-102.
F is a gemellus of [Par. gr. 2072]; their lost c o m m o n ancestor, ,
is a gemellus of J [Vat. Pal. gr. 149], a n d thus derives indirectly from
C [Ambr. gr. 481], See pp. 43-44.
41. ParisinusSuppl.gr.
1164 (olim Athous)
early 14th century; Ench is written in two hands: the first scribe copied
f. 22' and the first part of f. 24v, the second scribe the rest; all corrections and variant readings are due to the first scribe; paper; 275 190
mm.; ff. 48 (the blank folia 34 and 35 were inserted later); Ench 22 r 27 r ; 33-35 lines; siglum A. See Astruc-Concasty III 328-330; Bhler 4153, 315-327.
A is a gemellus of the c o m m o n source of Ww [Vat. gr. 894] a n d C
[Ambr. gr. 481], and thus a primary witness; it is the source of
[Laur. 55,7], See pp. 19-21, 31-33.
42. Parisinus Dupuy 902
Besanon 420); paper; 163 106 mm.; ff. II, 39, I; Ench l'-39 v (= the
whole MS); 15 lines; watermark: m o n o g r a m IG on a crowned escutc h e o n with the name I. Gurard (Briquet 9458); gilt-edged; siglum
Dd. See Dorez II 643.
Dd derives from a lost apograph of Ne [ed. Paris 1540]. See pp. 61-62.
43. Parisinus Mazarineus 4459 (olim 1233)
first half of the 16th century; the same scribe as [Vat. Barb. gr. 76]
and M [Vind. phil. gr. 234]; paper; 211 158 mm.; ff. I, 216; Ench ff.
1'-17V; 20 lines; also contains Simp\ siglum I. T h e first folio of I is
missing; the text of Ench starts at 2 1 ,4 []. See Molinier III
355; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 104.
I derives from [Vat. Barb. gr. 76]; it is the source of M [Vind.
phil. gr. 234], See pp. 46-47.
44. Rome, Angelicus gr. 80
15th century; paper; 280 220 mm.; ff. 282; Ench ff. 27L'-282V; 23-24
lines; siglum S. See Franchi d e ' CavalieriMuccio 126-127 (=
Samberger II 140-141).
S derives from R [Laur. 74,13]. See p. 36.
45. Uppsalensis gr. 25
16th century; paper; 134 88 mm.; ff. VI, 47; watermark Piccard, Lilie
950; Ench '-40 1 ; 16 lines; acquired in 1817 from the auction of the
library of E.M. Fant; siglum G. See Graux-Martin 339.
G derives from Tr [ed. Trincavelli, 1535]; G is the source of V
[Bernensis 691], W [Laur. CS 163] and X [Par. gr. 2122], See pp. 6365.
46. Vaticanus gr. 100 (olim 111; miscellaneus)
14th-15th century; paper; 227 147 mm.; ff. IV, 298; Ench ff. 295'298' ; 35-39 lines; contains chs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14a, 14b, 16, 19-21,
29 r>7 , 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 50, 53; siglum Vv. See
MercatiFranchi de' Cavalieri 113-115.
Vv is a gemellus of R [Laur. 74,13]; the lost c o m m o n ancestor of
these two MSS derives from Mm [Athen. Benaki Museum 45]. See pp.
35-36.
47. Vaticanus gr. 894 (olim 962)
e n d of the 15th century; written in Florence (note on f. 43); paper;
212 148 mm.; ff. I, 120 (re vera 119); Ench ff. 110M13 1 ; 21 lines;
contains chs. 8, 21, 334"9, 3 3 " , 33 13 , 46, 5a, 5b, 18, 53, 35, 40, 48a, 53,
5a, 5b (chs. 5a, 5b and 53 twice); siglum Ww. See Schreiner 64-66.
Ww is a gemellus of C [Ambr. gr. 481], and thus a primary witness.
See pp. 19, 32-33.
48. Vaticanus gr. 952
15th century; paper; 220 142 mm.; Ench ff. 51v-65v; 27-28 lines with
many interlinear scholia; contains chs. 3, 5b, 5a, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18,
19a, 19b, 22, 23, 27, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29', 33 9 , 33'*, 48b with scholia;
siglum .
is a gemellus of [Neap. U.C.37], and thus d e p e n d s via and
on ; is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See
pp. 19-21,25,27-30.
3 / 1 2 / 1 4 4 9 ; <Andronikos Kallistos> (cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 3536, nr. 18); paper; 219 140 mm.; ff. IV, 280; Ench ff. 216 v -220 v ; 29
lines; contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17-19b, 22-29 4 , 31, 33",
3 3 3 4 , 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52; siglum .
is a gemellus of [Laur. 31,37]; the lost source of these MSS
derives from , and thus from ; is a primary witness with restricted
i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25-26.
50. Vaticanus gr. 1823 (miscdlaneus)

13th-16th century (the whole codex), 14th century (Ench); paper; 225
140 mm.; ff. 282; Ench a. 136-139, 146-151, 140-145 (the folia are in
disorder; the folio containing chs. 26-29 4init has got lost); 19-23 lines
with scholia s u r r o u n d i n g the text; contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 9, 11, 12,
15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22-25, 29 4 (starting at 1. 22 ), 31, 33l->, 331*, 34,
35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52 with scholia; siglum A. See
Canart 224-240.
is closely related to [Monac. gr. 529] and thus derives via
from ; A is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See
pp. 19-21, 25, 27-30.
51. Vaticanus gr. 1858 (miscdlaneus)
14th-16th century (the whole codex), first quarter of the 15th century
(Ench), paper; 215 145 mm.; ff. I, 263; Ench ff. 148'-152' ; 61-65 lines;
contains chs. 3, 5b, 5a, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22, 23, 27, 24,
25, 26, 28, 291"4, 31, 33, 33>a, 34, 35, 38, 42, 39, 43, 46, 48a, 48b with
scholia; siglum . See Canart 356-358.
derives from the same lost MS as [Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11]
and the lost source of [Neap. II.C.37] and [Vat. gr. 952]; thus
derives via a n d f r o m ; is a primary witness with restricted
i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25, 27-30.
52. Vaticanus gr. 1862 (miscellaneus)
15th-16th century (the whole codex), 16th century (Ench); paper; 170
120 m m . ; ff. 159; Ench ff. 98'-102 v (Canart remarks: " o r d o
restituendus: 101, 98-99, 102, 100"); 18 lines; contains chs. 24 3 -28, 3031 4 , 47-49,5 ; siglum Xx. See Canart 375-384.
Xx is a gemellus of [Leid. Perizon. gr. 5]; the lost source of
these two MSS derives from the 1535 edition by Trincavelli (or o n e of
its derivatives); there are cases of agreement with other late MSS. See
p. 63.
first half of the 14th century; oriental paper (ff. 394-396a occidental
paper); 243 165 mm.; ff. Ill, 548; Ench 392 v -393 v ; 27-29 lines; contains Ench 1-3, the rest of the Epictetean text is Par, the transition
f r o m Ench to Par being indicated by a line of crosses after Ench 3 (the
catalogue wrongly states that the whole text is Par); siglum Yy. T h e
MS is nowadays b o u n d in two volumes. See Canart 762-766.
Yy derives f r o m a lost MS which was the ancestor of a n u m b e r of

primary MSS of the first family: A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164], C [Ambr. gr.
481], Ww [Vat. gr. 894], a n d the eleven derivatives of ; it is also
possible that the source of Yy should be located between AC and .
Thus Yy is a primary witness. See pp. 21-22.
54. Vaticanus Barbmnianus gr. 4
early 14th century; paper; 128 85 mm.; ff. Ill, 187 (+ 186 a ); f. 19v
contains Ench 33 1 6 ; 18-30 lines (the folio containing the f r a g m e n t
from Ench has 23 lines) ; siglum Uu. See Capocci I 2-6.
Uu is a derivative or a gemellus of [Athen. 373]. See p. 52.
16th century; the same scribe as I [Par. Mazar. 4459] and M [Vind.
phil. gr. 234]; paper; 211 151 mm.; ff. I, 233; Ench l r -19 r ; 20 lines;
also contains Simp; siglum K. O n f. l r there is an owner's note: J u a n
Bautista geafron (?); Diomelo D ( o n ) f e r n a n d o Aluia, De Castro en
L(i)x(bo)a a. 1614. See Capocci I, 95-96; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 103104.
is a gemellus of Q [Oxon. Coll. Nov. 247], a n d thus derives
indirectly from C [Ambr. gr. 481]; it is the source of I [Par. Mazar.
4459], See pp. 45-47.
56. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 149
ca. 1500 A.D.; E m m a n u e l Zacharids (subscription on fol. 163v; cf.
Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 76-77, nr. 114); 213 151 mm.; ff. 318; Ench
ff. 149 r -163 v ; 22-23 lines; siglum J. See Stevenson, Pal. 80-81.
J is a gemellus of the lost c o m m o n ancestor of [Par. gr. 2072]
and F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023]; the lost c o m m o n source of J E F derives
indirectly from C [Ambr. gr. 481]. See p. 43.
57. Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 132
A.D. 1420 (subscription on f. 144 v ); the same scribe as [Par. gr.
3047], that is, Georgius Chrysococces; parchment; 184 110 mm.; ff.
144; Ench ff. 139 v -144 v ; 19 lines; contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 11, 15, 19a,
19b, 22, 24-29 1 , 31, 33 9 , 34, 35, 43, 48b, 42; siglum . See Stornajolo
236-238.
is a gemellus of [Par. gr. 3047]; the lost c o m m o n ancestor of
these two MSS is a gemellus of the lost source of [Laur. 31,37] and
[Vat. gr. 1314], and thus d e p e n d s indirectly on ; is a primary
witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25-27.
58. Vindobonensis phil. gr. 37

16th century; paper; 310 2 0 5 / 8 mm.; ff. I, 295; Ench ff. 165 r -l7l v ; 30
lines; also contains Simp; siglum L. See H u n g e r I 162-163; Hadot,
Tradition 27-35, 105.
L is a gemellus of Y [Neap. III.E.29]; the lost source of these two
MSS is descended indirectly f r o m C [Ambr. gr. 481], See pp. 43-45,
47-48.
16th century; the same scribe as [Vat. Barb. gr. 76] a n d I [Par.
Mazar. 4459]; paper; 210 150 mm.; ff. I, 227; Ench l r -18 v ; 22 lines;
also contains Simp; siglum M. See H u n g e r I 342-343; Hadot, Tradition
20-27, 104.
M derives from I [Par. Mazar. 4459], See pp. 46-47.
Lost manuscripts
Argentoratensis Schweighuseri: this MS contained both Ench and
Simp; see Schweighuser XCII-XCIV; Schweighuser tells us that he
bought the MS f r o m the Huberiana section of the Basel Library, and
that h e gave it to the University Library at Strassburg. H e r e is
Schweighuser's description: "Constat foliis bombycinis nonaginta,
majoris formae: eleganter 8c adcurate a d m o d u m e m e n d a t e q u e sub
finem seculi XV, ut mihi videtur, scriptus; literae initiales scite minio
pictae. Subscripsit in fine n o m e n suum scriba verbis: '
, ,
, ." Schweighuser states that
this MS is closely related to Par. gr. 2072 (my E). Schweighuser uses
the siglum Arg. for this MS; for the lemmata in Simp, however, he
indicates it Ax. Schweighuser reports an owner's note on the inside
of the j a c k e t : "Reverendo & clarissimo viro, Dn. M. I o h a n n i
Rodolpho Wetstenio, Professori Graecae Linguae in Academia patria
dignissimo, vetus hoc Graecanicae literaturae m o n u m e n t u m , in
amicitiae m o n u m e n t u m D.D. Iohannes Iacobus Werenfels, Ecclesiae
ad D. Martin, minister. 17 Februar, a n n o 1639." T h e MS got lost in a
fire during the war of 1870.
Codex Gerdesianus: see p. 76.
Petropolitanus 150: destroyed by fire in Warsaw in the Second
World War; Schenkl LX states "est cur suspiceris h u n c librum affinitatis q u o d a m vinculo coniunctum esse cum Meibomii Hafniensi".
Trabzond 1, : lost in the war of 1922; see Kolia 212.
T h e subscription of this MS (quoted by Kolia) is the same as in
[Laur. 55,7] (and its derivatives [Berol. gr. 175], [Escor, gr. 39]
and Ff [Lond. Burney 80]).
Taurinenses B.VI.49 (olim b.1.26) and B.VII.15 (olim b.1.20): lost
in the fire of 1904.
Taurinensis C.VI.3 (olim c.1.42): partly destroyed in the fire of
1904; the folia which contained fragments of Ench (ff. 202-205) are
lost.
Venetus Marcianus gr. App. cl. XI 13 must have contained Ench on
some folia which have got lost (the twelfth quinio); see H a d o t ,
Tradition 106.
Villebrune's MSS nrs. 7 and 8. Villebrune, p. 206, gives the following description: "7. Codex in Italia ante u n d e c i m a n n o s collatus,
membranaceus et antiquissimi aevi, cujus, et sequentis 8, mihi lectiones utendas reliquerat, tum juvenis, Berger Germanus. 7. m. Variae
lectiones h u j u s codicis. 8. Alter codex ab e o d e m collatus, n o n
melioris notae."
Stemma codicum et editionum Epicteti Encheiridii
SiC
?
Uu
Mm
Ff Hh
/ \
R
Ee
Ha
Tr
G
/I\
V w X
SI
Sc
Ne
/ \Xx
Wo
Aa Bb Cc Dd Nn Pp
I
Vv
Gg
CHAPTER TWO
T H E AFFILIATION OF T H E MANUSCRIPTS AND T H E EDITIO

PRINCEPS OF EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRIDION
As can be seen on the accompanying diagram (p. 18) the MSS of Ench
are divided into two families. T h e first family consists of all the MSS
with the exception of [Atheniensis 373] 1 , which (together with the
s u p p l e m e n t e d lemmata in Simplicius' commentary as f o u n d in SiC
[Vat. gr. 327]) r e p r e s e n t s the second family. T h e first family is
accompanied by the supplemented lemmata in Sib, the main representatives of which are SiG [Ven. Marc. gr. 261], Sz'H [Bonon. 2359]
and SeJ [Par. gr. I960],
T h e sixteenth-century editions after the editio princeps by Haloander
(1529) and the MSS d e p e n d i n g partly or completely on one or more
editions will be discussed in a separate chapter; see pp. 58-85.
The first family

T h e first family is split into two sub-families. T h e first consists of only
o n e MS, namely Tt [Oxon. Canon, gr. 23], which contains a selection
f r o m Ench; T t w i l l be discussed below (pp. 23-25). T h e second comprises all the other members of the first family.
T h e second sub-family consists of two branches. T h e first branch is
r e p r e s e n t e d by A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164] a n d C [Ambr. gr. 481]
(indicated by means of the collective siglum ) , which are the direct
or indirect sources of the other MSS and the editions (C's gemellus
Ww [Vat. gr. 894], which contains a selection, will be discussed below;
see pp. 32-33). T h e second branch consists of a g r o u p of eleven MSS
(collective siglum ) containing a selection from Ench: [Dresd. Da
55], [Monac. gr. 529], [Neap. II.C.37], [Vat. gr. 952], [Vat.
gr. 1823], [Vat. gr. 1858], [Laur. 31,37], [Neap. Girolamini
C.F. 2.11], [Par. gr. 3047], [Vat. gr. 1314], [Vat. Urb. gr.
Uu [Vat. Barb. gr. 4], which only contains ch. 33 16 , appears to be related to T;
see p. 52.
132] 2 . Here are a n u m b e r of readings which prove that both branches

derive from a c o m m o n source, which I will indicate :
5a,4
5a,4
9,1
121,!
19b2,4
253,13
26,2
312,7
339,23
512,12
o m . (et Stob. )
] AC:
]
]
]
o m .
] ( Vat ut vid.)
] (et Nil Vat)
alteram o m .
]
I have not noted errors which unmistakably find their origin in the
misreading of majuscule script.
T h e AC-group and the g r o u p of selection MSS both have separative

errors of their own. First, I will quote some readings peculiar to the
selection MSS3:
5a,5
12 2 ,9
22.6
242,9
255,19
26,4-5
313,15
3312,33
42.7
461,4
482,6
]
]
]
']
- o m .
-] -
]
]
o m .
]
]
In o n e place the r e a d i n g of appears to result f r o m conjectural

emendation: at 31 4 ,17-18 read
' . That the words
were interpolated is also suggested by the fact that have
2
These MSS do not all have exactly the same contents: chs. 49, 51, 52 are only
found in ; ch. 10 only occurs in ; has some irregularities in the
order of the chapters; and miss a number of chapters (not the same ones)
which are present in most other members of the group. only has chs. 43, 46, 48a,
48b, 49, 51, 52. Six of the MSS ( and ) have numerous glosses and
scholia. Cf. the catalogue of MSS, pp. 3-17.
3
I will not specify those places where some members of the group do not join
the rest, as a result of contamination or conjectural emendation.
, reading '
.
H e r e are some characteristic readings of AC (= ). I will also quote
readings of in places where the selection MSS are absent, as these
readings serve to separate f r o m T. T h e places where the selection
MSS are present are marked with an asterisk.
14,12
22,10
4,5
8,2
*12 2 ,7
12 2 ,10
*24 5 ,27
30,5
*31 2 ,11
*31 4 ,22
32 1 ,2
36,2-4
*39,2
*39,3
40,3
*48b 3 ,7
53 2 ,6
]
om.
]
]
]
' ]
]
]
]
]
]
- om.
]
]
]
]
]
In some cases the reading of appears to be based on conjectural

emendation. T h u s at 14a 1 ,3 omits the words -, as a
result of which the words remain isolated: this problem is
solved by the insertion of before in line 2. At 26,2 has
for ; looks like a gloss on . At
53 ! ,1 has (C: ) : I
guess that first was corrupted into (an easy slip
after ); thus became senseless, which lead to the
conjecture .
It should be stressed that it also possible that these readings were
already in , the c o m m o n source of and , which is valid for all
readings in those passages where is absent.
Yy [Vat. gr. 1950]
Yy contains only chs. 1-3 of Ench; after this it has the text of Par (siglum , see pp. 230-231). In a n u m b e r of places Yy agrees in error
with AC ( only has ch. 3 in c o m m o n with Yy):
14,12
1 4 ,17
]
]
1 5 ,21
3,1
- alterum om.
] (non ita )
On the other h a n d AC have separative errors against Yy:

1 4 ,17
2 2 .9
2 2 .10
3,1
3,3
]
]
om.
]
]
has only o n e slight e r r o r against Yy, namely 3,3 ]

(but, as I already stated, Yy and only have ch. 3 [five
lines of text] in c o m m o n ) . Yy, in its turn, has separative errors against
AC; some instances:
13,9
1 3 ,12
l 4 ,17
3.4
3.5
, om.
]
]
] (et RS )
]
T h e r e are no separative errors of AC against Yy; therefore Yy may

either be a gemellus of AC or of AC. Accordingly, Yy is a primary
witness. In the places where Yy agrees in error with AC (just quoted
above), the reading of ACYy is not f o u n d in Sz', which is a gemellus
of the lost c o m m o n source of ACYy.
It is to be regretted that from Ench 4 on the scribe of Yy decided to
copy Par instead of Ench: if he had continued to copy Ench, we could
have r e c o n s t r u c t e d the readings of in those places where is
absent.
The lemmata in Si
T h e AC(Yy)-family is j o i n e d by the supplemented lemmata in Sib,
f o r which see p p . 100-102. I have n o t e d the following cases of
agreement between Sib and A C ( ) :
12s,8
16,3
19b 2 ,3
22,7
29
332,4
] (non ita AC)

] (et Vat)
]
]
habent ( tantum 291"4; totum caput habent et Nil Vat)
] (et Vat ; SG1*8')
3310,28
462,8
49,7
49,12
512,13
52 2 ,11
53*,1
53],2
] (et Vat, SiG1 *sl)

]
]
]
t/ /
]
]
]
]
O n the other h a n d there are many places where EACb have a separative error against Si; some instances:
5a,4
9.1
12 1 ,1
19b2,4
26,2
o m .
]
]
]
]
In the chapters where E b is absent, there are a n u m b e r of errors of

AC; some instances 4 :
14,12
22,9
8.2
12 2 ,10
14a1,3
]
]
]
' ]
- o m .
Sib has separative readings of its own (see p. 101). T h e conclusion is

that Sib is a gemellus of EACb, and must therefore be regarded as a
primary witness to the text of Ench.
In AC6&'6 there is a tendency to add particles and pronouns; see
for instance 51 ^ 3 ] .
Tt [Oxon. Canon, gr. 23]

Tt contains only a selection from Ench (cf. pp. 9-10). It takes u p a position between ACbSib and [Athen. 373], sharing errors with both.
T h e cases of agreement in error with the AC bSib group, however, are
more striking than the agreements in error with T. Therefore, I think
it most likely that Tt derives from the same source as AC& , and has
been contaminated with a congener of T.
4
The instances quoted all occur in the earlier chapters, because from ch. 24 on
the text of Ench in SiH is abbreviated, while .SJ often agrees with AC as a result of
contamination.
First, I will list a n u m b e r of readings c o m m o n to T t a n d the

(in the places marked with an asterisk is present):
ACSZ
' group
13,5
16,1
16,4
*18,2
*19b 2 ,3
33 13 ,37
36.4
45.5
*51 1 ,3
' -] -
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Further, Tt has ch. 295"7: ACS* have the whole of ch. 29, Eb has
sections 1-4; the whole chapter is absent from and its gemellus S C
[Vat. gr. 327]. To my mind, ch. 29 is interpolated; see p. 127.
In a few places Tt agrees significantly with Sib, esp. SiG\ some
instances:
122,10
296,26-27
297,36
] , (et Vat)
habent Tt SiG Nil Vat: om. ACSzJ
habent Tt SiG Nil Vat. om. ACSzJ
O n the other hand,

instances:
*121,5
30.3
33 ,31
33 13 ,39
*34,8
ACSZ have
a n u m b e r of errors against Tt; some
Kaiom.
]
]
om. (habet SiG)
post add.
In the following places Tt agrees in error with (and sometimes with

SiC, a gemellus of T, as well):
122,10
243,17
30,7
34,9
35.1
35.4
36.2
36.3
43,1-3
512,14
] (et Simp Stob.)

]
]
] (et SiG)
] (et SB Nil)
] (et SiC)
] (et Vat\ [4] SiC)
] (et Simp)
-] -
alterum om.
T h e reading at 34,7 shows beyond d o u b t that Tt has u n d e r g o n e contamination: TSiC: ACSZ: Tt.
Tt has a large n u m b e r of separative e r r o r s of its own; see for

instance:
11,3-4
14b 2 ,3
19b 2 ,3
297,32
30,6
33 13 ,40
43,2
48b 2 ,2
511,1
- om.
]
]
]
]
]
6 ] (sic)
]
]
My conclusion is that Tt is a gemellus of AC bSib, which has underg o n e contamination with T. T h u s Tt must be regarded as a primary
witness.
In a few places Tt has been corrected by a later hand.
The selection MSS ()

T h e offspring of can be divided into two branches. T h e first of these
is constituted by [Laur. 31,37], [Par. gr. 3047], [Vat. gr.
1314], [Vat. Urb. gr. 132]; collective siglum . T h e second by the
other MSS: [Dresd. Da 55], [Monac. gr. 529], [Neap. II.C.37],
[Vat. gr. 952], [Vat. gr. 1823], [Vat. gr. 1858], [Neap.
Girolamini C.F. 2.11]; collective siglum . Both g r o u p s of MSS have
conjunctive errors, which have separative value against the o t h e r
group. First I will list some readings peculiar to :
15,1
15.3
17.4
243,17
244,24
252,5
292,5
]
]
' om. (deest )
om.
]
om.
] (deest )
In some places does not have errors f o u n d in and AC: 3,1

h a b e t : AC ; 26,3 h a b e t : o u A C ;
49,12 habet (deest ): AC (desunt ) ;
51',3 habet (deest ): AC (desunt
) . Such readings may be d u e to c o n j e c t u r e or coincidence,
but they may also result f r o m contamination.
H e r e are some distinctive readings of :
15,1
17,2
24^3
24 2 ,8
254,17
293,15
33 12 ,33
39,4-6
462,11
48a 1 ,2.4
om.
]
' om.
om.
om.
]
om.
- om. (deest )
] (deest )
] (deest )
T h e f o u r MSS are divided into two g r o u p s of two MSS,

namely and ( and have been copied by the same scribe).
have four distinctive readings, three of which are very slight:
28.1
311,6
42,3
49.2
]
]
alteram]
]
have the following distinctive readings:

3,2
31 1 ,!
312,10
315,24
339 ,23
339 ,23
34.3
48b 2 ,2
48b 3 ,8
om.
om.
om.
]
]
]
]
]
]
a n d are gemelli, as appears f r o m the fact that they both have

separative errors against each other; has only two errors against :
34,8
51 3 ,13
]
']
Some instances of readings peculiar to :

11.4
243,17
292,6
314,22
42.5
48b 2 ,3
] (conjecture?)
om.
] (glossema)
]
]
]
a n d , too, are gemelli, as is shown by their distinctive readings;

first I will list the few separative errors of :
254,16
26,6
31 4 ,19-20
]
om.
has been contaminated f r o m Par, witness the addition of

before at 12 2 ,7.
T h e errors of are the following:
19b 2 ,3
24 4 ,23
25^4
27,2
48b2,3
om.
om.
om.
]
alterum om.
T h e c o m m o n source of the other MSS, , appears to have had double

readings in some places; see for instance 46 2 ,9 ] 1 8
(deest , lectio et n o n constat).
has the following errors against the other members of the group:
11.4
18.5
24 3 ,15
34,9
38,2
46 1 ,1
46 2 ,9
48b 3 ,8
52 2 ,8
]
]
] (sic, sine accentu)
]
]
] '
]
]
om. (desunt )
Most of these readings do not tell us very much, but the readings at
11,4 and 48b 3 ,8 are conclusive: A cannot be considered the source of
the other MSS.
, which contains only chs. 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52, is closely
related to , but it is hard, if not impossible, to determine its position
within the g r o u p more specifically, because in ch. 48a and 48b is
flatly illegible, while in chs. 49, 51, 52 are absent. T h e only
conjunctive error of and in the parts where all MSS are present
(with the exception of ) is 46 2 ,9 ] ; although this is a very
slight error, it seems to suggest that and derive f r o m a c o m m o n
ancestor. Here are the other readings f o u n d in A and exclusively:
49,9
49,12
52 2 .8
52 2 .9
52 2 ,11
52 2 ,11
om. (vix legibile in )

] '
]
om.
.
] 1 l m 8
has two errors of its own (51^6 ] and 51 3 ,17

om. (nisi fallor) ), while A omits 49,9 . Therefore I conclude
that and are gemelli. Another indication of the close relationship of a n d is constituted by the fact that in both MSS the
selection from Ench is followed by what is remarkably called
, a selection f r o m the Meditations of Marcus
Aurelius 5 .
(which in many places is hardly legible, cf. pp. 4-5) too has some
readings of its own, which separate it from the other MSS:
11,1
12 2 ,8
24 2 .10
24 2 .11
25 3 ,11
25 3 ,11
31 3 ,11
42,1
46 2 ,10
] '
om. ( e t A a c l )
]
]
]
]
om.
]
] s.l.
In Boter, Translations 173-174, I have shown that (or a lost relative

of ) is o n e of the two MSS used by Politian for his translation of
Ench.
T h e remaining four MSS (collective siglum ) clearly stand
apart against the others, as is shown by the large n u m b e r of their
conjunctive errors (about 50) which separate t h e m f r o m the other
MSS; some instances:
3,1-2
9,1-2
12 2 ,8
19b 2 ,1
24^3
25*,3
25 4 ,14
35.1
39,4
43.2
46 2 ,10
om.
om.
] (glossema)
"]
]
]
]
]
om. (deest )
] (deest )
om. (deest )
In a few places does not have an error f o u n d in the other members

of the g r o u p (and in AC as well): 9,1 ] , AC (deest );
25 3 ,13 v om. AC : habet T (et ) . These divergencies may
well result f r o m c o n t a m i n a t i o n or c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n . T h e
following readings look like conjectures: 25 4 ,16 ]
5
Cf. Farquharson I, xxxii.
; 26,8 ] . At 25 3 ,11-12 has for

with .
has only two e r r o r s of its own, the first of which is quite
negligible:
314,18
34,9
]
]
As will be illustrated below, go back to a lost c o m m o n ancestor. It

is very difficult indeed to establish the relationship between on the
o n e h a n d and and on the other. Either is the source of a lost
c o m m o n ancestor of and , or , and go back to a lost MS
() independently 6 .
T h e following observations plead for the derivation of f r o m
: 1. has only o n e serious e r r o r against the o t h e r three, which
might have been restored ope ingenii ( for ); 2. at 3,5
add after .
O n the o t h e r h a n d , there are the following arguments against the
derivation of from : 1. apart from the addition of at 3,5
do not share conjunctive errors; 2. at 42,1 1 8 have
for the second ( has in the text; is absent): this
situation can be explained m o r e easily by supposing that h a d a
variant reading , which f o u n d its way into the text of and
and into the margin of , than by assuming that was contaminated
independently 7 (we have already seen that contained conjectures in
a few places); 3. although E's error is only slight, it is an error
all the same; 4. at 48b 2 ,1 have (with Nil), whereas
read (with the other witnesses); the agreement between and
h e r e can be explained by assuming that the source of had
both readings; on the o t h e r h a n d , it is hard to account for on the
hypothesis that and derive f r o m .
With m u c h hesitation I have o p t e d for the second hypothesis; in
this way the risk of unduly discarding primary witnesses is avoided.
With regard to the addition of at 3,5 I assume that this reading
already was in t , but was neglected by 8 .
6
The possibility that and go back to independently is refuted by their

common reading at 3,5 (see below) and by their reading in the
title (see below, n. 8): if , being the source of and , had in the
title, it is excluded that both and changed this independently into .
7
In and '"8 there is a gloss above , whereas in the text
has the gloss above .
8
There are a few cases that could be explained on either hypothesis.
have the title , but has
and have a few errors in c o m m o n ; in combination with the

fact that each of the two has separative errors against the other, this
shows that they are gemelli, deriving f r o m a lost c o m m o n ancestor.
First I will quote the conjunctive errors of :
5a,3
11.5
243,15
25 4 ,15
]
]
om.
om.
has only three errors of its own:

15.6
24^6
339,23
]
om.
om.
has a lot of separative errors, many of which c o n c e r n the orthography; some instances:
12^3
12 2 ,6
12 2 .9
24^6
24 2 .10
48b3,8
]
]
]
]
]
] (sic)
At 24 ,3 omit the words ' ; has (sic)

after , and thus reads
; the addition of may well result f r o m c o n j e c t u r a l
emendation.
has the following separative errors:
29 2 ,4
293.13
293.14
29 3 .15
34,4
46^4
] : (deest )
]
]
]
]
] :
Ss [Par. gr. 1054], which contains Ench 3, 5a a n d 5b, is related to , as

appears f r o m the following readings:
instead of : neither nor is certain to be the

original reading. At 3,5 1 5 ' read : this too may well be explained by
assuming that stood in the common source of , came into the text
of , above the line in , and was neglected by ; but could also have
accepted the reading of E sl .
3,1-2
om. Ss
3,5
3,5
] Ss 8 '
] Ss H a
5a,3
] Ss Tr etc.
For the rest of its Epictetean contents Par. gr. 1054 has the text of Nil;
see pp. 170-171.
The AC-group ()
T h e offspring of can be divided into two branches: the first o n e is
constituted by A and its derivatives, the second by C and its descendants. That A and C are gemelli, is proved by the fact that both MSS
have separative errors against each other. First I will quote a n u m b e r
of readings peculiar to A:
7,7
25 3 ,11-12
29 3 ,13
31 4 ,17
32 2 ,5
33 7 ,16
3314,43
40,1
40,5
48a1,2
] (et SiC Vat)

] (et t Vat)
]
.
]
] (- C)
-.
] (et SG)
]
] (sic)
T h e text of A has been written by two scribes (cf. Bhler 50-51); their
h a n d s look very similar, but nevertheless they can be clearly distinguished. T h e first scribe copied f. 22 r (1 1 ,1 4,4 )
a n d the first half of f. 24 v (29 3 ,13- 7 36 -); the second
scribe copied the rest. T h e corrections and marginal additions were
probably all written by the first scribe, also in those parts of the text
that were copied by the second scribe. Because the two scribes
apparently worked f r o m the same source, I have not distinguished
them in reporting the readings of A and APC.
Here are some of the distinctive readings of C:
22,9
4,3
7,3
11.4
13.5
19b 2 ,2
21,1
om.
]
]
]
prius]
]
.
31 3 ,11
] to
42,4
Kctiom.
46 2 ,11
49,13
]
.
In C I have not noted substantial corrections or additions by later

hands, although at 33 1 0 ,29 the change of into (nisi fallor)
seems to have been made by a later hand.
Both A and C have a n u m b e r of descendants. Before discussing the
affiliation of these MSS I will pay attention to Ww [Vat. gr. 894].
Subsequently I will first deal with the offspring of A, then with the
derivatives of C.
Ww [Vat. gr. 894], which contains a selection f r o m Ench, proves to be
a gemellus of C (for the contents of Ww see p. 13). It is certain that
Ww belongs to the g r o u p AC, as a p p e a r s f r o m the following
readings:
5a,4
8.1
8.2
18,4
335,12
338,19
om. Ww AC
] WwAC (deest )
] Ww AC (deest )
om. Ww AC
] Ww AC (deest )
] WwAC (deest )
T h e comparison of Ww with AC on the one h a n d and on the other

is complicated by the fact that there are only a few passages in Ww
where is present (chs. 18, 33 9 , 46). Even so, has the following
separative errors against Ww (and AC):
18,3
33 9 ,24
46 1 ,4
46^5-6
]
]
]
- om.
At 33 9 ,23 Ww omits with against AC. O n the o t h e r h a n d , Ww

agrees in error with AC at 5a,3 om. Ww AC: habet ; and at 18,2-3
] AC Ww, there are n o separative errors of AC
against Ww. In a few places Ww agrees in error with C:
33 7 ,16
53^2
]
alterum om.
C has one separative error against Ww, namely 46 2 ,11 ] .

T h e r e f o r e Ww c a n n o t derive f r o m C, and must be r e g a r d e d as a
gemellus of C.
T h e r e is occasional agreement between Ww and other MSS; I think

that such cases should be regarded as coincidental; some instances:
5b,2
46!,3
46 2 .9
] (et S)
] (et U )
] (et JM)
Ww has some separative errors of its own; some instances:

5b, 1
18,3
33 4 .10
33 6 ,16
]
prius]
] (sic)
om.
Ww is a primary source of restricted value.

The descendants of A
T h e only derivative of A that goes back to A via recta is H [Laur. 55,7].
H follows A almost everywhere; the only places where H does not take
over a reading in A are 3 2 ^ 5 ] A; 41,1 ] A:
H; 48a 1 ,2 ] . T h e two errors at 3 2 ^ 5 and
48a 1 ,2 are of course very easily corrected; at 41,1 is written per
ligaturam in A, and could also be interpreted as .
It is remarkable that in a n u m b e r of places APC agrees with HPf.
T h u s in three places the stem - is changed into - (per
rasuram) in both A and (3,3; 26,2.4); at 2 9 ^ 3 both MSS originally
had , which was changed into (sic) by erasing the . It is
possible that the same scribe erased a letter in both MSS simultaneously; alternatively, the letters may have been erased in both MSS
independently.
Here are some separative errors of H:
11,1
17,3
25],5
25 4 ,16
29 5 ,22
31 2 ,9
31 5 ,23
3314,44
47,1
o m .
o m .
]
]
]
]
alteram om.
] (item 16,4 et
51 1 ,3 )
]
has been intensively corrected and provided with variant readings.

These are usually written with dark brown ink (which does not always
have the same shade as the ink of the text), but some readings are
written in red ink (I have inspected in situ). Even so, I believe that
both types of readings were introduced by the scribe himself, after the
copying of the text. T h e red ink is not only used for readings which
are clearly i n t e n d e d as glosses (such as 20,4 ] s.l.),
but also for variant readings (for instance 1 3 ,12 ] , add. s.l.
minio).
Many of the variant readings in come f r o m Nil, but I have not
been able to single out one of the extant MSS of M / a s the source of
these readings in H; some instances:
1 1 .3
1 3 ,11
14,15
14a 1 ,3
18,6
24 5 ,25
] HPC Nil
] 5 ' Nil
et signis transposuit H (sicut Nil)
- om. (et AC): add. in mg.
(= Nil)
' ] H m S Nil
] HPC Nil
A few other readings look like glosses; see for instance:

6,2
20.4
] H s l : H m S
] H s1
A third g r o u p of variant readings has the a p p e a r a n c e of being conjectures; some instances:

14,13
4.5
5b,2
7.6
15.3
24 4 ,24
36.4
] (et A C ) :
HPC
] H s l
] H s1
prius del. HPC
] H s1
post add. H m S
] HPC
T h e n u m b e r of corrections and variant readings strongly diminishes

after ch. 29.
H is the source of three MSS: [Berol. gr. 175], Mm [Athen. Benaki
Museum 45 (T.A. 16)] and the lost c o m m o n source of [Escor, gr. 39
(R.III.5)], Ff [Lond. Burney 80] and Hh [Edinb. Univ. Libr. 234].
These MSS follow closely, although some obvious orthographical
errors in are tacitly corrected in the derivatives of H ; see for
instance 1 3 ,6 ] ; 16,4 ] .
H ' s derivatives also r e p r o d u c e the corrections and variant readings
a d d e d in after the text was copied; see for instance 24 4 ,24 ]
m g O M m P F f H h ; 36,4 ] HPC
O M m P F f H h . But sometimes a correction in H is overlooked or

neglected by o n e or m o r e of the derivatives; see for instance 2 9 ' , 3
h a b e n t HPC (signis transpositionis additis s.l.)
Mm: HPFfHh; 29 2 ,9 HPC OPFfHh:
H a c Mm (sed in cum tum intellegi potest).
All three derivatives of have separative errors of their own. First I
will quote some readings peculiar to [Berol. gr. 175]:
14,13
1 5 ,21
7,8
12^2
28,3
33 3 ,8
3310,28
36,6
40.2
om.
om.
]
]
]
o m .
]
om.
om.
T h e second derivative of is Mm [Athen. Benaki Museum 45 (T.A.

16)]; h e r e are some separative errors of Mm:
1^2
14a 1 ,4
24 4 ,19
26,4-5
33 1 0 ,31
48a 1 ,2-3
53^3
.
]
]
- o m .
] '
'- om.
]
In some cases the scribe of Mm appears to notice an e r r o r m a d e by

himself: thus at 30,1 Mm has for , b u t
adds above the line; at 25 3 ,11 the second is written above the
line.
Mm is the source of the lost c o m m o n ancestor of Vv [Vat. gr. 100],
which contains a selection f r o m Ench (see p. 13), and R [Laur. 74,13];
the existence of this lost MS is proved by the conjunctive errors of Vv
and R:
21.3
33^31
3315,45
53,2
53 3 ,8
]
om. (vix legibile in Mm)
]
]
om.
Vv and R follow Mm closely, but in a n u m b e r of cases they correct an

error in Mm; because in some of these cases the error of Mm is also
f o u n d in H (and often in A as well), this does not argue against the
d e p e n d e n c e of VvR on Mm; some instances:
15,20
22,10
10,4
12 2 ,7
49,9
52 2 ,9
h a b e n t VvR: M m (et A a c H )
habet R: Mm (et H) : o m . Vv
habent VvR: Mm (et ACH)
habet R (deest Vv): Mm
habet R (deest Vv): Mm
] habet R (deest Vv) : Mm (et A C H )
Such cases may be explained either by conjectural e m e n d a t i o n or

by c o n t a m i n a t i o n . C o n j e c t u r e can be seen at work at 3 3 , 3 1
] (sic) Mm: ' VvR. Mm omits 48a 1 ,
2-3 '- as the result of le saut du mme au mme, VvR omit the
words 3-4 , which are r e d u n d a n t without ' , as well. C o n t a m i n a t i o n is certain at 33 1 2 ,33 ]
R l m s (et ; deest Vv).
Vv has the following separative errors:
15,18
14b 2 ,3-4
29",35
53 4 ,9
]
' ] '
]
]
H e r e are the separative errors of R:

3,1
17,3
24^5
24 : \24-25
25 2 ,8
29 4 ,21
31 !,2
] (et Sa)
v a ]
']
]
om.
]
]
All the separative errors of R are f o u n d in places where Vv is absent;

therefore o n e might tend to assume that Vv d e p e n d s on R, instead of
being its gemellus, but this is contradicted by the situation at 47,1,
where Mm and Vv have (with H ) , while R has the correct
reading .
R is the source of S [Rom. Ang. gr. 80]; S follows R closely, and
adds a large n u m b e r of errors of its own; some instances:
13.7
22,10
7,4-7
242,11
30.8
33 3 ,8
42,6
50,2
]
]
- om.
]
]
]
]
]
T h e third derivative of H is the lost c o m m o n ancestor of [Escor, gr.

39 (R.III.5)], Ff [Lond. Burney 80] and H h [Edinb. Univ. Libr. 234],
T h e s e MSS follow HPC closely, a n d have a n u m b e r of conjunctive
errors. Some instances:
6,4
245
24\5
295,25
33 10 ,29
33 1 2 33
48b 2 ,5
49,12
' ] ' PFf: ' Hh

'] PFf: illegibile in Hh
] P ac ( del. PPC) Ff ac (ut vid.): FfPcHh
] (Ff ac )
]
] PHh: (sic) Ff
]
]
T h e source of PFfHh contained at least some of the variant readings

in H ; see for instance 15,6 HlP<:
HisipimgHht. In some isolated cases two of the t h r e e MSS PFfHh
agree against the third one: 22,7 h a b e t Hh: om. PFf;
31 3 ,15 om. PHh: habet Ff.
T h e three MSS P, Ff and Hh all have separative errors of their own.
h a s a large n u m b e r of separative e r r o r s ( a b o u t thirty); some
instances:
11,3
10,3
10,5
16,1
24 3 ,15
312,8
462,10
511,7
]
]
]
]
]
' om.
]
]
has a large n u m b e r of corrections a n d variant readings. Some of

these have b e e n a d d e d at the same time when the text was copied,
a n d come f r o m P's exemplar (as is shown by the fact that they also
occur in H); see for instance 11,5 1: P l m S (ita et H);
15,6 (quoted above). O t h e r readings a p p e a r to have been a d d e d by
the scribe after the text h a d been copied (but I have not seen in
situ). Some of these readings are borrowed f r o m o t h e r MSS, such as
33 1 4 ,43 - om. (et AH): add. in margine P 1 .
Further, there are many r e f e r e n c e s to Politian's translation. For
many individual words Politian's translation has been a d d e d (e.g. 2 2 ,6
: aufers.l.). In o t h e r places the scribe tries to translate Politian's
Latin back into Greek; see for instance 22,4 om., Polit, legit
in margine. At 33 2 ,5 reads (with almost all
the o t h e r witnesses), but in the margin P 1 adds : this reading

may well be based on Politian's die quidem (the principal source of
Politian's translation, SiC [Vat. gr. 327], does have ).
In a n u m b e r of places has additions by a later h a n d . T h u s
omits 36,2-4 - (with ACH); the words are a d d e d in the
margin with some r e m a r k a b l e variant readings which recur in the
margins of the editions by Schegk (1554) a n d Wolf (1560), but are
not f o u n d in other MSS (apart f r o m late MSS deriving from editions):
2 ] ; 3
] . Remarkably e n o u g h ,
there are some cases of a g r e e m e n t with Stobaeus: 33 ! ,2 ]
P 2 m g Stob.; 33 2 ,4 ] 1: P 2 m S Stob. O t h e r r e a d i n g s d o n o t o c c u r elsewhere, f o r
instance 34,2-3 ' ] . P 2m S.
Ff has only a few errors of its own:
13,4
20,3
338.19
338.20
49,8
49,10
52 M
- om.
]
]
]
]
]
alterum]^
Ff has a n u m b e r of corrections and variant readings a d d e d by a later

hand; these appear to be derived f r o m Q [Oxon. Coll. Nov. 247], as is
shown by the case of 2 2 ,6 ] Q Ff 2 m g; this reading is not
f o u n d in other MSS.
A collation of Ff is f o u n d in Leidensis Perizonianus gr. 3 9 , ff. Ie8V. T h e collator used an edition related to the edition published in
Rotterdam (1654), as appears f r o m 31 4 ,22 ] ;
this provides us with a terminus post quern for the collation. Some
instances of readings r e c o r d e d in the collation: at 1 5 ,22 the MS reads
, a n d has in the margin; at 3,3 the MS reads , a n d
has in the margin; at 31 2 ,9 the MS has for , with a
dot below the o; at 31 4 ,17 the MS omits , which is a d d e d above the
line by a later h a n d etc.: all these readings are f o u n d in Ff as they are
described in the Leiden MS.
9
See De Meyier, Per. 114-115; the MS, a miscellaneus, belongs to the 17th-18th
centuries, is executed on paper, measures 165 x 105 mm. and has 44 folia. With
regard to the collation of Ench De Meyier remarks that from fol. 4V on (Ench 28) the
collation is written in the hand of Perizonius.
Ff is the source of Gg [Oxon. Bodl. 16991]. Gg follows Ff closely

(that is, Ff as corrected by Ff 2 ), but in some cases an e r r o r in Ff is
corrected in Gg, probably as a result of conjectural emendation. I will
quote some instances. At 22,7 Ff reads for
(with P), while Gg has , an easy correction after the
immediately preceding word . At 33 8 ,20 Ff has for ;
the second h a n d in Ff has drawn a line below , to show that there
was something wrong with the word; Gg reads in the text, a n d
has in the margin (by the first h a n d ) . Gg has some 20 errors; in
some cases the scribe noticed an error he had made, and corrected it
himself. I will quote some instances:
1 4 ,17
10,5
15.2
21.3
27.1
29^3
34.4
38.2
51 1 ,8
52 2 ,8
om.
om.
om.
]
] ( Gg lm S)
om.
]
] ( Gg lsl )
]
] ( Gg lfil )
Some variant readings in Gg appear to be conjectures. T h u s at 6,4 Gg

reads ' for ' (with PFfHh), and adds in the
margin; at 31 4 ,18 Gg adds after ; at
36,4 Gg has above (= ). O t h e r variant readings may be
derived f r o m a n o t h e r MS, such as 44,2 alterum
om. (et H ) : add. Gg l m s.
Finally, there is Hh, which has an e n o r m o u s n u m b e r of separative
errors, many of them concerning orthography; some instances:
21_2,4.7
6,3
20.3
24^4
27,1
46^3
47.4
49,8
]
] (sic)
- om.
]
om.
]
]
]
In a n u m b e r of places H h agrees with printed editions. T h u s at 4,1

Hh has for with the editions; at 7,9 Hh has
before with the edition Paris 1540 [Ne]; at 2 9 ^ 2
Hh has the variant reading in the margin, which is
also f o u n d in Ne. In a few cases a variant reading in H h is not f o u n d

elsewhere: 45,5 ] . H h l m g ; 49,4 ]
H h l m S . H h has the Greek text o n the left pages, a n d
Politian's translation o n t h e r i g h t pages; t h e text of Politian's
translation is taken f r o m o n e of the editions of this text (cf. Boter,
Translations 167, n. 24).
The descendants of C
C is the source of a lost MS (), which served as the exemplar of
[Laur. Redianus 15] a n d , the c o m m o n ancestor of D [Monac. gr.
567] and , the source of seven MSS: [Par. gr. 2072], F [Par. Suppl.
gr. 1023], J [Vat. Pal. gr. 149], [Vat. Barb. gr. 76], L [Vind. phil. gr.
37], Q [Oxon. Coll. Nov. 247], Y [Neap. III.E.29]. H e r e are some
characteristic readings of :
13,1
13,5
243,14
29 7 ,33
311,5
32U
42,5
44,3
49,9
512,14
]
prius]
prius alterum om.
]
] (deest D)
dorn.
- om.
]
om. (habet D)
alterum tertium] - AC: -
follows C faithfully, although at 33 7 ,17 has against C's

. But a m o n g the derivatives of there are a lot of irregularities. However, these d o n o t constitute an a r g u m e n t against the
d e p e n d e n c e of these MSS f r o m a n d C, because in many cases the
reading of C is f o u n d in A as well (and t h e r e f o r e in , the c o m m o n
ancestor of A C ) . T h e e x p l a n a t i o n is to be sought in c o n j e c t u r a l
e m e n d a t i o n , in c o n t a m i n a t i o n , or in b o t h . T h e places where the
individual derivatives of do not follow the readings of their congeners and exemplar will be m e n t i o n e d in the discussion of these MSS.
has two derivatives, and . Each of these MSS has separative errors
against the other. First I will discuss . has the following errors of its
own:
2 2 ,9
15,6
23,2
293,14
332,4
]
om.
]
om.
.
35,2
38.2
43.3
49,10
om.
]
]
]
T h e r e are many places where agrees with SiJ [Par. gr. 1960], for
which see pp. 108-109; both a n d SzJ were copied by Antonios
Damilas. Some instances:
14a 1 ,6
25M
26,8
292,7
322,6
332,4
50,1
] Sie (the source of &J)

] S
] B ac2 S(J (et SiC)
] S J
] SiJ
] Si]
] 1 SzJlmS: SiJ1
For a fuller discussion of the relationship between a n d SzJ see the

chapter on the Simplicius MSS, pp. 108-109.
T h e contact of with S J also accounts for those places where
does n o t agree with its congeners. I will give some instances of places
where disagrees with C or AC:
5a,4
19b 2 ,2
19b 2 ,4
23,1
335,12
53 3 ,8
habet : om. AC (et ; del. 2 )

habet : C (et )
habet : AC (et )
habet : AC (et )
habet : AC (et )
habet : AC (et , B2PC)
has been intensively corrected and provided with variant readings.

Some scholars maintain that Politian has a d d e d marginal notes in B,
but this is rather improbable, because was copied in Crete ca. 1490,
while Politian worked on Ench in 1479 (and died in 1494) 1 0 . T h e
source of the corrections a n d variant readings is R [Laur. 74,13]; R's
derivative S [Rom. Ang. gr. 80] is less likely, because of the case of
24 5 ,24-25, where B 2 a n d R have , while S has
; further, there is not o n e single case of agreement between
B 2 a n d S, while S has many separative errors. T h e d e p e n d e n c e of B 2
on R is illustrated by the following cases:
17,3
24!,5
28-291
322,5-6
10
] B 2m g RS
'] B 2sl RS
om. RS: hoc to tum non erat ibi B 2m S
- om. MmRS: hoc non erat in alio codice
B 2m S
See Oliver, Politian 197-203; Boter, Translations 159, 168.
48b 3 ,9
53',3
] B 2 m 8 MmRS
] B 2m S MmRS
H e r e are some characteristic readings of , B's gemellus:

5a,2
15,5
15,9
19b2,1
26,8
33 13 ,36
46 2 ,8
512,12
om.
]
om.
]
]
]
]
] (non ita J)
is the source of D [Mon. gr. 567] and , as appears f r o m the fact

that each of t h e m has separative errors against the other. First I will
discuss D. D has very many errors of its own (more than sixty); h e r e
are some instances:
1^2-3
6,5-6
16,1
242,9
253,10
323,15
48b 2 ,5
48b 2 ,6
53!,2
- om. (in margine D 2 )

- om.
]
]
om.
]
]
]
]
In the following places D does not follow the reading of AC, C or :

1 4 ,13
1 5 ,21
9,2
17,1
252 ,8
331,1
36,4
41,1
49,9
49,13
habet D: AC
habet D : AC BJ
habet D: C BEFSJ l m S
habet D: C
habet D: AC
habet D: AC
habet D: AC :
'] AC EFJ: DY
.
habet D :
In s o m e of these cases t h e c o r r e c t i o n in D may result f r o m

conjectural e m e n d a t i o n or may j u s t be slips of the p e n , resulting by
coincidence into a correct reading (D has countless errors). T h e only
significant cases of a g r e e m e n t between D and o t h e r MSS I have f o u n d
are 1 3 ,6 ] D 5 and 7,8 ]
D Sie. A later h a n d has a d d e d the chapter n u m b e r s (in Latin script)
in the margin; twice there is the note (or , the e n d i n g
being written per compendium) a d d e d by a later h a n d ( 1 1 ,2-3; 1 5 ,21);
there are n o substantial corrections or variant readings a d d e d by later

h a n d s . T h e initials of t h e c h a p t e r s , which s h o u l d have b e e n
rubricated, are omitted.
is the source of two MSS: (the lost c o m m o n ancestor of J [Vat.
Pal. gr. 149] a n d , which is the c o m m o n source of [Par. gr. 2072]
and F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023]) a n d (the lost exemplar of LY [Vind.
Phil. gr. 37 a n d Neap. III.E.29] and K Q [Vat. Barb. gr. 76 and Oxon.
Coll. Nov. 247]). H e r e are some of the characteristic readings of :
15,8
24 3 ,13
24 3 ,15
25 2 ,6
253,10
255,18
33 6 ,13
462,1 1
] J: EF
]
] (non ita Q)
] (non ita Y)
]
] (non ita QY)
] (non ita )
] (sed deest D)
may have had double readings; for instance, at 7,9 AC EFKMQ read
for , while DJY have .
T h e two derivatives of have separative errors against each other.
Some errors of :
7,6
22,6
23,3
292,10
32 2 ,6
322,9
336,12
52',4
]
]
]
]
]
om.
] (non ita )
]
is the source of J and . First I will q u o t e some of the n u m e r o u s

errors of J:
1 3 ,6
10,1
12^,2
244,20
40,1
48b 2 ,5
48b2"3,7-8
51^9
. (add. J 2 )
]
]
]
] ( rubricatum)
] (sic)
- om.
]
At 1 3 ,6 the word has b e e n a d d e d by a second h a n d ; at 1 5 ,20

there is a marginal note of which only the letters are left (the rest
is cut off). In the first three chapters Politian's chapter headings have
been a d d e d in the margin by a later h a n d .
T h e second derivative of is , which is the source of a n d F;

both these MSS were copied by J o h a n n e s Phroulas. Some conjunctives errors of EF:
1 3 ,7
24',4
252,5
28,1
32^,2
33
339,21
42,6
462,11
]
]
]
]
]
] ( J)
]
contained some variant readings, as at 26,8 ]

EF (et DJx), in marg. E'F 1 .
T h e two descendants of , a n d F, are gemelli, as appears f r o m
the fact that each of the two has separative errors of its own. First I
will list some readings peculiar to E:
10,5
11,5
243,14
293,12
31 2 ,8
31 5 ,23
337,18
40.2
]
] (sic)
] (sic)
] '
alterum]
alterum]
]
] vel
In some cases the first letter of a new c h a p t e r has not been rubricated, e.g. 36,1 (), 44,1 (), 45,1 ().
Some separative errors of F:
5b 2 ,2
242.10
31 5 ,25
41.3
48b 2 ,6
53
]
]
]
]
]
]
T h e second derivative of is , the source of LY a n d KQ. H e r e are

some of x's many errors:
2 ] ,2
5a,5
7,2
16,7
30,7
322,6
337,16
462.11
]
om.
prius om.
]
]
om.
]
]
In a dozen places does not follow the wrong reading of AC, C, or

; some instances:
14,13
9,1
9,3
13,1
336,13
48b3,7
habet (et D): (piivouAC BEFJ

habet : (vel /) AC BDEFJ
habet : AC BDEF: J
habet : AC BDEFJ
habet : AC BDEFJ
] AC BDEFJ:
Some of these readings may result from conjectural emendation (e.g.

13,1; 48b 3 ,7), but for others contamination is the more likely
explanation (e.g. 9,1; 33 6 ,13).
is the source of (the source of L [Vind. Phil. gr. 37] and Y [Neap.
III.E.29]) and (the source of [Vat. Barb. gr. 76] and Q [Oxon.
Coll. Nov. 247]). I have found only one error common to L and Y,
namely 29 3 ,16 ] ; therefore is a very accurate transcript11. In , on the other hand, I have noted some 15 characteristic
readings; I will quote a number of these:
14a 1,6
20,3-4
243,16
31^2
48b2,5
49,3
]
- om.
om.
]
om.
]
is the source of Q and ; both MSS have separative errors of their

own. Here are some errors of Q:
22,6
22,9
323
333,8
49,6
52^5
533,8
]
] , punctis notavit, s.l. Q1
']
]
'- bis deinceps, alterum del. Q1
]
alterum]
In a number of places the first hand has added variant readings.

Some of these may serve to correct an error the scribe noticed
himself, e.g. at 2 2 ,9. Other readings may derive from other MSS; see
for instance 35,4 ] Q l m S U SiC (and the derivatives of SiC).
11
In Simplicius' commentary too, there are, in 13 pages of Diibner's edition,

only two errors common to L and Y (plus SP, which does not have Ench, as a result
of the loss of a quinio); one of these is very slight, the other concerns a significant
addition. See Hadot, Tradition 27.
, the second derivative of v, has the following separative errors:

3,2
4,3
11,4
243,12
252,8
313,12-13
33s,8
337,18
41,4
]
] ( AC Vat)
]
]
]
- bis deinceps
]
]
] ( Q)
In Simplicius' commentary is a gemellus of M [Vind. phil. gr. 234],

which is the source of I [Par. Mazar. 4459]; see Hadot, Tradition 2027. The text of Ench has been written by the same scribe in all three
MSS; this is also true for Simplicius' commentary in and M, but in I
four scribes have been at work in Simp.
In Ench has only two slight errors against IM, namely 25 3 ,11
] and 29 3 ,18 ] (sic, nisi fallor). IM share
the characteristic readings of K, just quoted above. The correction of
the vox nihili is facilitated by the fact that the word
is also found a few lines before; and the correction of (if this is
really K's reading) into is not too difficult either. Therefore I do
not think that these two errors are sufficient to separate from I, and
accordingly I believe that in Ench is the source of I.
The relationship between I and M in Ench, too, is different from
that in Simp. While it is certain that in Simp M is the source of I (see
Hadot 23-24), in Ench it is the other way round. Hadot points out that
I has some omissions which correspond to one line of text in M; the
reverse situation is found in Ench: at 32 s ,14 M omits -,
which fills one line in I12. I has only three slight errors against M:
4,2
13,1
294,21
]
]
] (sic, nisi fallor)
Further, at 5b,3 M has the correct against in IK. To my

mind, these errors in I are not sufficient to separate I from M.
Here are some errors of I and M against K:
12
At 15,4 M omits -; in I the text of is written as follows:

. ,
. ,
. . .
Here too the omission in M seems to result from parablepsis.
9,1
14a1,2
19a1,1
26,1
339,22
462.7
53^4
om.
]
]
]
]
]
]
Some of M's errors:

122,6
323,14
3313,39
3314,42
462.8
48b2,6
] ( IKQ)
- om.
]
]
]
]
How is the discrepancy between Ench and Simp with regard to the
relationship of IKM to be explained? In all three MSS Ench comes
first. Therefore the scribe must first have copied from his exemplar,
subsequently he copied I from K, and then M from I. When he
started to copy Simp, he first did so in K; but, departing from the
procedure followed in Ench, he then copied Simp from his original
exemplar in M. Then he started to copy Simp in I, this time using M as
his exemplar; further, he got the help of three other scribes (see
Hadot 104). Thus it appears that he worked on the three MSS
simultaneously.
The second derivative of is , the source of L [Vind. Phil. gr. 37]
and Y [Neap. III.E.29]. It has already been remarked that these two
MSS only have one error in common, to wit 29 3 ,18 ] .
Each of the two MSS has separative errors against the other. First I
will list a few of L's errors:
4,7
15,2
295,23
336,13
46^5
]
]
]
]
]
In six places (all of them in the opening chapters) I have noted

variant readings added by the first hand; some instances:
14,15
22,8
8,2
post add. in margine

] in margine et
punctis notatum
] (et AC etc.): in margine
The variant reading at 8,2 must have been borrowed from another
MS; readings like l 4 ,15 and 2 2 ,8 are not found elsewhere, and therefore probably result from conjectural emendation.
Y has a large number of separative errors (more than sixty); many of
these concern the orthography. Some instances:
2 1 ,3
4,6
17.3
314,17
33, 13
36.4
46^3
]
om.
'{] '
]
]
]
om.
is the source of two MSS: [Laur. 81,22] and (the source of Ee

[Karlsruhe K. 508] and Ha [Haloander's 1529 editio princeps of the
complete Encheiridion] ). That and are gemelli is proved by their
separative errors. I will first quote some errors of N:
3,4
12^2
122,7-8
18,1
244,24
315,23
50,3
]
]
- om.
]
] (sic)
om.
]
follows very closely, and copies even the most absurd errors in Y,
like 29^3 ] . There are only three places
where corrects an error in Y:
12s, 6
337,17
53J,l
habet : Y (et L IKQ)

] : (with a diaeresis on the
) /
(sic) habet : Y (et AC etc.)
The corrections at 12 2 ,6 and 33 7 ,17 are very easy; at 53 1 ,! the ligature

in Y could easily be mistaken for , but may also be a felicitous conjecture by the scribe of N. In the earlier chapters there are
a few variant readings, added by a second hand; see for instance 2 ] ,3
] (= ) N 2m S; 4,1 ] , add.
N 2m g.
The second derivative of Y is , the source of Ee and Ha 13 . First I will
13
For Ha see Schweighuser XIX-XXI; Oldfather nr. 249.
list some conjunctive errors of Ee and Ha, in order to show that they
derive from the same source:
15,19
3,4
255,19
293,13
33s,8
47,3
512,11
om.
]
om.
]
Kaiom.
.
prius]
In a number of places Y has an error which does not recur in Ee and

Ha; however, all these cases either concern the orthography or can be
easily corrected by means of conjecture; in fact, in some cases it is
beyond any doubt that the reading of Ee and Ha is an emendation of
Y's reading. Some instances:
7,3
16,1
296,26
323,18
34,6
49,3
] : (conjecture)
habet :
habet :
habet : (sic)
] : (conjecture)
habet :
In such cases the scribe of (or possibly one of his predecessors) may
have corrected an error in Y currente calamo. It happens occasionally
that Ee has the wrong reading of Y in the text, and adds the correct
reading in the margin (in the first hand), while Ha has Ee's marginal
reading in the text. Some instances:
122,6
15,9
49,13
habet Ha: YEe', add. Ee lm S

om. YEe1: habent EelmSHa
habet Ha: YEe1, add. Ee lm
The explanation is that contained variant readings, which were

incorporated in the text of Ha, and found their way into the margin
of Ee (it will be shown below that Ha cannot derive from Ee). In a few
cases Ee reverses the text reading and the variant reading in his
source, e.g. 24 3 ,15 habet Eec (et Ha): YEe lm 8. I have not
been able to trace the source of the corrections in . Some of them
may result from conjectural emendation, as they are not found elsewhere; see for instance 15,3 ] Ee lm S; 32 ! ,1 ]
Ee l m sHa.
That Ee and Ha are gemelli is proved by their separative errors.
First I will list some readings peculiar to Ee:
2l,5
7,8
22,7
293,18
31 ^6
48b2,4
53^4
]
]
]
om.
]
']
]
Another proof that Ha cannot derive from Ee is constituted by the

case of 322,9-10: here Ee omits -, which is present in
Ha; but Ha omits the word with Y, which shows that Ha did not
receive the phrase through contamination, but took it over directly
from its exemplar.
Ha has some forty characteristic readings, many of which are
clearly conjectures. First I will list some obvious errors:
2^3
122,6
18.5
20,3-4
36.6
462,10
]
om.
]
]
] (sic)
]
Here are some readings which result from conjectural emendation:

2',2
4,1
7,4
26,8
297,32
333,8
338,21
462,12
48a1,2-4
] : Ha
] YEe: Ha
om. YEe: Ha
] : Ha
] : Ha
] Ee (om. ):
Ha
] AC: Ha
] Ha
'- om. Ee: ' Ha
The fact that there are so many (often very intelligent) conjectures in
Ha also accounts for the places where YEe have an error against Ha.
Apart from the places just mentioned, this happens in some forty
cases; some instances:
2 1 ,3
15,8
314,17
36,5
512,12
habet Ha: YEe

(sic) habet Ha:
(sic) habet Ha: YEe
om. YEe: Ha
habet Ha:
Most of these cases can easily be explained as conjectures, but in

some cases it is hard to believe that Ha arrived at a reading ope ingenii,
as at 53 3 ,8 habet Ha: AC; but here the editor
may have been put on the right scent by the immediately following
quotation from Plato's Apology. At any rate, I have not noted systematic agreement between Ha and one or more MSS, so that I think it
unlikely that Haloander consulted other sources than (a MS related
to) . In two places a lacuna is indicated: 36,2-4 - om. (et
AC), ** in textu; 42,5 - om. (et ), * in textu.
For both omissions Haloander gives a temptative restoration in an
additional note on the very last page 14 .
In a few cases it is possible that Haloander translated Politian's
Latin back into Greek (Ha also contains this translation): 24 ! ,4 om.
Ha, non vertit Pol.; 29 7 ,33 post add. Ha: fias Pol.15 But
here the agreement may well be coincidental.
The second family: [Atheniensis 373] and

the lemmata in SiC [Vat. gr. 327]
has suffered gravely from moisture, and is in many places hard to
decipher or even quite illegible. I have studied in situ, noting that
in some places the original was even more difficult to read than the
microfilm I have consulted. Even so, it has been possible to establish
the reading of almost everywhere. In a number of places the initial
of the first word of a new chapter has not been rubricated.
Here are some readings which occur in alone:
14,15
4,7
7,4(bis).7
15,9
24^,4
252,7
312,10
]
]
]
]
]
om.
- om.
14
Haloander states that he noticed the omissions when he corrected the proofs
for the second time; they were caused librarij incuria. For the omission in ch. 36
Haloander suggests: (sive mavis, ) .
, :
. (sic enim legendum, non ). For the omission
in ch. 42 he proposes: , ,
, ' . As Schweighuser remarks (note
ad 36,4) Haloander's additions are based upon Politian's translation (which is also
printed in Haloander's edition).
15
The passage 295"7 does not belong to Politian's translation, but was incorporated into it from Perotti's translation by Beroaldus; see Oliver, Politian, ad loc.;
Boter, Translations 170.
33 1 ,!
33, 16
338,18
338,21
3314,42
39,4
39,6
49,3
53^2
] '
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
alterum] '
has undergone contamination, as appears from 4,3 SiC Nil : AC Vat: :

.
A number of readings peculiar to appear to be conjectures (see
for instance 33 8 ,21; 49,3; 53^2). Sometimes has a verb in another
tense than the rest of the tradition (e.g. 33 6 ,16; 33 14 ,42). I have not
noted errors which undoubtedly find their origin in the misreading
of uncial script.
At 36,1 has , which appears to be
based on Simp LIV 18-19.
Uu [Vat. Barb. gr. 4], which only contains 33 16 , appears to be
related to T. In this small fragment Uu has two variant readings which
are also found in T:
33 16 ,47
]
om. (et SiC Par)
33 16 ,49
From ch. 3 on 16 , the text of the supplemented lemmata in Simplicius'
commentary as they are found in SiC [Vat. gr. 327], for which see pp.
97-98, is related to ET, as is shown by the conjunctive errors of these
MSS; these are the following:
12s,9
15,4-5
16,5
18,5
19b,4
23,3
254,17
32],2
31a,13
322,6
32s,15
3316,49
16
] (et Stob.)
om. (nec legisse videtur Simp XXIII 8)

om. (et Stob.)
om. (et Par)
om.
] (et Nil Par)
] (et Par)
om.
om.
]
]
om. (et Par)
Instead of Ench 1-2 SiC has Par 1-4; see pp. 97-98.
34.6
34.7
34,7
35,4
36.2
39,4
45.3
45,3
] ( Tt Nil)
] (et Stob. Par) : Si C
] Stob. : Si C
] (et Tt)
] (et Tt Val)
] : SiC
] (et Vat)
] (et Nil Vat)
Both and SiC have many separative errors of their own. A number
of readings characteristic of have already been quoted above (see
pp. 51-52); in these cases is not accompanied by SiC.
The number of separative errors of SiC is enormous; there are
many voces nihili: some instances:
4,5
7,5
10.1
10,5-6
15.2
311,2
336,14
36,6
37,1
48b3,7
49,4
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
I conclude that SiC must be regarded as a gemellus of , and

therefore as a primary witness to the text of Ench.
In a number of cases the reading of ET and SiC appears to result
from conjectural emendation, for instance 32 3 ,17 ]
.
In SiC there are a few traces of contamination with Par\ I have
noted the following cases:
7,8
7,10
7,10
13.4
18.5
26,2
332,3
332,7
336,15-16
om.
]
]

]
.
om.
]
om.
- om.
Some of these agreements may be coincidental (e.g. 18,5; 33 2 ,7), but

others can only be explained as the result of contamination (e.g. 7,10;
13,4). Contamination also accounts for those places where SiC does
not share an error of the first family and T, for instance 7,8 SiC
Simp Nil Par Stob.\ AC Si Vat.
In some cases the reading of SiC may be the result of conjectural
emendation; see for instance:
4,7
6,4
18,2
19b2,3
338,21
3313,37
]
]
]
]
]
]
In many places Sz'C omits one or more words, leaving a blank of a

few letters; see for instance 20,4-5 ] [4];
28,3 om.; 33 13 ,36 om. From ch. 33 10 on, SiC omits considerable portions of text, leaving large blanks; there are the following
cases:
3310,26-31 - om.
3312,33-36 ]- om. (i.e. Sz'C does have the initial
(without spiritus) of the word )
40,2-6
]- om.
41,2-4
- om.
43.2-5
- om.
44,2.3-5
2 ^-, 3-5 - om.
461_2,3-13 - om.
47.3-5
-.
48b2,2-3
- om.
49.4-14
- om.
511_3,2-17 - om.
522,9-l 1 - om.
531_4,2-9
- om. (here there is no blank)
In the case of omissions of words indicated by a blank one naturally
thinks of the possibility that the exemplar was damaged and therefore
had become illegible. But for the larger omissions this explanation
will not do: it would be too much of a coincidence if in almost all
these cases the beginning lines of the chapters would have been
preserved, while the rest would have been destroyed. What seems
more likely to me is that in an ancestor of SiC the lemmata were cut
short intentionally 17 . That the omissions are not due to the source
17
This phenomenon is also noted in some of the derivatives of Sie\ see p. 104.
For cases as 33 12 ,33-36, where the lemma breaks off within a word, cf. [Par. gr.
2072] and F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023], where the same phenomenon is observed; see
for instance 4,1-3 -[] F; 51 1 ,l-2 -[] .
from which SiC took the additional portions of text of Ench appears
from the the omission at 33 12 ,33-36, where the omission starts with
]: the words are found in the lemma in
ABD. The blanks in SiC may result from the observation of the scribe
of SiC (or one of its ancestors) that the text of Ench was too short in
comparison to Simplicius' commentary; further, the abridged
lemmata may have been ended with a note as . That the length of
the blanks left in SiC was established conjecturally seems to be
suggested by the blank at 52 s ,9-11, where the scribe leaves more space
than necessary for the omitted text.
Hadot, Tradition 49-53, devotes a long section to Johannes Rhosos'
activity as a corrector; in SiC Rhosos makes a few corrections in the
text (esp. in the first chapter) and adds alternative versions of Ench l 5
and 2.
U [Parisinus gr. 2124]

U [Par. gr. 2124], which belongs to the early sixteenth century,
cannot be placed in the stemma of the MSS of Ench, because it primarily derives from SiC [Vat. gr. 327], for which see above (pp. 52-55),
and pp. 97-98; even so, I will discuss the MS in this chapter. Here are
some places where U agrees with SiC and its derivatives:
13,8
22,9
11,5
15,2
17,2
252,9
314,19
35,4
38,3
] (SC2)
]
om.
]
]
]
]
]
]
Of the derivatives of SiC, Sz'V [Perus, gr. 173] and SiX [Vat. Ross.
1023] can be discarded as the source of U, because of 7,6: U and SiC
have for , SiX has , while SiV only has (with its source Si
UPC [Lond. Add. 10064]). The situation at 1 3 ,12 makes it probable
that SiC itself (or otherwise SiT [Vat. Pal. gr. 276]) was the source of
U: U has in the text, while the first hand
adds in the margin , which is the
reading of Sz'CT1: at the bottom of the page SiC2 has
', omitting ; the
others follow SiC2.
In many places the first hand in U adds variant readings, sometimes with the formula ; these readings are either found in
SiC or in other sources.
U has undergone intensive contamination. In many places U
agrees with the AC-group; this is also true for those passages where
SiC, is absent (e.g. the greater part of ch. 49). A plausible candidate
for having been the source of U is [Laur. Red. 15]; see the following places:
25^2
44,1
49,13
5lU
]
] U B2m8 (RS SBZ)
] U (EFRS SiJV)
] U m SB (Smulti [et SSa])
would also account for a great many readings in U which occur in

other MSS of the AC-group as well; see for instance:
9,3
122,7
13.1
40.3
40,6
]
]
]
]
]
At I3,10-11 U's reading may stem from [Laur. 55,7]:

] U H m gO m s (Nil).
Some instances of agreement with other MSS:
11.2
15,21
293,12
293,18
3313,37
35.4
462,11
51 !,6
53 1 ,!
] USD
om. U SiX
] U
] U1 mg
om. U SSR
] U: Q l s l
] U
] : U
] AC: U SiWX
At 29 7 ,32 U 1 adds above (= ); this is in all

probability a conjecture, because U omits the first in 29 7 ,32 (with
many other MSS). The reading is also found in Ha [Haloander's editio princeps]; the conjecture may have been made by Haloander independently (Ha too omits the second ).
U has many characteristic readings of its own; some of these may
result from conjectural emendation. See for instance:
2 1 .3
4,5
4,8
11.4
] ( U lsl )
] U l m S
] Ulsl
]
28.1
337,16
33 ia ,40
49.2
51^2
5!,8
532,6
]
om.
]
]
om.
post ' add. U l s l
]
CHAPTER THREE
THE EDITIONS AFTER THE EDITIO PRINPS AND THE

MANUSCRIPTS RELATED TO THE EDITIONS
In this chapter I will discuss the editions published after Haloander's

editio pnnceps of 1529 (Ha; Oldfather nr. 249) for which see pp. 48-51.
Because of the enormous number of editions, I will not mention each
and every edition, but concentrate on the most important ones. The
importance can lie in the use made of the sources (MSS, earlier
editions, Christian adaptations etc.) or in the influence on later
editions. For the sixteenth-century editions, however, I have not
applied these principles too rigidly. It is obvious that my account
chiefly follows Schweighuser's discussion (pp. XIX-LXXXV), but in
many cases I have corrected or expanded Schweighuser's report. I
will also pay attention to the MSS related to the editions.
From Haloander to Wolf

The first Basel edition, published in 1531 by A. Cratander (Cr;
Oldfather nr. 250), copies the text of Haloander; see Schweighuser
XX-XXI. In Cr the preface by Haloander is omitted, in order to
conceal the dependence of Cr on Ha. Schweighuser states that the
text of Cr follows Ha so closely "ut nonnisi rarissime discrimen
aliquod, illudque in re minuta (...) intercedat". As an instance of a
lectio singulans in Cr, he notes that at 12 2 ,6 Cr reads for
. I have not deemed it necessary to collate Cr myself.
The edition by V. Trincavelli1 (Tr; Oldfather nr. 29) is primarily
based on Haloander's edition 2 , as appears from the fact that Tr
adopts many of the readings first found in Ha; thus Tr has Ha's conjectures quoted above (see p. 50), with the exception of 26,8 and
1
This edition also contains the Dissertations, of which it is the editio princeps. See
Schweighuser XXII-XXV1.
2
Schweighuser XXV wrongly believes that Ha and Tr have a common source.
48a1,2-4. There is a slight indication that Trincavelli consulted Cr: at

122,6 both Cr and Tr read for .
Although the dependence of Tr on Ha (whether or not via Cr)
can be regarded as certain, there are many places (about eighty)
where Tr departs from Ha; these must be explained by contamination of Tr from various sources. These sources can be identified as
SzSa [the editio princeps of Simplicius' commentary, 1528], one of the
three MSS [Laur. 31,37], [Par. gr. 3047], [Vat. gr. 1314] 3 , and
SiS [Ven. Marc. gr. 253] or its derivative SiR [Par. gr. 1959], In some
cases it is impossible to tell whether Tr borrowed a reading from
or SzSa, because it is found in both sources (&Sa has been contaminated with [Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11], a relative of ;
see pp. 25-30). First I will list some readings common to Tr and :
5a,5
22,6
243,17
29^4
292,5
293,12
34,1-2
48b2,6
52',3
]
] (et 5zSa)
om.
] (et .S'/Sa)
]
]
om. (et SSa)
]
]
In the following places there is agreement between Tr and SiSa:

19b2,6
533,8
]
' ] (et S?EFGHJ)
Although these are only two places, the reading at 53^,8 proves
beyond doubt that Trincavelli consulted SiSa; moreover, in many
places where Tr agrees with , the same reading is also found in
Si Sa (see above).
Finally, there are some places where Tr shares a reading with SzG
[Ven. Marc. gr. 261] and its derivative SiS [Ven. Marc. gr. 253], which
in its turn is the source of SiR [Par. gr. 1959]:
122,10
48b3,7
511,6-7
om. (et SiC)

] '
] ' Ha:
SiGRS:
, Tr
512,12
6 om.
53^5
om. Tr SiR (habent SiGS)
The case of 53^5 shows that Trincavelli probably consulted SzR.
3
ultimately derive from .
Tr has a number of errors of its own, many of which concern

orthography; some instances:
5a,4
14a1,3
21,3
292,6
314,17
338,19
34,9
48b3,7
51*,4
]
]
]
]
]
]
om.
] (et Ha): Tr
]
Another edition that depends on Ha was published by C. Neobarius

in Paris in 1540 (Ne; Oldfather nr. 284) 4 ; the dependence of N e on
Ha is shown by the fact that N e copies a number of the characteristic
readings of Ha, for instance Ha's conjectures at 2^2; 4,1; 7,4; 29 7 ,32
(quoted above, p. 50). That N e is descended from Ha, and not from
Tr, is proved by the fact that N e does not reproduce any of the
characteristic readings of Tr, and has some readings in common with
Ha against Tr, e.g. Ha's reading at 26,8. N e has been
contaminated from various sources, and in addition contains a
number of conjectures. In some cases N e has a double reading; see
for instance 7,4 ] Ha: Ne; 13,5
prius] Ha: Ne.
In the first place, N e seems to have used (a derivative of) H [Laur.
55,7] ; see for instance:
2 1 ,3
5a,5
6,5
24^,5
] Ne HPC
] Ne H m S (Nil)
] Ne Hsl (Nil)
'] Ne HPC
In the second place, SiSa. seems to have been consulted by the editor
of Ne; see for instance:
244,18
254,16
3lM
39,3
' , ] ' Ne S?Sa

(et 5 )
] Ne SiSa (et )
] Ne SiSa (et )
] Ne SSa (et )
4
Schweighuser XXVI, note *), declares that he has not been able to consult
the editions published in Paris in 1540 and 1552.
5
In the chapter on the MSS of Simplicius' commentary it is demonstrated that
S'Sa has been contaminated with [Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11]; see pp. 106-107.
In the third place, there are a few important cases of agreement with
SiG [Ven. Marc. gr. 261] and its derivatives:
255.18
255.19
] Ne SiG
] Ne SiG1'
Further, there are two cases of agreement with SiC [Vat. gr. 327] and
its derivatives:
332,4
52^3
] Ne SiC
om. Ne SiC
Some readings in Ne are found in more than one of these sources, so

that it is impossible to establish whence N e took them; see for
instance:
6,5
7,2
15,7
23.2
habent Ne SiCG: Ha
] Ne SiCGSa
'] Ne SiGSa
] Ne
SiCGSa
Ne has a number of characteristic readings. Some of these are simply

errors; see for instance:
21.3
24U
295,22
297,35-36
522.9
]
]
]
- om.
om.
Some other readings look like conjectures; these may be partly based
on Politian's translation; see for instance:
29^2-3
292.10
46^2
-] Ne: nunquam ipsam prompte aggrediaris Pol
] Ha: : 6 Ne (et Gg): vulne-
rari Pol
] : aliquid Pol
Ne is the source of no less than six MSS, all written by the same scribe
(Iakobos Episkopopoulos) and all very similar in execution 7 : Aa [Besanon 420], Bb [Par. gr. 2123], Cc [Par. Suppl. gr. 200], Dd [Par.
Dupuy 902], Nn [Edinburgh Univ. Lib. 3076] and Pp [Lond. Add.
11887]. These MSS follow Ne very closely, copying even such absurd
readings as 24 1 ,1 ] . The six MSS have a number of
conjunctive errors; see for instance:
6
7
This is a vox nihili, probably echoing .

All these MSS are gilt-edged, and measure about 160 x 110 mm.
4,9
14b2,2
26.3
339,23
35.4
45,2
] ' (sic)
] (sic)
om.
- om.
]
]
Each of the six MSS has separative errors against the others, while
there are no groups of two or more MSS with conjunctive errors; this
shows that the six MSS go back independently to a lost derivative of
Ne. For each MS I will quote a few characteristic readings.
Some readings from Aa:
23.1
24J,4
315,24
513
]
om.
.
] (nisi fallor)
Some readings from Bb:

2 2 ,9
17.2
31*,2
332,3-4
]
om.
om.
- om.
Some readings from Cc:

15,6
322.7
46 1 ,!
47,4
]
]
]
]
Some readings from Dd:

22,6
243,15
26,6
36,2
]
alterum om.
] '
om.
Some readings from Nn:

2 2 ,9
11,4
252.8
293,14
- om.
]
' ]
]
Some readings from :

10,4
18,6
243,18
462,13
] (sic)
' om.
]
]
The edition published in Paris in 1564 ("apud Andream Wechelum";

Oldfather nr. 125, We) is also based on N e . We follows N e very
closely, and adopts almost all the readings peculiar to Ne, even voces
1
nihili as 24 ,! ] . In a very few cases We corrects an error in
Ne, for instance 22,4 habet We: Ne; in the first of the three
epigrams quoted in Ne (Schenkl test. XL), Ne has , whereas
We reads .
There are three sixteenth-century MSS which have been contaminated to such a degree that it is impossible to assign them a welldefined place in the stemma: the first of these is G [Uppsal. gr. 25],
which is the source of V [Bern. 691], W [Laur. CS 163] and X [Par.
gr. 2122]; the other two are [Leid. Periz. gr. 5] and Xx [Vat. gr.
1862], which must have a lost common source. These MSS show
many points of contact with the editions, esp. Tr, which is the reason
to discuss them here.
First I will deal with ZXx (Xx contains only chs. 243-28, 30-314 and
47-49,5). That these two MSS derive from a common source, is
proved by their conjunctive errors:
25',4
252,6-7
252,9
253.12
48b3,9
] (et SiC)
om.
]
]
] (et B ac2 SiJ)
In a number of places ZXx agree with one or more of the editions;

some instances:
243.13
243,13
243,17
252,5
253,12
48b3,7
] (et Ha etc.)
om. (et Si Sa)
] (et SiSa ETr etc.)
om. (et Tr etc.)
om. (et Ha etc.)
] (et HaScm8)
Xx has four separative errors of its own:

244,21
26,4
30,8
30,10
]
om.
]
]
has one separative error against Xx, namely 31^5 ] ; this

shows that the MSS are gemelli. Some separative errors of outside
the passages where Xx is present:
12.4
122,8
19b2,6
512,10
om.
] ( Z2mS)
]
om.
Some cases of agreement between and editions:

14.13
512,13
] (et Ha etc.)
om. (et Tr etc.)
shows agreement with a number of other MSS: SiC [Vat. gr. 327]
and its derivatives, G [Uppsal. gr. 25] and its derivatives, and U [Par.
gr. 2124]; here are some instances:
14.14
14.15
post add. ( )
(et U SiC Par)
post add. (et U SiC
322,6
3313,37
41,3
49,9
] (et U TSC)
] (et U SiC)
om. (et G)
] : G
Par)
According to De Meyier, was owned by D. Heinsius. appears to

have been consulted by Salmasius: Relandus, in his 1711 edition,
published Salmasius' notes, which he found in a copy of the 1595
Geneva edition (Notae breves atque Emendationes CI. Salmasii in Manuale
Epicteti, pp. 33-48) 8 ; in a number of places the reading noted by
Salmasius is found in exclusively (sometimes in Z's gemellus Xx as
well). Some instances:
4,1
11.5
252,6-7
36,3-5
512,10
]
]
om. (et Xx)
-' om.
om.
The second MS to be discussed together with the editions is G. Here

are the places where G agrees with Ha (and later editions):
3,3
7,1
243,13
253,12
36,5
]
]
]
om.
]
In the following places G agrees with Tr against Ha:
Cf. Schweighuser LXV, with note **).
15,1
17.3
51^6
511,6-7
]
]
]
]
, (' Ha)
Besides, there are many places where GHaTr or GTr agree with
other MSS.
At 46^4 G agrees with SiSa ]
. In addition, there are quite a lot of
places where there is agreement between G SiSa and other possible
sources of contamination, such as Sib.
G shares many remarkable readings with Vat; some instances:
7,10
8,1-2
17.4
30,7
36,3
44.3
post add. .
, (et Par)
]
] ,
om.
]
om.
In many other places the reading of G Vat occurs in other MSS as

well (T, SiC, SiG). There are also a few cases of agreement with HPC
[Laur. 55,7] and its derivatives:
15,20
6,5
245,25
48b3,7
49,12
om.
]
]
]
alterum om.
G has a few separative readings of its own; some of these may well be
conjectures. Some instances:
12.4
15,22
122,5
39,2-4
462,9
]
]
]
- om.
om.
G is the source of the MSS V [Bern. 691], W [Laur. CS 163] and X

[Par. gr. 2122]. These MSS derive from G independently, because
they do not have conjunctive errors, while each of them has separative errors against the others. First I will quote some errors of V:
4,3
16,6
]
]
243,15
33*,1
45,3
]
]
]
Some errors of W:
2 2 ,7
28,2
3312,35
48b2,1
' alterum] '

om.
om.
]
Some errors of :
33^.31
]
34,10
]
36,5
]
36,5
]
I have not been able to consult the edition by H. Verlenius, published
in Louvain 1550 (Ve; Oldfather nr. 318); Oldfather states that the
text of Ench is a reprint of Haloander's text.
The Paris edition of Ench byjac. Tusanus, published by M. Juvenis,
appeared in 1552 (Tu; Oldfather nr. 316). The title runs
, multis in locis a Jacobo Tusano (...) castigatum; the formula
multis in locis castigatum recalls the qualification mille in locis castigatum
in the title of the 1540 Paris edition (Ne); Oldfather remarks that
multis "looks like a more modest expression". Indeed Tu is closely
related to Ne, but Oldfather and Zanta (apud Oldfather) are wrong
in assuming that Tu is a mere reprint of Ne (see Oldfather ad nr.
316). Tu takes over many readings peculiar to Ne; some instances:
5a,2
7,9
21.3
28.2
30.4
49.3
om.
]
]
]
6] 6
]
But Tu does not follow Ne everywhere. Some of the absurd misprints

in Ne are removed in Tu, cf.:
22.4
24J,1
habet Tu: Ne
habet Tu: Ne
There are also cases where Tu corrects a more substantial error or

variant reading in Ne; some instances:
32U
36,2
habet Tu: om. Ne

habet Tu: Ne
Moreover, Tu has a number of variant readings in the margin; some

of these appear to have been borrowed from SzSa; others can be
traced to HPC or one of its derivatives or P. Some instances:
3,3
4,5
15,6
36,1
-] - Tum8: - Sib
] TumS HPC (et eius apographa)
] TumR HslOslPsl Nil
]
TumS S
At 21,2, where Tu has for with the other early

editions, there is a marginal addition (sic)
(sic): is the reading of Nil.
Although I have not made a full collation of Tu, I did notice a
printing error at 29^3, where Tu has instead of .
The copy of Tu which is preserved in the Bibliothque Nationale
in Paris (which I have consulted on microfilm) contains many MS
notes and corrections. Remarkably, these notes are partly copied
from Ne. For instance, at 33 2 ,3 Ne has for
; the latter reading is found in Tu, but it was brought into
accordance with Ne's reading by the anonymous reader of the BN
copy of Tu.
The year 1554 saw the publication of two editions of Ench, the first
being the one by Th. Naogeorgus, published at Strassburg (Na;
Oldfather nr. 283). Schweighuser XXVI-XXVIII states that the
Greek text of Na is based on Ha, which is correct. Na also contains a
new Latin translation, and explanatory notes. With regard to the
places where Na departs from Ha, Schweighuser states that these
result from comparison with Politian's translation or from conjectural emendation. Schweighuser XXVIII, note *), mentions some
places where Naogeorgus prints a conjecture of his own invention.
I am quoting some instances, in order to give an impression of
Naogeorgus' methods of emending the text:
30,4
314,18
314,21
331S,37
3313,40
] Na
] (inter se discordare Politianus)
] Ha: Na
] Ha: Na (ex Politiani versione ut tibi fores non pateant,
secundum Schweighuser)
] Ha: Na
34.2
41.3
41,3
] Na
] Na
om., sed in versione vehi dat (= )9
At 34,8 Na agrees with Stobaeus: ] ' .

Na has quite a number of (printing) errors; some instances:
21,11
14a1,2
253,10
45.2
47.3
52^4
]
]
]
]
om. (fortasse consulto)
] Ha: Na
The second edition published in 1554 is the famous edition by J.

Schegk (Sc; Oldfather nr. 14) 10 . This edition contains Ench, a number of fragments and the Dissertations. It also contains Politian's translation of Ench, and Schegk's own Latin translation of the Dissertations.
The text of Sc mainly follows Tr (Trincavelli), but in a number of
places Sc corrects a printing error in Tr, for instance 25 2 ,9
habet Sc: Tr; 33 6 ,14 habet Sc Tr.
In the margin we find many variant readings borrowed from Ha.
Besides, there are a few marginal readings which are not found
before Sc, and which therefore must be considered as Schegk's
conjectures; some of these may be based on Politian's translation:
l 5 ,19
244,20
297,33
323,18
336,13
53',4
] (Politianus: disce considerare imaginationem esse

illam neque id omnino esse quod videtur)
cralterum]
] Scc (et HaTr): ScmS (versio Perotti in editionibus versionis Politiani inserta: haec invicem nequaquam
conveniunt)
6 ] Sc1 (et HaTr) : Scm8
] Sc1 (et HaTr): Sc111^
] (sic) Scm8
I have noted the following printing errors in Sc:

11,2
13,6
]
]
9
From the readings in ch. 41 it appears that Naogeorgus not only aimed at
emending the text where he judged it corrupt, but also at expurgating it in
passages where he thought his readers might be scandalized.
10
The Latinized name of this scholar is variously reported as Scheggius,
Schegkius or Schekius. See Oldfather nr. 14; Schweighuser XXVIII-XXIX.
2^5
512,12
]
]
Sc prints a number of fragments as a sequel to Ench ( ,

); these fragments are borrowed from Verlenius' 1550 edition. In both editions
the chapter numbers continue those of Ench.
In 1555 the Salamanca edition of Ench and the Dissertations was
published (SI; Oldfather nr. 10); the editorial work was done by J.
Ferandus. It used to be assumed that SI depends on Se11, but Oldfather nr. 10 expresses his doubts, remarking that the fragments in Sc
(borrowed from Ve [Verlenius]) are not found in SI. On the basis of
the comparison of SI with the earlier editions, I believe that Oldfather's doubts are justified: I think that SI depends on Tr. SI does
not adopt any of the numerous marginal readings in Sc; moreover, in
a few places SI agrees with Tr against Sc:
11,4
19b2,4
244,24
512,12
habet Sc: TrS1

habent TrSl: Sc (et Ha)
habet Sc (et Ha):
TrSl
habet Sc (et Ha): om. TrSl
In a number of places SI corrects an error in Tr. Although in many of

these places SI agrees with Sc against Tr, I do not think that this
pleads against the dependence of SI on Tr, because there are also a
number of places where SI corrects an error in Tr which recurs in Sc;
some instances of this latter group of readings:
39,2
50,1
534,9
habet SI: HaTrSc

] HaTrSc: SI
habet SI: HaTrSc
In at least one place Ferandus has consulted another edition: at 53^5

Tr and Se' omit the words ; the words are found in SI
(and in HaSc m g). At 31 3 ,15 SI omits with Ha against TrSc, but this
may well be coincidental.
SI has a few variant readings in the margin:
22,8
294,20
11
]
in textu: in margine (ex Diss.)
Schweighuser XXXI, note *), also states "Ex Basileensi hac altera editione
expressa est Salmanticensis, quae anno MDLV prodiit", but Schweighuser has not
seen this edition himself.
S35,! 1
462,10
]
]
Further, it should be noted that SI contains the three epigrams which

are also found in Ha and Ne (Schenkl test. XL, XLI, XXXVI), but
neither in Tr nor in Sc. In line I of the first epigram (Schenkl test.
XL) Ne has for , which is the reading of Ha and SI;
therefore it is probable that Ferandus used Ha as his secondary
source.
The last important sixteenth-century edition is the one by H. Wolf
(Wo; Oldfather nr. 35), which comprises Ench, Wolfs Latin translation of Simp and the Greek text of the Dissertations in three volumes.
The first volume, containing Ench, appeared in 156012.
The text of Ench is accompanied by Wolf s own Latin translation
and by critical and explanatory notes. In the note to ch. I Wolf
mentions his sources: the Latin translations by Politian and Naogeorgus, and five editions of the Greek text (SiSa, Ha, Tr, Sc, Na). In
contrast to the other editions (which have 62 chapters) Wolf divides
the text into 79 chapters: "Sumus autem ea distinctione capitum usi,
quae lectoris & meditationi & memoriae commodatura videbatur".
With regard to the Greek text Schweighuser XXXV states: "Et
Contextum quidem ad exemplum maxime editionis Ven. 2. [Tr] vel
Bas. 2. [Sc] (quas inter se eatenus non differre dictum est) exprimendum curavit". Wo reproduces two of the four errors peculiar to
Sc, namely 2 1 ^ ] and 51 2 ,12 ]
; this shows that Wolf primarily relied on Sc. Further, Wo
usually reproduces the marginal variant readings in Sc. At 2 2 ,9 Wo
has ' for with Na, whereas HaTrSc omit .
Apart from the places where Wolf adopts readings from other
editions than Sc, there are also places where Wolfs readings are not
found in one of the editions consulted by him; these readings either
translate Politian's or Naogeorgus' Latin back into Greek or are
conjectures made by Wolf himself. Some instances:
4,7
30,4
312,7
322,6
12
] Wo ( om. HaTrNaScWo)
] (sic), Wo ( Na)
habet WomS: HaTrNaScWo1 SiSa (vero Pol.)
om. Ha etc.: habet Wo
See Oldfather, Contributions and Supplement, nr. 35; Schweighuser XXXIXXXIV.
48b3,7
49,6
] ' HaNaScmS: TrSc'Wo1: ' Wo'"S

] WomS ( ScmS)
Wo contains a few (printing) errors:

14,17
243,17
28.3
38.4
513,17
]
'] '
]
]
]
The editions after Schegk and Wolf up to Schweighuser

The editions by Schegk and Wolf provided the standard for the
vulgate of Ench, until Schweighuser's editio maior (1798), which in its
turn was the basis for all the editions up to the present one. In a few
cases editors consulted one or more MSS, but as a rule they contented themselves with copying a previous edition, sometimes adding
readings from other editions or emending the text by conjectural
emendation. And it goes without saying that the process of corruption continued steadily.
Schweighuser XXXV-LXXXV gives a circumstantial discussion of
the editions between Wolf s edition and his own one. It is not my
intention to repeat this discussion, but I will give a concise summary,
here and there correcting Schweighuser's account.
The edition published in 1566 in Paris ("ex officina Thomae
Brumennij in Clauso Brunello, sub signo olivae") is not mentioned
by Schweighuser (Br; Oldfather nr. 126) 13 . At first sight it seems
to be based on Ne; this appears from the fact that both editions add
Mille in locis castigatum after the title '' ''.
For Ne this qualification is fully justified, but in Br it is only boasting.
Br reproduces the Vita Epicteti from Suda as Ne has it; further, the
headings of the three epigrams are exactly the same as those in Ne,
even with regard to the typography14. But here the similarity stops,
because Br copies the text of Sc, which it follows without taking
account of the marginal readings in Sc. Br copies three (slight)
separative errors of Sc (and Wo) against Tr: 1^2 ] '
13
A reprint of this edition appeared in 1567 (Oldfather nr. 127).

Thus in the heading of the third epigram the words ' TPI'TOY
are printed in upper case, whereas the rest ( , ,
) is cast in lower case.
14
(non ita Wo); 2^5 ] ; 51 2 ,12 ] 15 . That Br is based on Sc and not on Wo, appears from the
reading at 31 3 ,17 habet Wo: ScBr (etTr). Br
adds some printing errors of its own; some instances:
3,3
7,5
20.3
314,21
3313,39
] (8 etc.)
] ( Ha etc.)
]
]
]
In ch. VIII (pp. XXXV-XLI) Schweighuser discusses the "Editionis

Basileensis secundae sequaces" (Basileensis secunda = Sc). He starts
with the Plantin editions, the first of which was published in 1578 (PI;
Oldfather nr. 128). However, a closer inspection of Plantin's text
shows that it is not exclusively based on Se, but also draws on Wo.
The influence of Wo already appears from the chapter division: like
Wo, PI divides the text into 79 chapters; PI also reproduces Wolfs
Latin translation. Further, Schweighuser's statement (p. XXXVI,
note *)) "nec ullas alias, nisi quas editio Bas. 2. offerebat, lectiones
marginales habent editiones Plantinianae" proves to be false: at
48b 2 ,7, where ScWoPI have for in the text, Sc adds ' in the margin (with Ha), whereas Wo and PI have the variant
reading ; similarly, at 49,6 Sc adds in the margin (for
), against in the margins of Wo and PI. At 2 2 ,9 Sc omits
(with the other editions, except Ne), for which Wo and PI have '
(with Na); at 33 13 ,40 WoPl read , while Sc has . PI
corrects the printing errors which occur in either Sc or Wo alone, but
the two errors common to both editions (2^5 ] ;
51 2 ,12 ] ) recur in Pl.
In 1607 an edition "ex officina Plantiniana Raphelengii" was
published in Leiden (Ra; I have consulted the reprint of 1616;
Oldfather nrs. 136, 141, 142); the minute size of this edition and its
reprints suits the Encheidion in the most literal sense. The text is not
quite identical to that of the earlier Plantin editions. Some instances
of deviations of Ra from PI:
15.4
322,6
15
habet Ra (Wo) : PI (Sc)

habet Ra16 (Wo) : om. PI (Sc)
Sc's error 13,6 ] is corrected in Br.

Schweighuser XXXVIII, note *), remarks that this reading recurs for the
first time since Wo in the Maire editions; he states the same about 39,2 ]
ScPl. In both cases the reading of the Maire editions is already found in
Ra.
16
338,19
34,3
habet Ra (Wo): PI (Sc)

habet Ra (Wo) : PI (Sc)
Many places in Ra are marked by means of an asterisk or a crux, but

no variant readings are given. The reason for this practice is given in
a note to the "Benivolus Lector" on the last page [248] 17 .
Another series of editions, published byj. Maire, is initiated with the
1627 edition 18 (Ma; Oldfather nrs. 145 and 146). Schweighuser
XXXVIII-XXXIX notes that the text of the 1634 Maire edition (Ms;
Oldfather nr. 152; I have not seen this edition myself) is based on Ra;
the same goes for Ma. Hence, like PI and Ra, the Maire editions do
not follow Sc in all respects either. Like PI and Ra, Ma and Ms have
Wolf s chapter division into 79 chapters, and print Wolf s Latin
translation. The reading ' for at 2 2 ,9 (found in Na Wo and PI Ra)
recurs in Ma, while Sc omits the word altogether. Ma follows Ra in
the smallest details; thus the asterisks and cruces in Ra recur in Ma,
together with the note to the reader which explains their use.
Ms is not quite identical with Ma. For instance, the note explaining the use of the asterisks and cruces is absent from Ms. Instead, Ms
contains notes by Jo. D. Snecanus, which are largely based on Wolf s
edition, and contain a few conjectures; these notes recur in the later
Maire editions. Further, there are some new readings, which recur in
many later editions; see for instance 37,1 ] Ms19. The later Maire
editions (from 1646 on) have borrowed material from Heinsius'
1639/1640 edition; see below, pp. 76-77.
Other editions dependent on Sc, according to Schweighuser
XXXIX-XLI, are the 1589 Lyon edition (To, published by Tornaesius; Oldfather nr. 132), and the editions published in Geneva in
1595 and 1600 (Ge, by E. Vignon; Oldfather nrs. 15-21).
With regard to the edition by Tornaesius Schweighuser XXXIX
notes: "cum Plantiniana pleniore mire convenit Tornaesiana, quae &
contextum Enchiridii Sc Lectiones marginales sive ex eadem ilia
17
Asterisci passim in textu Graeco notati corruptelam aliquam vocis praecedentis
sequentisve, aut varietatem quandam lectionis dsignant: quod signo isto indicandum
singulis locis esse iudicavimus: sed voces ipsas variantes enumerare, aut meliorem lectionem
asscribere noluimus; ne nimia sua mole Enchiridii modum excederet istud volumen.
18
Schweighuser mentions the 1634 edition (Oldfather nr. 152) as the earliest
Maire edition.
19
Schweighuser XXXIX, . *), also mentions 33 l s ,36 ] , but in fact
this reading already occurs in Ra (at least in the 1616 edition).
Plantiniana, sive pari ter atque ilia ex ipsa Bas. 2. descriptas exhibet."
Because To usually agrees with PI in places where PI sides with Wo
against Sc, the first hypothesis must be correct. Moreover, both PI
and To have a Latin Vita Epicteti which is not found in Sc or Wo.
The Geneva editions follow the text of Sc very closely, according to
Schweighuser XLI. As an instance of disagreement between Sc and
Ge Schweighuser mentions 29 7 ,33, where Sc (and the other editions) read , while Ge has (Schweighuser plausibly suggests
that this correction results from comparison with Politian's translation 20 (which is printed in Ge) nequaquam conveniant). Further, Ge
has a new chapter division. I have not seen Ge myself.
In chapter IX of the introduction (pp. XLI-XLIV), Schweighuser
mentions three editions which derive from Wo, namely the Cologne
edition of 1595/1596 (Co; Oldfather nrs. 38 and 38a), the
Cambridge edition of 1655 (Ca; Oldfather nr. 40), and the London
edition of 1670 (Lo; Oldfather nr. 42). The Cologne edition follows
Wo faithfully; it has the same disposition as Wo (three volumes
bound in one), and about the same title. In Co, the variant readings,
which in Wo are found in the margin, are added in the text in square
brackets, placed before the word(s) in question; as Schweighuser
notes, this has led to much confusion in later editions 21 .
The Cambridge edition is a copy of Co, as the editor states himself
(see Schweighuser XLIII). But in a few places Ca introduces a better
reading; Schweighuser mentions 7,6 Ca: Co;
29 2 ,10 Co: Ca; both these readings are also found in
Heinsius' edition. Lo, finally, follows Ca so closely that Schweighuser
XLIV states that it "peraeque Cantabrigiensis altera potuisset nominari"; it has the Greek and Latin text of Simp from Heinsius' edition (Ca
omits Wolf s translation of Simp).
In chapter X (pp. XLIV-XLVIII) Schweighuser gives a circumstantial
account of D. Heinsius' edition of Simp, in which the lemmata of Ench
20
It has already been noted that Ench 295"7 is absent from Polidan's translation,
but was incorporated from Perotti's translation into the editio princeps of Politian's
translation (see p. 51, n. 15).
21
Schweighuser XLII, note **), mentions some instances, a.o. the beginning
of ch. 5a, which in Co is printed as follows: ,
, , [,
,] , - , [
. (sic) .] . ,
, .
differ substantially from those in SiSa, which is the primary source of

Heinsius' edition. A first edition appeared in 163922; in 1640 it was
reprinted with Salmasius' extensive notes (He; Oldfather nr. 812).
From the prefaces by Heinsius and Salmasius it appears that the two
scholars were not on very good terms, because Heinsius is accused of
plagiarism by Salmasius 23 . This charge is based on the prefaces by
Heinsius and the "typographus"; the latter claims that he has
obtained a codicem cum Nansiano Ms. collatum24; Salmasius maintains
that this is only a mystification on Heinsius' part, in order to conceal
that he adorned himself with borrowed plumes.
The text of the lemmata of Ench in H e is a conflation of SiSa and
Wo (or a derivative of Wo), with a number of readings borrowed
from other sources, and a number of unique readings. For the
influence of Wo see 30,4 ] , Wo: He. Some
readings are also found in N e [Paris 1540]: see for instance 16,3 ] NeHe:
SiSa: Ha etc.; 29 2 ,10
] NeHe (et Na): HaSc m sWo m g; 36,4 ]
NeHe. He has a number of readings not found elsewhere; some instances:
1 , 18
4,5
10,5
26,3
46',5
522,4
]
om.
]
]
om.
om.
There is no saying whether such readings are borrowed from another

source (i.e. the codex Nansianus) or represent Heinsius' conjectures;
some of them may just be errors.
He is the source of Kk [Cantabr. Ii.VI.41]. Kk agrees with He in all
the places just quoted for He. On the other hand, Kk does not share
the distinctive readings of Maire 1646 and its followers (see below,
pp. 76-77). Kk has some errors of its own; some instances:
22
The only copy of this edition known to Oldfather (nr. 811a) is preserved in
the Leiden University Library (location number 432 Gl).
23
For more information on the quarrel between Heinsius and Salmasius see
Schweighuser XLVII-XLVIII; Hadot, Simplicius 177.
24
Hadot, Simplicius 177, in her account of the affair, states that the typographus
claims "qu'il a pu se procurer un manuscrit qui avait t collationn avec celui de
Nansius"; however, in the 16th-18th centuries the word codex is used both for MSS
and for printed books; if a MS is meant, this is usually stated explicitly.
243,11
243,17
313,12-13
]
]
- om.
In some places Kk has been corrected; for instance at 29 3 ,18 Kk reads

with He, but adds a supralinear ; at 32^5 Kk has for
with He, but is deleted, and added in the margin. The
corrections are probably due to the first hand.
CI. Salmasius, in his preface to He, states that he had been working
on the text of Ench himself 25 ; this work was never published, but
traces of Salmasius' work can be seen in his notes in a copy of the
1595 Geneva edition; these notes are published in Relandus' 1711
edition (pp. 33-48). It has already been illustrated that in many cases
Salmasius' notes agree with [Leid. Per. gr. 5] (see p. 64).
Relandus, in his 1711 edition (pp. 120-125), gives a collation of the
so-called codex Gerdesianus, about which he states (p. 120, note): "Est
Joachimus Gerdesius, qui ex codice manuscripto alium sua manu
descripsit in usum Illustr. Viri Joachimi Gerstorpii, anno 1644. Extat
in Bibl. Meibomiana." Schweighuser LXXI-LXXII shows that this MS
is based on Wo and He (and possibly one or more other editions as
well), and does not have any independent value. He even concludes
"fucum facere voluisse scribam hujus codicis viro illi, cui eum vel
vendidisset vel dono obtulisset"26. The codex Gerdesianus contained a
number of readings not found elsewhere; some instances:
16,1
16.4
40.5
]
(= Simp XXIV 8-9)
alterum]
']
Schweighuser XLIX-LIV demonstrates minutely that He influenced

the 1646 Maire edition (Mh; Oldfather nr. 155), which in its turn was
the direct or indirect source of countless editions published in
Holland and Germany. I have not considered it necessary to check
Schweighuser's account 27 , because the derivatives of M h are not
25
Schweighuser LXIX, note *), argues that Salmasius did not plan a separate
edition of Ench, but intended to include his observations on Ench in the notes
accompanying Heinsius' edition of Simp. Salmasius states that for his work on Simp
he has consulted a codex Vossianus (i.e. a printed edition) with notes taken from a
MS, while for Ench he has used scripti codices, the number of which is not specified
by him; one of these MSS may have been [Leid. Per. gr. 5].
26
On Gerdesius and Gestorpius see also Histad 107-108.
27
As instances of readings that are found in Mh for the first time, Schweighuser quotes 29',3 ] ; 29 7 ,35 ] ; 31 4 ,22
interesting to the student of the text, with the exception of the

edition by M. Casaubon (London 1659; Oldfather nr. 241) and its
successors; the importance of these editions, however, lies not so
much in the field of the textual tradition and criticism of Ench, as in
the addition of Par, of which Casaubon is the editor princeps (see pp.
197, 234-236).
The two Bucharest MSS Ii [Bucharest gr. 645] and Jj [Bucharest
gr. 1030], which date from the late 18th or early 19th century, can be
traced ultimately to Mh. For instance, at 53 ! ,4-5 these MSS read
, , with Mh and its
derivatives. Iijj are related to Maire 1651 (Oldfather nr. 156) and its
congeners, such as Rotterdam 1654 (Oldfather nr. 161), witness the
omission of before at 2^5, which also occurs in Maire
1651, Rotterdam 1654 etc., but not in Mh; at 25 5 ,18 Iijj have for
the second with Maire 1651, Rotterdam 1654 etc. The two MSS
also have conjunctive errors which are not found elsewhere 28 ; some
instances:
243,17
48b3,7
49.10
53',5
]
]'
]
]
And each has separative errors against the other; some instances in Ii:
13.11
47,5
48b2,5
]
alterum om.
]
Some of the errors in Jj:

19b2,6
243,12
3310,24
]
]
]
Another late MS which derives from Mh is Oo [Kozani, 13], which

breaks off after 34,7 ; the dependence of this MS on Mh and its
derivatives appears from such readings as 29^3 ] ; 31 4 ,22
-] - . Oo does not derive
from Maire 1651 or one of its congeners, because it does have the
-] - .
28
Of course, these readings may derive from one of the later editions that I
have not inspected and that are not discussed by Schweighuser: it would be labour
wasted to investigate these numerous editions for such trifling matters. The same
goes for Oo, which is to be discussed below.
first at 2^5, and the second at 25 5 ,18 (see above, p. 77). Oo too
has numerous errors of its own; some instances:
lM
13,12
5b, 1
6,1
34,6
]
]
]
]
In ch. XV (pp. LXIII-LXXII) Schweighuser discusses the edition by

H. Relandus, published in Utrecht in 1711 (Oldfather nr. 287); this
edition is based on the work done by M. Meibom, who did not think
his own work worthy of publication 29 . Relandus added collations of
two MSS (codex Gerdesianus (for which see above, p. 76) and codex
Hafniensis (= NilH ) ), notes by Meibom and notes by Salmasius.
Schweighuser LXVI-LXVII shows that Meibom, when working on
the text, only had Salmasius' notes at his disposal, and constituted his
text principally on SiSa and SHe; there are no traces of his having
used the two MSS for the constitution of his text. Meibom divides the
text into 50 chapters, departing from the division of the earlier
editions.
J. Simpson is responsible for a series of editions published from 1739
onward (Oldfather nrs. 297-301). Oldfather nr. 297 states that the
text "is based upon the revision by Heinsius of Wolf s text". Simpson
himself however, in the note "Lectori S.", states that his text is
eclectic: "(...) non in unius cujuscunque editionis vestigiis institi".
With regard to the use of MSS Simpson makes the following puzzling
statement: "Quod ad Codices MSS. attinet, etsi plurima hujusmodi
subsidia mihi suppeditabant melioris notae editiones, non tarnen eos
consulere neglexi, quotiescunque mihi aliquid deesse videbatur,
quod aut Auctorum sensus aut vocum structura postulabat. Nihil
autem, nisi praeeunte auctore alio immutandum decrevi."
In 1741 the influential edition of the complete Epictetus by J. Upton
was published in London (Up; Oldfather nrs. 30-33). Schweighuser
LXXIII shows that for the text of Ench Upton worked on the London
edition of 1670 (see above, p. 74); in order to illustrate this Schweig-
29
For the scandalous life of Meibom and the vicissitudes of his work on
Epictetus' Encheidmon and Cebes' Tabula, see Histad's article (with the references
in note 1); cf. Schweighuser, I.e.
huser quotes 29 3 ,15, where Up omits (with London 1670, and its
source Ca). Upton used a copy of Tr that contained notes taken from
two MSS, a Vaticanus and a MS once owned by Giorgio Valla; he
received this copy from his friend J. Harris. I will quote some
remarkable readings from this codex:
16,1
36,3-5
47,3
post add.
-] ,
,

post ( Up) add. '
,
(= Simp LXV 9-10)
The same Harris sent Upton the notes he had taken from a copy of
SSa which once belonged to the library "collegii cujusdam Societ.
Jesu"; this book contained various readings taken from a MS30. This
MS was very closely related to [Leid. Per. gr. 5], as appears from
the following readings (in most cases the same reading occurs in
Salmasius' notes, which may also have been borrowed from (a
congener of) Z) :
15,22
4,7
512,10
52*,3
om.
] (et Salm.)
] (et Salm. U SiC )
om. (et Salm.)
] (et Salm. G [Uppsal. gr. 25] )
Other readings are not found elsewhere, for instance:

323,17
52^5
]
om.
Upton's Latin translation is based on Meibom's, but not identical

with it.
Upton divides Ench into 52 chapters, some of which are split up
into sections; Schweighuser LXXV, note *), calls this division percommodam; in fact, Schweighuser follows Upton in his chapter division,
with the only difference that Schweighuser's chs. 50 and 51 form
one chapter in Upton's edition.
Upton's edition is the source of the series of Foulis editions (and
the editions based on these editions) from 1747 on (Oldfather nrs.
192, 193, 198, 200, 203, 204, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 217); on
30
This collation is printed after Upton's notes to Ench, p. 284-287; Schweighuser prints the same notes in EPhMYV 170-174.
the title-page of the 1747 edition we read "Epicteti Enchiridion, ex

editione Joannis Uptoni". But on the title-page of the 1744 edition
(Oldfather nr. 191) any reference to Upton is absent (
(...), Omnia Graece 8c Latine); and an inspection of
the text of this edition shows that indeed it is not identical with
Upton's edition, but reproduces Meibom's Greek text and Latin
translation.
The next important editor is C.G. Heyne; his first edition appeared in
1756 (Oldfather nr. 253); a second revised and augmented edition
was published in 1776 (Oldfather nr. 254); the third edition followed
in the year 1783 (Oldfather nrs. 255-257). Heyne bases his edition on
Upton's text, accepting Upton's division into 52 chapters. But he uses
a number of other sources as well: the two Christian adaptations then
known (Parand Nil), the two Venetian editions (i.e., the editioprinceps
of Simp and Trincavelli's 1535 edition), the editions by Wolf, Naogeorgus and Heinsius, and the critical notes in the editions by
Relandus (based on Meibom's work) and Upton; in addition he uses
[Dresd. Da 55]. From this MS he also edits for the first time the
scholia on Ench. Schweighuser speaks about Heyne in terms of
profound admiration31.
The last series of editions before Schweighuser's is constituted by
the three editions by Lefebvre de Villebrune (published in 1782,
1783 and 1794-1795; Oldfather nrs. 275-278). Schweighuser's harsh
opinion on Villebrune right away becomes apparent in the opening
sentence of his discussion of Villebrune's editions (pp. LXXVHILXXXIV): "Postremus, quem noverim, qui singularem aliquam
operam in emendando Enchiridio vel posuerit vel videri voluerit
31
He calls Heyne "Goettingensis Scholae lumen" (p. LXXIV); on p. LXXV1
Schweighuser expresses his modesty towards Heyne (and future editors) in a
period which is too beautiful to pass over in silence: "Qua in disputatione, aut
etiam in animadversionibus ad ipsum Enchiridion si qua proposita sunt a viro
doctissimo, a quibus discedere debui, aut quae mihi pro largiori subsidiorum copia,
quibus usus sum, paulo exactius ad rei veritatem tradere licuit; nae impudens ego
sim, si luculentissimis viri meritis, qui viam ab ipso fere primo apertam, libellum
hunc certa quadam & constanti ratione critica tractandi, tanto tamque supra meam
laudem elato successu emensus est, quidquam idcirdo detractum velim; & stolidus
utique, ni cogitem, immo indignus qui ullam laudis partem feram, ni optem etiam
cupiamque, ut existant mox alii, qui, quae mihi (vereor ne multis partibus
frequentiora & graviora) errata aut parum adcurate prolata exciderint, ea ad
veritatem exacturi, quae me praeterierint, suppleturi sunt."
posuisse, VILLEBRUNIUS est." Like Heyne, Villebrune starts out from

Upton's edition; the editions by Simpson and Heyne are not
mentioned by him, although (according to Schweighuser LXXXI,
note *)) he borrows some material from Heyne. The first edition
only contains the Greek text of Ench, in the second edition the Greek
text is accompanied by a French translation, and there are critical
notes. The third edition is the same as regards Ench, although
Villebrune mentions two more MSS used by him; moreover Cebes'
Tabula is added. On pp. 205-208 Villebrune enumerates the sources
which he has used besides Upton's edition (I quote from the third
edition). These sources include six MSS, four of which were already
in Paris at the end of the 18th century (Par. gr. 2072 [E], Par. gr.
2122 [X], Par. gr. 2123 [Bb], Par. gr. 2124 [U]); two other MSS are
indicated rather vaguely: "7. Codex in Italia ante undecim annos
collatus, membranaceus et antiquissimi aevi, cujus, et sequentis 8,
mihi lectiones utendas reliquerat, tum juvenis, Berger Germ an us. (...)
8. Alter codex ab eodem collatus, non melioris notae". Villebrune
does not specify the library or even the city where these MSS were
preserved; as to the latter MS we do not know the country either32. In
the third edition Villebrune adds as nr. 10: "Bini codices Gronovii, et
ejus emendationes manu scriptae"; as Schweighuser LXXXII, note
*), remarks, the mentioning of Gronovius' MSS remains restricted to
the Index librorum, because they are never mentioned in the critical
notes of the third edition.
Villebrune is at his irresponsible worst in his note on Nilus (p.
207): "N. Nili Enchiridion. Plures fure hujus nominis, inter Graecos,
scriptores: sed Nilus hie videtur mihi fuisse Archimandritam (sic), et
Epictetum, pluribus in locis, ad scopum christianae relig. mutasse.
Verm, quantm licuit, voces sinceras autoris servavit, ut mihi collatis
lectionibus scriptorum aliorum visum est. Hunc, nomine ipsi non
notum, edidit, e vitioso codice, Londini 1659, apud Roycroft, Meric.
Casaub." So Villebrune confuses Nil and Par. Schweighuser LXXXIV
32
It is impossible to identify the two MSS just mentioned. For nr. 7 Villebrune
mainly quotes marginal readings, which may or may not have been added by a later
hand; at 29 2 ,6 it is reported to have for : is found in
the editions from Tr on, which makes it highly probable that 7 derives from one of
the editions; at 244,20-21 the margin of 7 has - - for - , a reading which is accepted by Villebrune, but is not found
anywhere else. Villebrune's 8 is reported to omit 1 3 ,11 ; the phrase
is also omitted in Sz'CT. At 3,3 Villebrune's 8 has - for -;
this reading is found in the editions from Maire 1646 on. Therefore this MS too
must have been a recentissimus.
refers to some passages in his own critical notes where Villebrune's

incompetence is demonstrated 33 .
Schweighuser's editio maior

Schweighuser's editio maior (published in 1798; Oldfather nr. 294) 34
marks an enormous progress on all previous editions; in fact, it can
be regarded as the only critical edition of Ench hitherto published.
Schweighuser follows Heyne's practice of taking account of the two
Christian adaptations then known 35 ; Simplicius' commentary is
constantly consulted by Schweighuser36; the same goes for Politian's
translation 37 ; he uses new collations of the four Paris MSS used by
Villebrune (made by his son Gottfried; cf. Schweighuser LXXXV),
33
See for instance Schweighuser note ad 29 7 ,36 : "Quod vero,
etiam in Ms. Paris. 2. id est, in nostro Pd. [Par. gr. 2122, my X] scribi,
Villebrunius narrat; rursus accidit huic editori quod supra (...) vidimus, ut oblitus
esset quod initio hujus capitis ipse nos docuerat, totum hoc Caput in eodem codice
desiderari." In note 31 (p. 80) I have quoted an instance of Schweighuser's
eloquence in praising others; his indignation on Villebrune's edition brings him to
an equally eloquent outburst of loedorology, which I feel I must quote in full (p.
LXXXIII): "Nunc Variae illae Lectiones, quas cum lectoribus communicare hie
Editor dignatus est, earn quidem speciem prae se ferunt, ut ad primum intuitum
diceres, & larg satis copi & probabili diligenti expromta omnia & adposita esse:
at, propius si inspexeris, mox vel modica adhibita adtentione intelliges, ita
jejunum, ita sterilem, ita mancum, nullo constanti consilio, nulla certa ratione
collectum, nullo ordine digestum esse ilium adparatum, ut ex omni copia, quam
paratam editor habebat, temere prorsus ac fortuito, quidquid primum in oculos
incurrisset, prae ceteris arripuisse videatur, idque ipsum haud raro ita obscure &
ambigu expressisse, ut, quid tandem sit quod dederit quisque ex illis libris, quos
testes invocavit, ne Oedipus quidem extricare valeat: denique (dicam enim quod
sentio) ut incertus sis, utrum de hujus editoris instituto pronuncies, ipsum-ne, quid
faceret, aut quae essent omnino editoris critici (qualem se gessit) partes, juxta cum
ignarissimis nescivisse; an ludibrio habere voluisse lectorem, quemadmodum facere
soient nonnulli praeter spem ingentibus opibus potiti, ut, cum videri volunt de suis
copiis impertire aliquid indigentibus, tunc maxime his eisdem, ossa quaedam aut
cassas nuces pro solido cibo objicientes, indigno modo insultent."
34
In EPhM III Schweighuser reproduces Upton's Greek text of Ench, cf.

Schweighuser, Ench IX-XI. Simultaneously with the editio maior two editiones minores
were published: one with the Greek text accompanied by Schweighuser's Latin
translation (Oldfather nr. 295), the other containing the Greek text with a
selection of variant readings (Oldfather nr. 296).
35
Critical editions of Nil and Par were to follow in EPhM vol. V, but
Schweighuser already uses his new text of these adaptations in his editio maior of
Ench.
36
Of Simplicius' commentary too Schweighuser produced a new critical text
in EPhM (vol. IV).
37
Politian's translation, too, is found in EPhM (vol. V, 145-172).
and adds collations of four other MSS besides (Bonon. 2359 [SH],
Par. gr. 1959 [SR], Par. gr. 1960 [SJ], as well as the lost codex
Argentoratensis [Arg.], which contained both Ench and Simp, SH,
now in Bologna, was in Paris at the end of the 18th century). Further,
he takes into account the excerpts in Stobaeus. He also minutely
reports the readings of many editions before his own.
Schweighuser (pp. LXXXVI-XCVIII) divides the MSS into two
groups: I. Codices Simpliciani, Enchiridii capita Commentants Simplicii inserta exhibentes, with a subdivision into MSS that contain the complete
text of Ench (SJ [Par. gr. 1960] and SR [Par. gr. 1959]) and MSS
containing incomplete lemmata of varying length (SE [Par. gr.
2072], S H [Bonon. 2359] and the lost MS Ax. [which is Schweighuser's siglum for the lemmata in the lost MS Arg.]), II. Codices
Enchiridion continuo tenore scriptum exhibentes, with a subdivision into
MSS that also contain Simp (E and the lost MS Arg.) and those that do
not (UXBb).
On pp. XCVIII-CVI Schweighuser discusses M/and Par, for which
he has consulted new MSS: for Nil he used Relandus' report of the
codex Hafniensis and his son's collation of Par. gr. 1220 (M*); for Par
he used Par. gr. 362 (PO), Par. gr. 858 (PN), Par. gr. 1053 (PP) and
Par. gr. 1302 (PQ), which were also collated by his son.
Finally, on pp. CVI-CVIII Schweighuser states that he has constantly used the Dissertations, Simplicius' commentary and Stobaeus'
quotations from Ench.
Schweighuser's critical notes are very extensive, with the undesired consequence that (in Schenkl's words) "scripturae codicum
abditae ac sepultae potius sunt quam propositae" (Schenkl, p. 3*).
Even so, these notes show Schweighuser's deep insight into every
aspect of Epictetus' text, and they are an inexhaustible source of
lucid and pertinent remarks. In fact, the very excellence of Schweighuser's edition has been one of the factors deterring later scholars
from embarking on the enterprise of a new critical edition, his text
being the basis of all the later editions 38 .
Schweighuser follows Upton's chapter division, only deviating
once, where he subdivides Upton's ch. 50 into two.
38
In one place, I have noted a serious error in Schweighuser's text of Ench: at

31^6 he prints instead of ; this error has persisted in
subsequent editions.
Critical work on the Encheiridion after Schweighuser's edition

As has just been stated, Schweighuser's text provided the basis for,
or rather constitutes, the textus vulgatus of the 19th and 20th
centuries. Scholarly attention has been devoted to individual passages
in Ench, but entirely new independent critical editions have not been
prepared in the last two centuries.
A. Koraes, in the seventh volume of his '
(Paris 1826; Oldfather nr. 12) gives an edition of Ench
(together with Cebes' Tabula and the Hymn of Cleanthes); his text of
Ench is based on Schweighuser's edition, but he adds a number of
conjectures of his own (which can be found in the Addenda et
Corrigenda in Schenkl's edition, pp. 731-732).
Ch. Thurot, in his Hachette editions of Ench (Paris 1874-1917; Oldfather nrs. 304-315), has a few critical notes (pp. XXXII-XXXVI).
H. Schenkl, in his Teubner edition of Epictetus (1894, 1916 2 ; Oldfather nrs. 22-25), contented himself with printing Schweighuser's
text of Ench39 (pp. 5*-38*), but he does give a new critical apparatus,
which is predictably based on Schweighuser's notes40; he quotes the
MSS according to the classification made by Schweighuser (see
above, p. 83), creating the anachronistic impression that this classification concerns the stemmatical relationship of the MSS rather
than the presentation of the text. Schenkl's use of the indirect
tradition is fuller than Schweighuser's, who in fact restricts himself
to quoting Stobaeus. A major advantage of Schenkl's edition is the
apparatus of parallel passages in the Dissertations, even if this report is
not quite complete (for instance, Schenkl does not note that Ench
26,7-8 is based on Diss. I 4,23). But the overall impression is that
Schenkl just did not feel like preparing a new edition of Ench,
39
Schenkl's text brims with printing errors, which are not always innocent (as,
for instance, 1 3 ,7 ] ): thus at 13,3 Schenkl omits before
; at 39,5 Schenkl omits before (but he reports ()
as the reading of Stobaeus, which shows that Schenkl himself is
responsible for the error). Further, in ch. 24 Schenkl's section numbers 3 and 5
should be placed one line higher: section 3 begins at in line 13, section 5 at
in line 30 (Schenkl's line numbers).
40
Here too, Schenkl is not free from errors; for instance, at 33 13 ,40
he reports that Simplicius must have read ; but
Schweighuser reports that the genitive forms in Simplicius' paraphrase are Wolf s
conjectures, and do not represent the transmitted text.
because it would involve the investigation of too many MSS41; his

edition of Ench shows too many traces of being a rush job, and does
not meet the high standards of his other work on the text of
Epictetus 4 2 . Unfortunately, the editions after Schenkl repeat
Schenkl's errors (with the exception of all too obvious printing
errors).
Oldfather, in his two-volume Loeb edition of Epictetus (1925-1928;
Oldfather nr. 13), follows Schenkl's text, although in some places he
departs from it43. In vol. II, 480, n. 2, Oldfather apologizes for the
absence of a critical edition of Ench with reference to the large
number of sources (as Schenkl had also done); he continues:
"Another [reason] is the very slight probability that any really notable
contributions to knowledge might result therefrom. As an intellectual
problem the preparation of a new edition of the Encheiridion presents
certain interesting features, but as a practical undertaking it is
outranked by a good many other possible investigations."44
Apart from a few published conjectures by Richards and Kronenberg our century has not seen much progress in the field of the
textual criticism of Epictetus' Encheiridion, although Oliver's notes in
his edition of Perotti's translation contain many valuable observations.
41
Cf. Schenkl's own remarks, p. 2*.

Errors in the preface to the Enchdridion: Schenkl states that the edition by
Haloander was published in Basel, whereas in reality it appeared in Nuremberg;
the three Paris MSS Par. gr. 2122, 2123, 2124 are indicated as Par. 2022, 2023, 2024.
Schenkl's negligence even extends to the Addenda et corrigenda (pp. 731-732). Thus
he reports that at 2^,2 Koraes conjectures o\> velcov for ; in
reality Koraes' proposal refers to the text of Par: Koraes suggests reading instead of in Par 3 4 ,7, referring to in Pari1,2.
43
For instance l 3 ,11-12 , ] ,
with Nil.
44
The same opinion has recently been expressed by Maltese XXVII: "(...) un
compito dawero poco seducente, che non promette all'editore risultati pari alia
fatica."
42
Stemma codicum et editionis principis

Simplicii commentarii in Epicteti Encheiridion
CHAPTER FOUR
SIMPLICIUS' COMMENTARY ON
EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRIDION
Catalogue of Manuscripts
The transmission of Simplicius' bulky commentary on Ench is described minutely by I. Hadot in her 1978 article (Hadot, Tradition
She lists (pp. 2 f.) 28 MSS containing the complete or almost
complete text; further, she mentions three MSS containing only the
introduction of the commentary, and three others containing fragments. Finally, there is the editio pnceps of 1528. Hadot gives full
codicological data of all the MSS in the Supplment codicologique (p. 89108), to which I refer the reader for detailed information. I will
confine myself to giving a summary list of the MSS that are relevant
for the text of Ench, mentioning date, place (if known), scribe (if
known), material, size, folio numbers, number of lines, siglum 2 ,
reference to catalogue; I take my information from Hadot. Following
Hadot, I have excluded Bruxellensis 2302 and Parisinus gr. 2073; the
first is a copy of Vaticanus Pal. gr. 276 and the editio pnncep$, the
second derives from the editio pnceps. I have also excluded the six
fragment MSS, because they do not contain material that is vital for
the text of Ench.
The stemmatic position of each MS is briefly indicated.
1. Bononiensis 2359 (olim 218)
23/2/1490, Crete; Antonios Damilas (subscription f. 119 r ); paper;
300 205 mm.; ff. I, 119; Simp ff. l r -119 r ; 29 lines; siglum H
1
See also the brief rsum in Hadot, Simplidus 163-180.

In Boter, Translations, I used sigla different from those adopted by Hadot; thus
I designated Vat. gr. 327 (Hadot's C) as SS, and Marcianus gr. 261 (Hadot's G) as
SB. I have come to regret this, and I have now decided to use Hadot's sigla, in
order to prevent confusion: I think it is better to turn half-way than to persevere in
error. Even so, I designate the editio princeps with the siglum S Sa, although Hadot
uses the siglum , because I always use such sigla for printed editions. I have also
invented my own sigla for reconstructed MSS (Greek minuscules).
3
See also Hadot, Addenda 390-392, where she corrects the statement in the
catalogue of the Brussels MSS that Brx. 2302 derives from Pal. gr. 276 exclusively.
2
(Schweighuser's Pi.). H once belonged to the monastery of San

Salvatore in Bologna. See Olivieri-Festa 408 (= Samberger I 21);
Hadot, Tradition 7-16, 102.
H goes back to , and thus ultimately to , which is a primary
witness to the text of Ench in the supplemented parts of the lemmata.
is probably the source of the editio princeps. See pp. 101-102, 104,
106-108.
2. Elorentinus Laurentianus 81,22

30/11/1513, Rome; Johannes Phroulas (subscription on f. 146r; cf.
Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 111-112, nr. 189); parchment; 225 150
mm.; ff. II, 146, I; Simp ff. 12v-145v; 22 lines; also contains Ench\
siglum N. See Bandini III 234-235; Hadot, Tradition 27-31, 33-35, 105.
is a gemellus of [Lond. Reg. 16.C.XIX], and thus derives from
Y [Neap. III.E.29]. See p. 110.
3. Londiniensis Add. 10064 (miscellaneus)
15/11/1469, Venice; Johannes Rhosos (subscription on f. 146 r );
paper; 280 196 mm.; ff. X, 168; Simp ff. l r -146 r ; 30 lines; siglum U.
See Additions 1, 8; Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 96.
U derives from C [Vat. gr. 327]. It is the source of V [Perus, gr.
173]. See p. 98.
4. Londiniensis Regius 16.C.XIX (olim Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 248)
first half of the 16th century; <Johannes Phroulas> (XVIII 45 - XXIX
44: Bernardinos Kremonaios); paper; 208 140 mm.; ff. VI, 127, II;
Simp ff. 3 r -127 r ; 24 lines; also contains Ench, siglum O. Cardinal
Reginald Pole was the first owner of O. See Warner-Gilson II 186;
Hadot, Tradition 27-31, 33-35, 105-106.
is a gemellus of [Flor. Laur. 81,22], and thus derives from Y
[Neap. III.E.29]. See p. 110.
5. Neapolitans III.E. 29 (Borb. 351)
16th century, before 1513; paper; 300 220 mm.; ff. Ill, 87, II; Simp
ff. 8V-85V; 30 lines; also contains Ench, siglum Y. See Cyrillus II 466;
Y is a gemellus of [Ven. Marc. gr. App. cl. XI 13]. It is the source
of the lost common ancestor of [Flor. Laur. 81,22] and [Lond.
Reg. 16.C.XIX]. See pp. 108 n. 14, 110.
6. Neapolitanus III.E.30 (Borb. 352)

16th century (after 1528); paper; octavo; ff. Ill, 223, III; Simp ff. l r 223' ; 20 lines; siglum Z. See Cyrillus II 466; Hadot, Tradition 64-66, 9495.
derives from [Vat. gr. 326]. See p. 96.
7. Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 247
16th century (after 1519); <Gentian Hervet> (IV 38 - V 53:
Bernardinos Kremonaios); paper; 227/229 159/161 mm.; ff. 131;
Simp ff. 12r-130r; 25 lines; also contains Ench; siglum Q. Cardinal
Reginald Pole was the first owner of Q. See Coxe, Coll. 89; Hadot,
Tradition 20-22, 25-27, 103.
Q is a gemellus of the lost common source of [Vat. Barb. gr. 76]
and M [Vind. phil. gr. 234], See pp. 108 n. 14, 110.
first quarter of the 16th century; Constantios (according to Omont);
paper; 320 220 mm.; ff. Ill, 298, II; Simp ff. 161r-297v; 29 lines; siglum R (Schweighuser's Pa.) \ this MS once belonged to Jean des Pins
(see Hadot, Tradition 45). See Omont II 171; Hadot, Tradition 35-45,
100.
R derives from S [Ven. Marc. gr. 253]. See p. 103.
9. Parisinus gr. 1960 (Med.-Reg. 2653)
27/8/1491, Crete; Antonios Damilas (subscription on f. 114r) and an
unidentified second scribe (see Hadot, Tradition 102); paper; 295
210 mm.; ff. IV, 114, II; Simpff. l r -114 r ; 30-31 lines; siglum J (Schweighuser's Pb.). J. Lascaris was the first owner of J. See Omont II 171;
Hadot, Tradition 7-12, 20, 102-103.
J derives from , and thus goes back indirectly to , which is a
primary witness to the text of Ench in the supplemented parts of the
lemmata. See pp. 101, 104, 108-109.
10. Parisinus gr. 2072 (Colb. 4348, Regius 3114) (miscellaneus)
first quarter of the 16th century; <Johannes Phroulas>; paper; 208
145 mm.; ff. II, 282; Simp ff. 15r-166r; 24 lines; also contains Ench ; siglum . once belonged to J. Aug. de Thou. See Omont II 187;
Hadot, Tradition 7-13, 16-20, 100-101.
is a gemellus of F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023], See pp. 104-105.
11. Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1023 (Coisl. 332)

first quarter of the 16th century; cjohannes Phroulas>; paper; 206
140 mm.; ff. VI, 192; Simp ff. 15r-186r; 24 lines; also contains Ench;
siglum F. F once belonged to the Bibliothque de Saint-Germain-desPrs, Congr. S. Mauri 1653 (note on f. 1). See Astruc-Concasty III
105; Hadot, Tradition 7-13, 16-20, 101-102.
F is a gemellus of [Par. gr. 2072]. See pp. 104-106.
first half of the 16th century; the same scribe as [Barb. gr. 76] and
M [Vind. phil. gr. 234] and three other scribes; paper; 211 158
mm.; ff. I, 216; Simp ff. 20r-216r; 20-22 lines; also contains Ench,
siglum 1.1 once belonged to the Institution de l'Oratoire in Paris. See
Molinier III 355; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 104.
I derives from M [Vind. phil. gr. 234]. See p. 110.
second half of the 15th century; <Georgios Tzangaropoulos> (see
Hadot, Tradition 62); paper; 278 195 mm.; ff. I, 132, I; Simp ff. l r 132r; 30 lines; siglum D. D once belonged to the Institution de
l'Oratoire in Paris. See Molinier III 355; Hadot, Tradition 61-62, 9899.
D is a gemellus of C [Vat. gr. 327], and thus a primary witness. See
pp. 94-97.
14. Perusinus gr. 173 (= C 56)
8/6/1471, Venice; Johannes Rhosos (subscription on f. 147r); paper;
290 204 mm.; ff. I, 148; Simp ff. l r -146 v ; 30 lines; siglum V. V once
belonged to Prosper Podianus. See Mioni, Bibl. Ital. II 301-302;
Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 96-97.
V derives from U [Lond. Add. 10064]. See pp. 98-99.
second half of the 12th century (first scribe), ca. 1250 (second
scribe); paper; ca. 202 135 mm. (the MS is heavily damaged, see
Hadot, Tradition 92 ff.); ff. I, 209; Simp ff. l r -209 r ; 19-24 lines; siglum
B. See MercatiFranchi de' Cavalieri 489-490; Hadot, Tradition 6367, 92-94; , Addenda 393-394.
goes back to a, and is accordingly a primary witness. See pp. 9497.

15th century (before 1468); <Georgios Tribizios>, additions and
corrections by Johannes Rhosos (see Hadot, Tradition 49); paper; 295
204 mm.; ff. 95; Simp ff. l'-93r; 32 lines; siglum C. See Mercati
Franchi de' Cavalieri 490; Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 95.
C is a gemellus of D [Par. Mazar. 4460], and thus a primary
witness. C is a primary witness to the text of Ench in the supplemented lemmata from 3,3 on; the text of these lemmata is related
to the text as found in ET [Athen. 373].
C is the source of [Vat. Pal. gr. 276], U [Lond. Add. 10064] and
W [Vat. Pal. gr. 100], See pp. 52-55, 97-100.
between A.D. 1317-1338; paper; 206/7 140 mm.; ff. II, 281; Simp ff.
75v-221r; 29-30 lines; siglum A. See Lilla 328-333; Hadot, Tradition 6364, 67-81, 89-92.
A is a primary witness; it is the sole representative of one of the two
branches of the tradition. See pp. 94-96.
first half of the 16th century; the same scribe as M [Vind. phil. gr.
234] and the first scribe of I [Par. Mazar. 4459]; paper; 211 151
mm.; ff. I, 233; Simp ff. 20r-219v; 20 lines; also contains Ench, siglum K.
On f. l r there is an owner's note: Juan Bautista geafron (?); Diomelo
D(on) fernando Aluia, De Castro en L(i)x(bo)a a. 1614. See Capocci
I 95-96; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 103-104.
is a gemellus of M; it is the source of I. See pp. 108 n. 14, 110.
19. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 100 (miscellaneus)
first half of the 16th century; paper; 203 136 mm.; <Konstantinos
Mesobotes> (see Hadot, Tradition 51); ff. 145; Simp ff. l r -124 r ; 25
lines; siglum W. See Stevenson, Pal. 49; Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 97.
W derives from C [Vat. gr. 327] ; it is the source of X [Vat. Ross.
1023], See pp. 99-100.
2 0 / 3 / 1 4 6 8 , Venice; Johannes Rhosos (subscription on f. 144 v );
paper; 291 213 mm.; ff. 144; Simp ff. l r -144 r ; 30 lines; siglum T. See
Stevenson, Pal. 152; Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 95-96.
derives from C [Vat. gr. 327]. See p. 98.
21. Vaticanus Rossianus 1023 (olim XI. 172) (miscellaneus)

first half of the 16th century; paper; 215 140 mm.; <Konstantinos
Mesobotes> for the greater part of the MS; ff. 231; Simp pp. 1-415; 23
lines; siglum X. See Gollob, Ross. 70-72 (nr. 22); Hadot, Tradition 4761,97-98.
X derives from W [Vat. Pal. gr. 100], See pp. 99-100.
22. Venetus Mardanus gr. 253 (coll. 621) (miscellaneus)
15th century (before 1472, possibly between October, 1468 and April,
1469; see Hadot, Tradition 43-45, 99-100); <Georgios Tzangaropoulos> (see Hadot, Tradition 100); parchment; 265 179 mm.; ff.
Ill, 285, II (+ 36bis, - 52-57); Simp ff. 121v-215v; 36 lines; siglum S; on
f. IIIV there is an ex libris by Bessarion. See Mioni, Ven. I 367-368;
Hadot, Tradition 35-45, 99-100.
S derives from G [Ven. Marc. gr. 261]; it is the source of R [Par.
gr. 1959], See p. 103.
23. Venetus Mardanus gr. 261 (coll. 725) (miscellaneus)
15th century (before 1468; see Hadot, Tradition 43-45, 99); <Bessarion> and <Demetrios Sgouropoulos> (see Hadot, Tradition 99); paper;
290 254 mm.; ff. IV, 284, III; Simp ff. 241'-283r; 38 lines; siglum G;
on f. IVv there is an ex libris by Bessarion. See Mioni, Ven. I 376-377;
G is a gemellus of , the source of a large number of MSS. Thus G
goes back to , which is a primary witness to the text of Ench in the
supplemented parts of the lemmata. G is the source of S [Ven. Marc,
gr. 253], See pp. 101-103.
24. Venetus Mardanus gr. App. Cl. XI 13 (coll. 1009; olim monast. ss.
lohannis et Pauli LXFV)
16th century (before 1517); Caesar <Strategos> (subscription on f.
192v); parchment; 310 210 mm.; ff. I, 193 (+ 124bis); Simp ff. l l l r 192v; 31 lines; this MS originally also contained Ench, cf. Hadot,
Tradition 106; siglum P. Marcus Musurus was the first owner of P. See
Mioni, Ven. App. III 95-96; Hadot, Tradition 27-35, 106.
is a gemellus of Y [Neap. III.E.29]. See pp. 108 n. 14, 110.
25. Vindobonensis phil. gr. 37 (miscellaneus)
first quarter of the 16th century; paper; 310 2 0 5 / 8 mm.; ff. I,
295; Simp ff. 172v-245v; 30 lines; also contains Ench; siglum L. L once
belonged to Joh. Sambucus. See Hunger I 162-163; Hadot, Tradition

27-35, 105.
L is a gemellus of the lost common source of Y [Neap. III.E.29]
and [Ven. Marc. gr. App. cl. XI 13]. See pp. 108 . 14, 110.
first half of the 16th century; the same scribe as [Barb. gr. 76] and
the first scribe of I [Par. Mazar. 4459]; paper; 210 150 mm.; ff. I,
227; Simp ff. 19r-226r; 22 lines; also contains Ench, siglum M. M once
belonged to Joh. Sambucus. See Hunger I 342-343; Hadot, Tradition
20-27, 104.
M is a gemellus of K; it is the source of I. See pp. 108 n. 14, 110.
27. editio princeps
1528, Venice; Johannes Antonius de Sabio and his brothers; siglum
Sa. See Hadot, Tradition 13-16.
Sa probably derives from H [Bonon. 2359]. See pp. 101, 104, 106107.
Lost manuscript
Argentoratensis Schweighuseri (see p. 16; cf. Hadot, Tradition 12,
108); paper; folio; ff. 1-90; destroyed by fire in 1870.
The text of the lemmata in Simplicius ' commentary

The description of the relationship of the MSS of Simplicius' commentary as given by Hadot is convincing, and I see no reason to
depart from her conclusions with regard to the stemma 4 . But to
complicate matters, the tradition of the lemmata in the MSS of
4
I principally disagree with Hadot on one point: she argues for the existence of
three extant or reconstructible representatives of her family ' (Tradition 7-35); yet
when drawing up the table of the primary MSS ("tmoins indpendants") she only
attributes a primary status to and F (the two representatives of the first sub-family
of ') and to (the only primary representative of the second sub-family), denying
a primary status to the MSS constituting the third sub-family; however, as most of
these MSS are not derived from extant MSS, they are "tmoins indpendants",
whether we like it or not. In her edition, Hadot assigns a primary status to J, of
which she gives a full report in the apparatus, but the readings of J's gemellus are
not noted. The discarding of these MSS hardly affects the constitution of the text,
though, and it significantly simplifies the critical apparatus. In my apparatus the
readings of these MSS are reported with the collective siglum (I [Par. Mazar.
4459], [Vat. Barb. gr. 76], L [Vind. Phil. gr. 37], [Ven. Marc. gr. App. cl. XI
13], Q [Oxon. Coll. Nov. 247], Y [Neap. gr. III.E.29]).
Simplicius' commentary does not run parallel to that of the text of

the commentary itself: in two cases (C and ) the original lemmata
have been supplemented from another source, and in even more
cases contamination has been at work. Therefore it has been
necessary for me to study the lemmata in all the extant MSS.
I will first give a description of the original lemmata, i.e. the
lemmata as they appear in the three primary MSS where there are no
additions: A [Vat. gr. 2231], [Vat. gr. 326] and D [Par. Mazar.
4460] 5 . Then I will discuss the text of the lemmata in C [Vat. gr. 327]
and its derivatives, and finally I will deal with the lemmata in and its
numerous progeny.
a. The original lemmata
As has already been stated above, the lemmata of the archetype can
be reconstructed from the lemmata as they stand in ABD; the text
covered in the lemmata is almost identical in these three MSS. Exact
indications of these lemmata can be found in the apparatus to the
text of Ench. (The original lemmata are printed in Hadot's edition of
Simplicius' commentary.)
As a rule the lemmata consist of coherent portions of text6. In
some cases one or two MSS break off in the middle of a phrase; see
for instance 10,1-2 '- BD; 49,1-3 - D. In a few cases D has
more text than the other two, for instance at 1 1 ,l-3 and l 2 ,4-6; this
may result from contamination.
The text of the lemmata, as was only to be expected, shows some
remarkable divergencies from the text as found in the other
witnesses. In a number of places peculiar readings in the lemmata are
also found in the text of Simplicius' commentary (cf. below, p. I l l ) ;
in the case of such readings we can be sure that they represent what
Simplicius read in his copy of Ench; I have noted the following cases:
14b2,2
24 1 ,!
5
om. (XXII 8)
om. (XXXII 18; et Nil)
The relationship of A towards the other MSS is not the same in the whole of
Simplicius' Commentary: see Hadot, Tradition 72-79; Simplicius 171.
6
The only exception is ch. 15, where ABD have -; the last
word belongs to the next sentence. But probably Simplicius took
with the preceding : AB have no punctuation mark between and
(I have not been able to consult D on this point). In C and HJ, in
which the original lemmata have been supplemented, there is a stop after
; in G, which goes back to the same source as HJ, there is a stop after
, but this stop may have been added after the text was copied.
28,1
36,1
462,10
] S: Simp (XXXVI 11)

]
(LIV 8.12-13-26-27.30-31; sed SB legit )
] (LXIV 49; et Par)
There is a remarkable state of affairs at 2 1 ,!. In the lemma the MSS

have (with Nil Vat), but in the commentary we read
(which is also found in Par, and is related to of the MSS
of Ench). This suggests the possibility that in some places the lemmata
have undergone contamination, but I admit that the evidence is
slight.
In a few cases we can see that scribes confronted the text of the
lemmata with the text of the commentary. At 16,2 A has
in the lemma and in the commentary (XXIV 9), while has
in both places. At 24 ] ,1 the lemma in has for
, while A has (both without ); in the
commentary (XXXII 18) only has , the others having
: here the scribe of (or one of his predecessors) must have
introduced into the text of the commentary because of its
occurrence in the lemma.
In other cases, the reading in the lemma cannot be checked in the
commentary, because Simplicius does not quote or paraphrase the
passage in which the variant reading occurs. In such cases it is
possible that the variant reading originated in the tradition of Simp,
and thus it does not necessarily represent the text consulted by
Simplicius. In some cases there is agreement with other branches of
the tradition, notably Par, but we can only guess at the causes of such
agreement (consultation of a common source, contamination of Simp
from Par or vice versa). Some instances:
12,4
15,18
7,1
7,1
30,1
49,1
om.
]
] (et Par)
] AB ( habent CDJ: cett.; habet
et Par)
om. (et Par)
om. (sed habet )
Generally speaking, the readings of the primary MSS in the lemmata

confirm Hadot's stemma for the text of the commentary. I will quote
a number of readings peculiar to each primary source.
separative errors of A
11,3
8,2
15,1
]
]
]
separative errors of a (= the source of BD and the other MSS)

13,6
15,18
5a,2
14a1,2
20.2
27,1
]
]
] (et Par)
om.
] (sed )
]
( om. )
separative errors of
14a1,1
31 ,
34,1
36,1-2
]
]
"]
- om.
Hadot, Tradition 64-66, shows that [Neap. III..30] is a direct copy

of B; in the lemmata too follows closely, and adds some separative errors of its own; see for instance:
12.3
18,1
33^.31
]
]
]
Hadot, Tradition 64, states that in Simp 1-25, where there is a lacuna
in B, Z's text is closely related to Sa [ed. princ. 1528] ; in the text of the
lemmata too there are indications of contact between Sa and Z:
3313,36
52U
52J,1
] (et , 5Sa)
om. (et SFHSa)
6om. (etSSa)
separative errors of (= the source of all the MSS except AB)

337,16
339,21
44,1
om.
]
] CDFHJ (non ita EG)
separative errors of (= the source of CD)

31 1
37,1
38,1
50,1
om.
] C : D
]
om.
separative errors oj'D

19b2,1
3313,36
38,2
]
]
]
In a number of cases contamination must have been at work in the

lemmata. This is especially the case in ; I have noted the following
instances:
32',2
3314,41
34,2
35,1
35,1
36,1
44,1
49.1
49.2
49.3
511,1
habet : AD
] (et Vat: vel
vel et AC SHlimJ)
habet : AD
habet : om. AD
habet : AD
] AD:

habet : om. AD
habet : om. AD
habet : om. AD
habet : ( D) AD
habet : AD
At 5a,2 has for with Par.

b. The lemmata in C [Vat. gr. 327] and its derivatives
In C the lemmata have been supplemented from two different
sources7, but the original lemmata (that is, the lemmata as found in
ABD) have not been supplanted. For the first two chapters of Ench C
has the text of Par, the source of the text of C in these chapters is to
be sought in the neighbourhood of PK [Vat. gr. 1142]; in fact it is
quite possible that PK itself was the source of C, because PK does not
have separative errors against C. In the following places C agrees with
PK alone (references are to Par) :
31,1-2
3J,2
7
]
]
Hadot, Tradition 50, n. 2, remarks: "Dans le Vat. gr. 327, le texte des chapitres
du Manuel qui sont intercals tait partiellement celui de ce que l'on appelle la
Paraphrase chrtienne (...) et partiellement celui du Manuel dit de Nil (...)". In Boter,
Translations 169, n. 30,1 denied the validity of this thesis by stating that C is "heavily
contaminated with the Anonymous Christian Paraphrase (...) and, to a lesser
degree, with the paraphrase attributed to Nilus". As will appear, this statement is
not quite correct: C has the text of Par in Ench 1-2, and shows signs of contamination with Par in some other places.
33,4
34,8
34,8
4 3 ,6
alterum]
] (PKsl)
] (Ksl)
]
In the opening lines of Ench 3 the text of .SC is a conflation of Par

and Ench; thus C has with Ench, but with Par.
From Ench 3,3 on ( ) C has the text of Ench. For
the supplemented lemmata in C I use the siglum SiC.
These supplemented lemmata have been borrowed from a MS
which is closely related to EI [Atheniensis 373]; thus SiC can be
regarded as a gemellus of T; accordingly, SiC is a primary witness to
the text of Ench\ see pp. 52-55.
The derivatives of C
Hadot, Tradition 47-61, discusses the relationship of C and its derivatives. Her conclusions are fully supported by my study of the text of
the lemmata, but in the lemmata in V [Perus, gr. 173] there are
unmistakable traces of contamination, as will be shown below.
[Vat. Pal. gr. 276] is the first of the three copies made by Rhosos
from C. follows C faithfully, and adds a very few errors of its own8:
15,6
30,10
332,5-6
339,22
]
]
prius- om.
]
U [Lond. Add. 10064] is Rhosos' second copy of C; like T, U has only

a very few errors of its own:
295,25
46^3
48b2,2
533,7
]
]
]
]
For Rhosos' corrections and additions in U see Hadot, Tradition 51 ff.

The text of the passages that are missing in C was probably borrowed
from a relative of A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164], as appears from 46 2 ,11,
where U has with EA against of EC.
V [Perus, gr. 173] is Rhosos' third copy of C. According to Hadot,
Tradition 55 f., V is a direct copy of U. In the lemmata, however, V
8
Rhosos was a commendably accurate scribe. In the de luxe copy of the
complete Plato, executed by Rhosos for Bessarion (Ven. Marc. gr. 184 (coll. 326)),
Rhosos adds a very restricted number of errors of his own: see Boter, Plato's
Republic, 146, 155.
shows countless traces of contamination against U, and therefore I

assume that Rhosos used U and a copy of Ench simultaneously. Some
instances of readings of V departing from U (and its relatives):
4,6
21.3
315.24
533,7
habet V:
CTUWX
habet V: CTUWX
habet V: CTUWX
habet V: U
V has a number of errors of its own, not found in any other extant
MS; it is not excluded that such readings already figured in the copy
of Ench consulted by Rhosos for V. Some instances:
12M
24 1 ,!
36.4
42,4
48b3,9
]
.
]
om.
]
W [Vat. Pal. gr. 100] and its direct copy X [Vat. Ross. 1023] were both
executed by Konstantinos Mesobotes, according to D. Harlfinger
apud Hadot, Tradition 51. Hadot, Tradition 57, shows that W is a direct
copy of C. W adds a number of errors of its own:
15,20
6,4
7,2
8,2
14b2,3
26.2
315.25
323,19
335,11
38.3
49,3
bis deinceps
] ( s.l.)
]
]
]
]
]
]
om.
'] '
]
In Boter, Translations 167-173, I have illustrated that Politian's translation is partly based on (a relative of) SiC. At p. 173, n. 42, I noted
that the omission of at 33 5 ,11 in SW is also found in
Politian's translation of Ench. I argued that this omission must be
coincidental, because Mesobotes' activities as a scribe started only
about 1508, while W is a direct copy of C; Politian made his translation in 1479. I did not venture to discard Harlfinger's very positive
statement that Mesobotes executed W, but I expressed my uneasiness
with regard to the omission of at 33 5 ,11. But I did not
mention that the other readings peculiar to W do not exclude the
possibility of the dependence of Politian's translation on W9 (see the

list above). Secondly, in chapters l 5 and 2 Politian always follows the
second version in C, which was added at the bottom of the page; W
has this alternative version in the text, omitting the original version
altogether 10 . Therefore my uneasiness has only grown since the time
I wrote my article: I now tend to think that Politian consulted (a
relative of) W rather than C, even if this means that I should be
compelled to disagree with Harlfinger, whose authority is of much
weight 1 1 . But let the student (and future editor?) of Politian's
translation decide for himself.
X, a direct copy of W (see Hadot, Tradition 58 f.), follows W
faithfully, and adds a number of errors of its own: some instances:
15,21
22,10
5b,1
11,5
14a1,4
26,5
312,8-9
34,2
42,1
om.
om.
]
' om.
' om.
]
]
]
]
Given the fact that W and X were copied by the same scribe, it is
remarkable that the number of errors in X is much larger than in W.
For another MS that primarily derives from C, namely E\J [Par. gr.
2124], see pp. 55-57.
c. : the common ancestor of the other MSS
The relationship of the MSS which go back to is discussed at length
by Hadot, Tradition 7-45 (her group ). In the lemmata I see no
reason to depart from Hadot's conclusions, but the situation is
complicated by the circumstance that the MSS vary as regards the
9
W's reading for at 8,2 could easily have been emended by
Politian with the help of Simplicius' commentary, where ch. 8 is quoted a number
of times (Politian has prosper eris).
10
W also leaves blanks at the large omissions, like its exemplar C. The small
blanks are often left out; for instance at 20,5, where C has [4] for , W reads .
11
As an alternative solution it could be suggested that W was copied by
Mesobotes before 1479 (the year Politian made his translation), but Harlfinger
excludes this possibility (Boter, Translations 173, n. 41). Hadot, Tradition 59,
tentatively suggests that Mesobotes executed W and X after 1484, the year when C
was certainly in Rome.
length of the lemmata: G [Ven. Marc. gr. 261] and J [Par. gr. 1960]
are the only MSS to have the complete text; H [Bonon. 2359] and Sa
[ed. princ. 1528] have the complete text up to ch. 24, from which
point H only gives the opening lines of the lemmata, while in many
cases Sa supplements the text from another source ( [Neap.
Girolamini C.F. 2.11]); the other MSS ( and ) only give the first
part of the lemmata throughout the commentary. That the text of
Ench in all these MSS must go back to is proved by the following
considerations:
1. there is a considerable number of agreements between GJHSa
in the passages that exceed the original lemmata (i.e. the lemmata as
they stand in ABD).
2. there are some cases of agreement between G and in the
original lemmata; see for instance 7,1 ] (non ita ); 11,1
habent: BCD; 30,1 GHJ: om. ABCDEF.
3. the contents of the lemmata in and sometimes goes beyond
the original lemmata.
As in C [Vat. gr. 327], the original lemmata have been supplemented rather than supplanted altogether, although in some cases
the text of the original lemmata has been corrected. Three MSS (G,
and Sa) have undergone more or less serious contamination. For
the supplemented lemmata in the descendants of I use the siglum
Sib.
I will now list a number of readings of ; I have not specified the
presence or absence of members of the group, i.e. , HSa and ;
variations within the group are only recorded for the major MSS, esp.
J
2 2 ,9
3,3
4,3
4,8
7,1
7,8
122,10
14b1,5
18,3
337,16
36,2
44.1
49.2
]
-] -
]
]
]
] (non ita J)
] , (et Vat)
]
' ]
] (et \ G'*mg)
] (G altera loco, priore loco
praebens; non ita J)
habet: om.
]
It is remarkable that most readings peculiar to are found in the

earlier chapters; this may partly result from the fact that and Sa
offer abridged lemmata from ch. 24 on; further we should realize
that J has undergone intensive contamination.
The supplemented lemmata in Sib (of which 5zGHJ are the most
important representatives) go back to the same source as EACb; thus
Sib is a primary witness to the text of Ench (see pp. 22-23).
I will first discuss G [Ven. Marc. gr. 261] and its derivatives S [Ven.
Marc. gr. 253] and R [Par. gr. 1959], then and its numerous
progeny.
G [Ven. Marc. gr. 261 ] and its derivatives
G has a number of readings which have separative value against the
other MSS; I will quote some instances:
1^2
3,4
22,4
242,10
243,17
25 i,4-5
27,2
333,9
35,2
41,1
48b3,8
om.
]
] ( G lm S)
om.
]
- om.
]
om.
om.
om.
]
Besides, G shows traces of intensive contamination with a number of

branches of the tradition; in addition, there are a number of readings
which look like conjectures 12 . First I will quote some instances of
contamination:
122.10
13,2
14a1,5
243.11
243,12-13
243,15
244,23
244,23
del. G1*?^ om. Par SiC

] G ^ v e l G 1 * ^ (et Par)
. (et Par)
] (et Simp)
-] '
' : cf. Simp XXXII
96-98
] (et Nil)
] (et )
om. (et )
12
An asterisk indicates that a reading has been added by Bessarion, after the
text was copied.
26,6
294,20
323.18
338.19
3313,37
3314.44
3315.45
36,1
36,4
] (et Vat)
codd. plerique: G:
Vat (
Upton e Diss.)
] (et AC Sib Vat) : G1*mS ET SiC
G1 *s1 ETSiC Simp : G ACWw SzJ
] , G1*5'
] (et Nil)
] G Nil
] G1*"^ Vat
] , G'*sl (et SiC Simp)
Conjectures are mainly found in ch. 25; some instances:

7,9
251.1
251.2
25^5
253,10
255,19
] G1*5' (an glossema?)

] G1 *s1
]
]
]
post add. G1*'1
S [Ven. Marc. gr. 253] follows GPC, and adds a number of separative
errors of its own; some instances:
13,7
7,6
19a1,1
23,1
24J,3-4
292
3l!,2
42,5
45,3
48b3,7
]
]
]
]
om.
om.
]
]
]
om.
R [Par. gr. 1959] follows S closely, and adds many separative errors of
its own; some instances:
13,9
4,3-4
9,4
122,9
14a1,3
242,9
292,8
312,7
3310,28
42,7-8
46^6
522,6
]
alterum- om.
]
]
]
']
]
om.
] GS, G1*slSlsl:
R
- om.
]
]
In Boter, Translations 160-166,1 have shown that the Latin translation

of Ench by Niccolo Perotti is based on SiG.
and its derivatives
In most of the derivatives of Simplicius' commentary is preceded by
Ench; the exceptions are [Bonon. 2359], Sa [ed. princ. 1528], J [Par.
gr. 1960] and [Ven. Marc. gr. App. Cl. XI 13] 13 ; therefore must
have had the text of Ench as well.
It has already been noted (see p. 101) that the length of the
lemmata in the derivatives of varies considerably.
[Par. gr. 2072] and F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023], the two derivatives
of (both written by Johannes Phroulas), do not present uniform
lemmata. Both MSS give abridged lemmata, except in short chapters
such as 5b, 33 4 . In both MSS the lemma can stop within a sentence
(e.g. 15,1-2 - ; 22,1-3 - F) or even within a word (e.g.
51',1-2 -[] ; 4,1-3 -[] F). The lemmata in
and F were probably added after the text of the commentary had
been copied: thus F does not have the text of 33 10 , and the first letter
of the commentary on this chapter has not been added, while as a
rule the first letters are rubricated.
(the possible source of [Bonon. 2359] and Sa [ed. princ.
1528] ) has the full text up to ch. 23; from ch. 24 on H only gives
lemmata of one or two lines, sometimes rounded off by the formula
. The first substantial omission in Sa is 25 5 ,19 -;
the lemma of 30 ends with the word followed by
; in ch. 41 lines 1-4 - are omitted, but there is a
large blank to indicate the omission; the phenomenon recurs a
number of times in the chapters after ch. 41. In the passages in Sa
where H is absent, Sa appears to draw on [Neap. Girolamini C.F.
2.11]; this will be illustrated below.
Of the two derivatives of , J and x, J preserves the full text of Ench
in the lemmata; therefore is likely to have had the full text as well,
and , the derivatives of , have abridged lemmata of almost
identical length; these lemmata probably represent the lemmata in ;
they often break off within a sentence, e.g. 19a1,1-2 -; 20,13 -; 46,1-2 -; on the other hand ch. 30 is
preserved entirely. The differences regarding the length of the
lemmata in the derivatives of and are negligible.
13
But originally contained Ench; cf. p. 92.
I will now list the readings peculiar to (the absence or presence

of MSS containing abridged lemmata is not specified):
5b,2
7,9
9,1
18,6
22.2
338,19
35,1
40,1
44.3
52 1 ,!
533,8
(non ita )
fid
] (non ita <]&\ ^ 1 8)
'] '
.
] (corr. J1; non ita Sax)
] (et SC B; non ita Sa)
]
] JE (ceteri desunt)
Oom. (non ita )
']
The number of places where the reading of can be reconstructed is

restricted for two reasons: in the first place and (and, from ch. 24
on, ) have abridged lemmata; in the second is rather heavily
contaminated.
I will first discuss , then , and finally d.
The two derivatives of , [Par. gr. 2072] and F [Par. Suppl. gr.
1023], do not have any conjunctive errors; this may partly be due to
the fact that both MSS have been contaminated. Given the fact that
both MSS were copied by the same scribe, it is most remarkable that
has hardly any separative errors (that is, readings not found
elsewhere), while there are quite a lot of these in F. An explanation
can be found in the observation that has a number of readings in
common with AC [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164 and Ambr. gr. 481 respectively], which probably results from comparison with the text of Ench
in the exemplar used for both Ench and Simp, in F, on the other
hand, there are only two such cases, both in ch. 5a. In this way
conjunctive errors in the lemmata of may have been corrected in E.
In F there are a few unmistakable traces of contamination with SC.
First I will quote some readings peculiar to E:
6,2
8,2
13,1
19b2,1
27.1
40.2
41,1
] (et E AC)
] (et AC)
] (et EC)
] (et )
om.
] (et EE (= the same MS))
]
Here are some distinctive readings of F:

5a,2
7,2
10.2
13.3
24^2
30.1
35.2
46 1 ,!
50,1
om. (et )
]
]
]
.
] (sic)
] (sic)
( et SCDH)
]
] (et SC : SD)
As has already been specified above, H [Bonon. 2359] and Sa [ed.

princ. 1528] have the complete text of Ench up to ch. 23; after this
chapter, there are no conjunctive errors of these two witnesses. Here
are some instances of readings peculiar to H and Sa:
1^3
13,8
2 ] ,2
4,10
10.2
12^2
14a',2
21.3
om.
]
]
]
]
]
prius om.
]
has only two slight errors against Sa: 2 2 ,7-8 bis

deinceps; 6,1 ] . These errors could easily
have been corrected by means of conjecture. On the other hand, Sa
has a lot of errors against H. Hadot, Tradition 14-16, hesitatingly
submits that in the commentary Sa derives from a copy of H; with
regard to the text of the lemmata, I do not see serious objections to
the hypothesis that Sa derives from H. Sa has a number of separative
errors against H (and the other MSS) ; some instances:
14,15
6,5
11,5
122,10
14a1,4
]
]
]
'] '
]
In the parts of the lemmata where is absent, Sa has drawn on a

relative of [Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11]; in chs. 32, 33, 40 (where
, is absent, except in 33 9 and 33 12 ) Sa must have used (a relative of)
EY [Neap. III.E.29] (which is the source o f N [Laur. gr. 81,22] and
, the ancestor of EEe [Karlsruhe K. 408] and H a [ed. princ. 1529]).
T h e r e a r e a l s o t r a c e s o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n w i t h ,
in t h e earlier c h a p -
t e r s ( w h e r e H is still p r e s e n t ) ; s o m e i n s t a n c e s :
244,16
254,16
26,8
291,!
323,15
334,11
336,13
339,23
3313,37
34,8
39.4-6
40,2
46^4
] ( e t )
] (et )
] (et )
] ( e t )
] ( e t Y )
] ( e t E e )
] ( e t )
] ( e t )
] ( e t Y )
] ( e t Eb)
- o m . (et )
i m ] ( e t E e )
]
( e t ) : Eb
T h e r e a d i n g s at 2 9 1 , ! a n d 4 6 ^ 4 s h o w t h a t t h e s o u r c e o f S a w a s c l o s e l y
r e l a t e d t o a r e l a t i v e o f .
T h a t S S a d i d n o t d r a w o n
i t s e l f , is
s h o w n b y t h e s e p a r a t i v e e r r o r s o f , w h i c h d o n o t r e c u r i n S S a :
292,4
293.13
293.14
293.15
462,4
] .SSa:
]
]
]
] S S a Eb: o m .
O n the o t h e r hand, SSa has two separative errors against

29^2
313,13
]
]
T h e s e two errors may have b e e n in the MS c o n s u l t e d for SSa; in that

case, this M S was a g e m e l l u s o f
F r o m c h . 4 1 o n w a r d S a l e a v e s b l a n k s i n t h e p a s s a g e s w h e r e
is
a b s e n t , t h u s e x h i b i t i n g t h e s a m e a m o u n t o f t e x t as H ; b u t S a o m i t s
48b2"3 ( w i t h o u t l e a v i n g a b l a n k ) , w h i l e d o e s h a v e this p a s s a g e .
T h e r e a d i n g s at 3 3 4 , 1 1 a n d 4 0 , 2 s e e m t o s u g g e s t t h a t S a u s e d
r e l a t i v e o f ) E e r a t h e r t h a n EN
for with N Y ,
against o f E e .
separative errors o f S a in t h e later chapters:

313,13
32^4
336,13
37,2
40.5-6
(a
o r Y, a l t h o u g h at 3 3 6 , 1 6 S a h a s
]
]
]
]
- om.
H e r e are
some
T h e r e is a s l i g h t i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p r i n t e r c o n s u l t e d a c o p y o f
w h i c h c o n t a i n e d variant readings, rather than consulting H
and
o t h e r M S S s i d e b y s i d e : a t 3 2 3 , 1 8 S a h a s f o r : t h e w o r d
clearly serves to i n t r o d u c e a variant reading, a n d d o e s n o t b e l o n g to
t h e variant r e a d i n g itself. T h i s w o u l d s u p p o r t H a d o t ' s v i e w that S a
d e r i v e s f r o m a c o p y o f H ( s e e a b o v e , p. 1 0 6 ) .
T h e r e are o n l y two p l a c e s w h e r e J [Par. gr. 1 9 6 0 ] a n d 1 4 , t h e two

derivatives of
h a v e a c o n j u n c t i v e e r r o r w h i c h is h a r d l y
found
elsewhere; these are 22,2 o m . (et ) a n d 4 9 , 2 ] .

On
t h e o t h e r h a n d i t is c l e a r t h a t
c o n t a m i n a t i o n w i t h ( a d e r i v a t i v e o f ) EAC.
is c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o
has
undergone
serious
It is p r o b a b l e t h a t t h i s M S
[Laur. Red. 15], w h i c h derives f r o m
EC
[ A m b r . gr. 4 8 1 ] : b o t h SJ a n d w e r e c o p i e d by A n t o n i o s D a m i l a s ;
b o t h M S S have a subscription w h i c h states that they w e r e e x e c u t e d in
C r e t e ; S J is d a t e d 2 7 / 8 / 1 4 9 1 . H e r e a r e t h e p l a c e s w h e r e
t r a c e s o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n w i t h ( m e m b e r s o f ) t h e EAC
shows
family:
] , J 1 s 1
] J l m S x ( e t E A C )
o m . J: J l s ^
] (et EAC)
n o m . (etEC)
]
S e C D :
o m . (et )
] ( e t E A C )
3,1
9,1
14a1,2
30,5
32U
40,1-2
48a1,2
533,6
T h e c a s e o f 4 8 a 1 , 2 is i l l u s t r a t i v e f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a n d
S . O n the o t h e r h a n d , there are also places w h e r e B agrees with S
MSS, w h i c h s h o w s that , t o o , h a s u n d e r g o n e c o n t a m i n a t i o n ; s e e
for instance
( d e e s t Sx).
34,2 ] E B
SACDFGHJ
I n t h e p a s s a g e s w h e r e is a b s e n t , t h e r e a r e m a n y p l a c e s
w h e r e t h e r e is a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n J a n d ; s o m e i n s t a n c e s :
7,4
13.5
16.6
255,19
] ( e t E A C )
prius] (et E C )
] ( e t E B D J )
] ( e t E C )
14
is t h e s o u r c e of a n d ; is t h e s o u r c e of L [Vind. Phil. gr. 37] a n d ,
which is t h e source of Y [Neap. III.E.29] a n d [Ven. Marc. gr. A p p . Cl. XI 13] ; is
t h e s o u r c e of Q [ O x o n . Coll. Nov. 247] a n d JI, which is t h e s o u r c e of K. [Vat. Barb,
gr. 76] a n d M [Vind. Phil. gr. 234],
292,7
292,12
322,6
35,4
40,2
462,11
48b3,7
] ( e t B )
o m . (et B )
] ( e t B )
] (et )
] ( s.l.) J:

'] (et EC)
] (et )
W h a t h a s h a p p e n e d , I t h i n k , is t h a t A n t o n i o s a d d e d r e a d i n g s f r o m
t h e e x e m p l a r o f in a n d vice versa; after this p h i l o l o g i c a l exercise, h e e x e c u t e d B
a n d 5J. In this way the a g r e e m e n t o f
( o r J,
w h e n is a b s e n t ) w i t h B , a n d t h e a g r e e m e n t o f E B w i t h S M S S c a n
b e s a t i s f a c t o r i l y e x p l a i n e d . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s is c o r r o b o r a t e d b y t h e
o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t all t h e d e r i v a t i v e s o f b e l o n g t o t h e e a r l y s i x t e e n t h
c e n t u r y , a n d a r e t h e r e f o r e l a t e r t h a n SJ ( a n d p r o b a b l y E B as w e l l ) .
J h a s o n l y very f e w separative errors:
13,9
I4,16
244.22
297,32
31',3
315.23
323,19
.
]
]
]
]
a l t e r u m ] ( e t )
]
J h a s t h e first c h a p t e r o f
First J h a s t h e c o m p l e t e
Ench t w i c e ; t h e s e v e r s i o n s a r e n o t i d e n t i c a l .
chapter before the commentary on
the
o p e n i n g of ch. 1 ( 1 3 ) ; t h e n the various sections o f ch. 1 are a d d e d

b e f o r e t h e s e c t i o n s o f t h e c o m m e n t a r y , t h u s 1 ^ 3 - 4 - at II 1, l 2
at III 1 a n d s o o n . T h e t e x t o f t h e s e c t i o n s a g r e e s w i t h t h e S t r a d i t i o n ,
b u t t h e first v e r s i o n ( t h e c o m p l e t e c h a p t e r ) d e r i v e s f r o m a M S o f t h e
EAC
family, probably the e x e m p l a r
of B
above); see
for
i n s t a n c e 1 ,21 ] (et EA.CT); 1 ,21 - o m .
(et
(see
5
AC).
H e r e a r e t h e d i s t i n c t i v e r e a d i n g s o f :
2M
2\l
14a1,2
15,1
20,1
241,1
30,7
339,21
38,2
45,1
46,1
] (et S C )
o m .
]
habet: o m . J
o m .
]
o m .
]
]
]
]
T h e r e a d i n g s o f t h e d e r i v a t i v e s o f all c o n f i r m H a d o t ' s s t e m m a , as I
will b r i e f l y i l l u s t r a t e .
T h e o n l y d i s t i n c t i v e r e a d i n g o f is 5 1 1 , 2 ] . T h e
o n e e r r o r o f L [ V i n d . P h i l . g r . 3 7 ] is 1 2 M
] b u t this
r e a d i n g is v e r y u n c e r t a i n , , t h e s o u r c e o f Y [ N e a p . I I I . E . 2 9 ] a n d
[ V e n . M a r c . gr. A p p . Cl. X I 1 3 ] h a s t w o s e p a r a t i v e errors:
26,2
] a n d 3 5 , 2 o t ] . H e r e a r e s o m e o f P ' s e r r o r s a g a i n s t
Y: 1 1 , 3 ] ( e t E A C ) ; 3 3 4 , 1 1 ] ; 4 0 , 1 o m .
(et
SC). has two characteristic readings: 30,9 ]
a n d 3 3 7 , 1 6 ] . , w h i c h derives f r o m
Y, h a s t w o e r r o r s : 6 , 1 ] ; 3 3 1 2 , 3 5 ] .
[ L a u r . gr. 8 1 , 2 2 ] a n d [ L o n d . R e g . 1 6 . C . X I X ] , t h e d e r i v a t i v e s o f ,
e a c h have two characteristic readings: has 16,1
and 20,2 ]
, while
exhibits
15,1
] a n d 24 ,]. ] .
is t h e s o u r c e o f Q
[ O x o n . C o l l . N o v . 2 4 7 ] a n d , w h i c h is t h e
c o m m o n a n c e s t o r o f [Vat. Barb. gr. 7 6 ] a n d M
[ V i n d . Phil. gr.
2 3 4 ] ; M , i n its t u r n , is t h e s o u r c e o f I [Par. M a z a r . 4 4 5 9 ] . h a s t h r e e
distinctive readings: 23,1 ] ; 3 3 , 3 2 ]
( Q s l ) ; 3 4 , 1 h a b e n t Q m g F M ' K 1 , Q l I m g M m g K m g . T h e last
two cases clearly s h o w that has b e e n c o n t a m i n a t e d . Q has f o u r peculiar readings: 8,2 Qsl: Q; 2 8 , 2 ] ;
43,2 ] ; 533,6 ] ;
again t h e r e are traces o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n , 1 5 , t h e s o u r c e o f a n d M,
has t h e f o l l o w i n g separative errors: 1 5 , 1 8
c e t t . S; 1 5 , 2 ] ; 3 3 , 1 7
MlKsl:
; 47,1 ] ; 53 ,6 ]
. In w e
find
two errors: 3 0 , 4 o m . ; 321,1 ]
. has the f o l l o w i n g peculiar readings: 5b, 1 ] ;

18,2 om.; 22,2 ] ; 32],1
] ; 4 2 , 1 ] a.c. ( i n c e r t u m ) . F i n a l l y , h e r e a r e t h e e r r o r s
of
I:
336,12 ]
; 33
14
; 3313,37
,41 ] ; 3314,42 om.; 48a1,2
] ; 5 2 1 , ! a l t e r u m ] ; 5 3 3 , 6 ] .
15
T h e text of Ench in IKM was written by the same scribe. For the scribes of
Simp in these MSS see Hadot, Tradition 26, 103-104.
SIMPLICIUS' COMMENTARY ON EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRIDION
111
The text of Simplicius' commentary

As was o n l y to b e e x p e c t e d , Simplicius o f t e n q u o t e s f r o m or refers to
the
text
o f Ench.
In
many cases the
text of these quotations
or
r e f e r e n c e s a g r e e s with t h e t e x t as t r a n s m i t t e d by o t h e r w i t n e s s e s . I n a
f e w i n s t a n c e s t h e r e is r e m a r k a b l e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e
and
the commentary
lemmata
(cf. a b o v e , pp. 94-95; t h e r e f e r e n c e s to
14b2,2
passages in the c o m m e n t a r y are i n d i c a t e d b e t w e e n brackets):
om.
(XXII
8);
24',1
om.
] (
11); 36,1
( L X I V 4 9 ; e t Par).
et
Nil)
28,1
XXXVI
(LIV 8.12-13.26-27.30-31); 4 6 2 , 1 0 ]
In s o m e
the primary MSS:
SimpAC
(sed
o t h e r c a s e s t h e r e is s o m e
16,2
(XXIV 9): S a et
SA
18;
in the c o m m e n t a r y ,
SB)
among
(XXXII
the
Simp a ;
( X X X I I 18): S B D
h a b e n t SA
confusion
et
24', 1 ]
SimpB;
36,1 see
above;
S i m p l i c i u s d o e s n o t always q u o t e literally, e v e n in t h o s e
places
5 1 h a b e t SB: S A D :
(= S a )
SimpA
Simp
(LXIX 6).
w h e r e a q u o t a t i o n is i n t r o d u c e d b y m e a n s o f t h e w o r d ( s c . 6
) ; s o m e instances:
Ench
7,7-8 6 ,
is q u o t e d a s
,

, , ,
, (XIII 4 7 - 5 0 ) .
Ench
1 5 , 1 - 2
b e c o m e s , ,

, , ,
(XXIII
14-16).
Ench
3 3 ' ,1-2 -
is r e n d e r e d
as
, ,
, ( ) ( X L 35).
S i m p l i c i u s o f t e n r e p l a c e s a w o r d by a s y n o n y m ; s e e for
12',3 ]
( X V I I I 5, 87; X X X I I
instance
8); 2 5 ' , 3 ]
(XXXIII 48).
16
H e r e S B o m i t s a f t e r ; H a d o t , in h e r a p p a r a t u s , o m i t s to r e p o r t t h a t
.S'B d o e s have a f t e r .
M a n y p a s s a g e s a r e q u o t e d m o r e t h a n o n c e by S i m p l i c i u s ; i n s u c h
cases there are often remarkable discrepancies between the different
versions; s o m e instances:
Ench 2 2 , 7 - 8 is
q u o t e d o r p a r a p h r a s e d five t i m e s by S i m p l i c i u s , in t h e
following
versions:
; (VII 6 0 - 6 1 ) ;
; (VII 7 0 - 7 1 ) ;
' , (VII 8 2 - 8 3 ) ;
(...) (...) ;
(VII 1 1 7 - 1 1 8 ) ; ( ) ( . . . ) (VIII 5 6 ) . I n t w o p l a c e s is a d d e d b e f o r e ; is r e n d e r e d
a s i n o n e p l a c e , a n d o m i t t e d i n a n o t h e r ; is
o n c e o m i t t e d , o n c e r e n d e r e d as a n d twice as
; a n d finally has o n c e b e c o m e , a n d
o n c e () .
Ench 3 2 3 , 1 4 - 1 5 is
referred
to twice by S i m p l i c i u s :
( I X 1 7 - 1 9 ) ; (...)
( X X X I X 7 7 - 7 8 ) . I n t h e
first
p a s s a g e h a s b e e n a d d e d , a n d is f o u n d i n s t e a d o f
; i n t h e s e c o n d p a s s a g e t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e is a d d e d
b e f o r e and .
In m a t t e r s o f detail, s u c h as t h e c o r r e c t f o r m o f a w o r d , S i m p l i c i u s
c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a reliable witness; two instances:
At
Ench 1 2 2 , 6 w e find t h e t y p i c a l l y E p i c t e t e a n d i m i n u t i v e s
a n d . S i m p l i c i u s refers to this passage t h r e e t i m e s (XVIII 495 0 . 9 0 . 9 3 ) ; f o r h e c o n s t a n t l y h a s ; is f o u n d a t

X V I I I 9 0 a n d 9 3 , b u t at X V I I I 5 0 w e r e a d .
At
3 3 6 , 1 5 the witnesses are divided b e t w e e n
;
possible
and
S i m p l i c i u s u s e s b o t h f o r m s , s o t h a t it is h a r d l y
to d e c i d e what h e
read
in his c o p y o f
Ench ( X L I I I
19
; XLIII 22 ) .
T h u s , b e c a u s e Simplicius p e r m i t s h i m s e l f c o n s i d e r a b l e liberty in
q u o t i n g f r o m Ench,
it is o f t e n h a z a r d o u s t o try t o e s t a b l i s h
what
e x a c t l y S i m p l i c i u s r e a d , w h i c h d o e s n o t m e a n t o say t h a t S i m p l i c i u s
can be ignored.
Hadot,
Simplicius
160, asks t h e q u e s t i o n : "L'tat d u t e x t e
du
Manuel q u ' u t i l i s a i t S i m p l i c i u s p o u r s o n c o m m e n t a i r e tait-il l u i a u s s i

meilleur q u e celui q u e n o u s p o u v o n s connatre aujourd'hui?" For the
r e a s o n s j u s t i n d i c a t e d a b o v e it is d i f f i c u l t t o a n s w e r t h i s q u e s t i o n . I
h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d s o m e e r r o r s in t h e l e m m a t a w h i c h r e c u r in t h e
commentary
(see above, pp. 94-95 a n d 111). I have also q u o t e d a
n u m b e r o f errors in t h e l e m m a t a , i n d i c a t i n g that s o m e o f t h e s e are

a l s o f o u n d i n Par, t h e r e a r e a l s o t w o r e m a r k a b l e c a s e s o f a g r e e m e n t
b e t w e e n t h e t e x t o f t h e c o m m e n t a r y a n d Par,
( X X X V I I I 4 7 ) , a n d 51 ' , 6 (ita
Para)
to wit 3 1 4 , 1 7 o m .
Simpel Par :
a n d ( L X I X 18).
In s o m e cases the text of the c o m m e n t a r y appears to betray an

error in Simplicius' text of
21,5
15,4-5
20,4
Ench, s e e f o r i n s t a n c e :
o m . (VII 1 7 )
n o n legit, u t v i d . (XXIII 8)
om. (XXIX 26)
A g a i n , w e c a n n o t e x c l u d e t h a t t h e o m i s s i o n is d u e t o S i m p l i c i u s ' w a y
o f q u o t i n g f r o m Ench.
A t 5 2 ' , 4 S i m p l i c i u s is t h e o n l y w i t n e s s t o p r e s e r v e
( L X X 16; t h i s r e a d i n g is a l s o f o u n d i n S G ' * s l , a n d t h u s r e p r e s e n t s a
conjecture
by
Bessarion,
probably
borrowed
from
Simplicius'
c o m m e n t a r y ) . At 512,13-14 Simplicius has

(LXIX 40), while the other witnesses have

( w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e d t h e b a s i s o f Par's
()
); see the discussion o f this passage o n pp. 143-145.
C H A P T E R FIVE
THE INDIRECT TRADITION
A d e t a i l e d survey o f t h e i n f l u e n c e e x e r t e d by E p i c t e t u s o n
later
a u t h o r s , b o t h p a g a n a n d C h r i s t i a n , is g i v e n b y S p a n n e u t 1 . H e r e I w i l l
give a brief account of the
testimonia o f Ench.
Stobaeus
As was only to b e e x p e c t e d , the only a u t h o r to furnish substantial
q u o t a t i o n s is S t o b a e u s , w h o h a s 2 1 p a s s a g e s f r o m Ench.
In
most
passages Stobaeus gives a text which deviates considerably from the

o t h e r witnesses. Stobaeus clearly q u o t e s f r o m a r e c e n s i o n of
Ench
q u i t e d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o n e t r a n s m i t t e d by t h e o t h e r s o u r c e s .
In s o m e cases the d i f f e r e n c e s are restricted to the c h o i c e o f synon y m s a n d s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s in t h e syntax. A s a n i n s t a n c e I will q u o t e
c h . 6 a s e d i t e d by m e , a n d i n S t o b a e u s ' r e c e n s i o n ; t h e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e
i n d i c a t e d by m e a n s o f b o l d type.
Encheiridion
.
,
' , '
( e x c o n i e c t u r a ) . ;
, '
,
.

RAC 616-678; DS 830-854.

Cf. Schenkl XLVII, w h e r e t h e f r a g m e n t s f r o m Ench in Stobaeus are classified
a m o n g t h e libros ab aliis scriptoribus composites aut retractatos, S c h e n k l LXXXIV,
s p e a k i n g a b o u t t h e passages f r o m t h e Dissertations q u o t e d by Stobaeus, remarks:
"(...) I o a n n e s Stobaeus, in cuius tarnen testimoniis a d h i b e n d i s s u m m a o p u s est
c a u t i o n e , c u m et cliversae eius operis partes diversa fata passa [sic] sint et ipse (sive
p o t i u s is ex q u o eclogas Epicteteas m u t u a t u s est) c o n s u l t o q u a e d a m in Arriani
verbis immutasse videatur."
2
Stobaeus
.
,
(om.) , '
, ; ,
,
.
In o t h e r cases S t o b a e u s ' version differs m o r e radically, for i n s t a n c e in
c h . 34:
Encheiridion
" ,
, ' , '

. , '
, '

. ,
, '

Stobaeus
" ,
, ,
.
' ,
'
.
,
, .
Probably the different recension of
Ench
w a s a l r e a d y in
Stobaeus'
s o u r c e , a n d is n o t d u e t o S t o b a e u s h i m s e l f : as f a r as w e c a n t e l l f r o m
o t h e r t e x t s q u o t e d b y S t o b a e u s (e.g. P l a t o ) , h i s q u o t a t i o n s a r e f a i t h f u l
to t h e original. As a rule t h e d e v i a t i o n s a p p e a r to b e
intentional,
a i m i n g at s i m p l i f y i n g t h e l e x e m e s or t h e syntax, or g i v i n g a n a b r i d g e d
version. T h e r e f o r e I d o n o t think that Stobaeus' version has priority

over the u n a n i m o u s c o n s e n t of the other witnesses. But of course
S t o b a e u s ' r e a d i n g s s h o u l d always b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t .
I n a f e w p a s s a g e s S t o b a e u s ' r e c e n s i o n is a l s o f o u n d i n q u o t a t i o n s
by A p o s t o l i u s
(ch.
C o n f e s s o r ] in ch. 33
6),
15
"
16
and
in
the
gnomologia
(e.g.
[Maximus
).
The Fathers
Direct reminiscences of
Ench i n t h e F a t h e r s a r e f e w a n d f a r b e t w e e n .
W e Find r e f e r e n c e s i n A m b r o s e ( c h . 5 a ) , B a s i l ( c h s . 8 a n d 1 1 ) , J o h n
Chrysostom (ch. 339), C l e m e n t of Alexandria (ch. 39), D o r o t h e u s o f
G a z a (ch. 8 ) , P r o c o p i u s o f G a z a (chs. 8 a n d 17) a n d S y n e s i u s (ch. 17).
T h e t e x t u a l i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s is v e r y r e s t r i c t e d , w i t h
t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e t h r e e q u o t a t i o n s o f c h . 8 in Basil, D o r o t h e u s a n d
Procopius.
The gnomologia
The
g n o m o l o g i a o f t e n q u o t e f r o m or refer to Epictetus'
i n c l u d i n g Ench.
works,
A special difficulty in s t u d y i n g t h e r e f e r e n c e s in t h e
g n o m o l o g i a is c o n s t i t u t e d b y t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t m a n y o f t h e s e
w o r k s have n o t yet b e e n d i s c l o s e d satisfactorily; in a d d i t i o n ,
much
work r e m a i n s to b e d o n e o n their m u t u a l relationship.

I h a v e f o u n d r e f e r e n c e s t o Ench i n t h e Florilegium "
(ch. 8), the Gnomologium Byzantinum ' ( c h s . 2 1 , 4 7 , 4 8 b ) , t h e g n o m o l o g i u m attrib u t e d t o J o h a n n e s G e o r g i d e s ( c h . 2 1 ) , t h e a n o n y m o u s
Florilegium Maranum ( c h . 8 ) , t h e
Loci communes b y [ M a x i m u s C o n f e s s o r ] ( c h s . 8 , 1 2 1 , 3 3 4 , 3 3 f i , 3 3 1 5 ,
3 9 ) , t h e Loa communes b y A n t o n i u s M e l i s s a ( c h s . 8 , 1 2 ' , 2 1 , 2 9 ' , 3 9 ) ,
t h e ( c h . 5 b ) a n d t h e Excerpla Vindobonensia, e d i t e d
e d i t e d by B o i s s o n a d e (ch. 8 ) , t h e
by M e i n e k e ( c h . 5b, 4 8 b ) . Further, t h e p a r o e m i o g r a p h e r A p o s t o l i u s
q u o t e s c h . 6. It a p p e a r s t h a t t h e a p h o r i s t i c c h a p t e r 8 e n j o y e d a g r e a t
popularity.
The Neoplatonists
P l o t i n u s h i m s e l f o n l y h a s o n e v a g u e r e f e r e n c e to c h . 17, w h i c h
need
n o t g o back to E p i c t e t u s h i m s e l f . In the c o m m e n t a r i e s by H i e r o c l e s
a n d P r o c l u s , a n d m o r e p r o m i n e n t l y in t h o s e by O l y m p i o d o r u s ,
we
e n c o u n t e r a n u m b e r of references. But of course the most important

N e o p l a t o n i s t t e x t f o r u s is S i m p l i c i u s ' c o m m e n t a r y o n Ench, f o r w h i c h
see pp. 87-113.
Later Byzantine authors

The
a t t r i b u t e d to [ A n t o n i u s M a g n u s ] , c o n t a i n m a n y i m i t a t i o n s o f pass a g e s f r o m Ench. J o h a n n e s E u g e n i c u s , t o o , b o r r o w s a l o t o f p h r a s e s .
Further, there are s o m e scattered r e m i n i s c e n c e s in the scholia
Dio Chrysostom
(ch. 5a) a n d o n L u c i a n (ch. I 1 ) , in
on
Cecaumenos'
Strategicon (ch. 3), and in Plethon's De virtutilms.

The Ara Inc. tradition
A final w o r d s h o u l d b e s a i d o n t h e A r a b i c t r a d i t i o n . F. J a d a a n e , i n h i s
m o n o g r a p h o n the i n f l u e n c e of Stoicism o n Islamic
states that
philosophers,
Ench w a s o n e o f t h e m a j o r s o u r c e s f o r t h e k n o w l e d g e o f
t h e m o r a l a s p e c t s of S t o i c i s m i n t h e I s l a m i c w o r l d ( J a d a a n e 5 3 ) .
Ibn-Ftik attributes
inspired by
to Z e n o
a passage which
is
unmistakably
Ench 11 ( J a d a a n e 6 4 - 6 5 ) .
J a d a a n e 8 8 , s p e a k i n g a b o u t t h e s c h o o l o f a-Kind, states: " N o t o n s

s e u l e m e n t q u e c e t t e i n f l u e n c e s e n s i b l e d ' E p i c t t e f o u r n i t la p r e u v e
Manuel a t d i f f u s d a n s l e m o n d e a r a b e . " A l - K i n d h a s d i r e c t
r e f e r e n c e s t o Ench 5 a , 7, 8 , 1 1 . H i s w o r k s d e e p l y i n f l u e n c e d l a t e r
q u e le
A r a b i c a u t h o r s as Miskawayh, R h a z s a n d A v i c e n n a , w h o b o r r o w e d at
least s o m e of their Epictetean
material f r o m al-Kindi. For
other
p a s s a g e s , s u c h as t h e r e f e r e n c e to c h . 6, M i s k a w a y h d o e s n o t d e p e n d
o n al-Kindi (Jadaane 90-91; 2 2 3 ) .
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE TEXT OF

EPICTETUS'
ENCHEIRIDION
T h e s o u r c e s w e h a v e at o u r d i s p o s a l f o r t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e t e x t o f
Ench a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g :
t h e M S S o f Ench (E) a n d t h e s u p p l e m e n t e d l e m m a t a i n t h e M S S C
and of Simplicius' c o m m e n t a r y
-
(Si)
the original l e m m a t a in Simplicius' c o m m e n t a r y ,

SA B D
in
(S)
(Simp)
t h e s o u r c e p a s s a g e s i n t h e Diatribes (Diss)
the indirect tradition
t h e t h r e e C h r i s t i a n a d a p t a t i o n s (Nil,
as f o u n d
the text of Simplicius' c o m m e n t a r y
T h e direct tradition of
Par,
Vat)
Ench n e a t l y f a l l s i n t o t w o f a m i l i e s , A C T t
a n d T . E a c h o f t h e s e t w o f a m i l i e s is j o i n e d b y s u p p l e m e n t e d l e m m a t a
i n t h e M S S o f S i m p l i c i u s ' c o m m e n t a r y : t h e t e x t o f Sib
A C T t , w h i l e t h e t e x t o f SiC
sides with
( f r o m c h . 3 o n ) is r e l a t e d t o T . I n t h e
case of c o n t a m i n a t i o n has b e e n proved with certainty b e c a u s e of

the double reading of
A C
a t 4 , 3 : SiC Nil
Vat: S i :
(cf. . 5 2 ) . S u c h g l a r i n g i n s t a n c e s o f c o n -
t a m i n a t i o n a r e n o t f o u n d i n A C T t S z , b u t it is a n t e c e d e n t l y i m p r o b able that this b r a n c h o f the tradition s h o u l d have r e m a i n e d free f r o m

contamination.
H o w e v e r , further than a stemmatical analysis of the MSS of
Ench
w e c a n n o t g o . As a p p e a r s f r o m a survey o f t h e critical a p p a r a t u s o f
Ench,
the other primary witnesses d o n o t consistently side with either
of the two families of the MSS of
Ench, a n d a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s , t h e
indirect primary witnesses (esp. the Christian adaptations) c a n n o t b e

consistently classified either. I have spent countless hours drawing u p
lists o f a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l b r a n c h e s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n ,
but
have
finally c o m e
to acquiesce
transmission of the text of
in
the conclusion
the
Ench d e f i e s s t e m m a t i c a r r a n g e m e n t . T h u s
t h e r e a r e c a s e s o f s i g n i f i c a n t a g r e e m e n t o f Nil
4
that
a n d AC&
(e.g.
2 4 , 2 1 - ] - ) ; o f Vat a n d SiC ( e . g . 4 , 1 0
511,2
[ d e e s t S i C ] ) ; o f Vat a n d A C 0 S ) ( e . g . 3 3 2 , 4
] );
of
Vat
and
(e.g.
] [ d e e s t ] ) ; o f Nil a n d Vat ( e . g . 2 4 4 , 2 4
]
) ; o f P a r a n d Vat ( e . g . 7 , 1 0 p o s t a d d . ( h a n c v o c e m o m .
) ; o f Nil a n d Par ( e . g . 1 5 , 2 2 ] ) ; o f Par
5 ( e . g . 30,1 o m . ) ; o f
Para)
and
Par a n d Simp ( e . g . 4 6 , 1 0 ] ) ;
o f S a n d Nil Vat ( e . g . 2 ' , 1 ] ) ; o f Nil a n d S t o b a e u s

(e.g. 16,6 ] ) ; a n d so o n a n d so forth. O n
the
w h o l e , Nil a n d ( t o a h i g h e r d e g r e e ) Vat a p p e a r t o s h o w s o m e a f f i n i t y
w i t h t h e first f a m i l y o f t h e M S S o f
Ench ( A C T t S z ) , w h e r e a s Par a n d
S i m p l i c i u s t e n d t o s i d e w i t h t h e s e c o n d f a m i l y (TSz'C). B u t it w o u l d
take a Procrustes to s q u e e z e these s o u r c e s i n t o a s t e m m a .
A c c o r d i n g l y , e a c h r e a d i n g m u s t b e j u d g e d o n its o w n m e r i t s ; s t e m m a t o l o g y c a n o n l y play a m o d e s t role in t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e text.
T h u s there are cases w h e r e the reading of the MSS of the authentic
Encheiridion is d e c i d e d l y i n f e r i o r t o t h a t o f t h e C h r i s t i a n a d a p t a t i o n s
a n d / o r t h e i n d i r e c t t r a d i t i o n , f o r i n s t a n c e 7 , 8 SiC Nil Par Simp
Stob.: A C bSib Vat. A n d a t 2 ' , 3 Nil is t h e o n l y w i t n e s s t o
p r e s e r v e a n d , all t h e o t h e r s o m i t t i n g .
O f t h e t h r e e C h r i s t i a n a d a p t a t i o n s Par is by f a r t h e m o s t i n d e p e n d e n t . T h e a l t e r a t i o n s i n Par d o n o t o n l y r e g a r d t h e c o n t e n t s b u t a l s o
the wording: there
is a m a r k e d
t e n d e n c y i n Par
to simplify
the
g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t e x t (cf. p p . 2 0 8 - 2 1 1 ) ; this i m p l i e s that

m a n y r e a d i n g s in
o n w h i c h Par
original
Par n e e d n o t r e p r e s e n t r e a d i n g s i n t h e c o p y o f Ench
is b a s e d . Nil
a n d Vat,
o n the other hand, follow the
Ench f a i r l y c l o s e l y ( s e e p p . 1 5 7 - 1 6 3 a n d 2 5 9 - 2 6 2 ) . Vat, h o w -
ever, has certainly u n d e r g o n e c o n t a m i n a t i o n (see pp. 262-263).

T h e quotations from
Ench i n S t o b a e u s a p p e a r t o b e d e r i v e d f r o m a
r e c e n s i o n w h i c h s h o w s great d i v e r g e n c i e s f r o m the text f o l l o w e d by

all t h e o t h e r w i t n e s s e s ( c f . p p . 1 1 4 - 1 1 6 ) .
For the constitution of the text of
Ench t h e r e is, I t h i n k , o n l y o n e
f i x e d rule that c a n b e a p p l i e d : in p a s s a g e s w h e r e t h e r e a d i n g o f t h e
MSS of
Ench is a l s o f o u n d i n t h e s o u r c e p a s s a g e i n t h e Diatribes t h e
t r a n s m i t t e d r e a d i n g m u s t b e a c c e p t e d as a u t h e n t i c . For i n s t a n c e , at
3 1 4 , 1 7 - 1 8 t h e r e a d i n g ' is
s u p p o r t e d b y t h e p a r a l l e l p a s s a g e IV 5 , 2 9
; t h e a d d i t i o n o f in
s o m e M S S , w h i c h h a s b e e n a c c e p t e d b y all e d i t o r s s i n c e T r i n c a v e l l i
( 1 5 3 5 ) , m u s t b e r e g a r d e d as a n a t t e m p t to e m e n d t h e text.
But
h e r e t o o t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s . F o r i n s t a n c e , a t 3 3 , 5 t h e t r a d i t i o n is
divided between and ; now
o c c u r s i n III 1 6 , 4 , w h i c h m i g h t s e e m t o p l e a d f o r a c c e p t i n g
also
-
Ench a s w e l l . O n c l o s e r i n s p e c t i o n , h o w e v e r , it a p p e a r s t h a t
i n t h e p a s s a g e i n t h e Diatribes A r r i a n w r i t e s
in
) , , ; t h e f a c t t h a t i n Ench w e
m a k e s it v e r y l i k e l y t h a t A r r i a n c h o s e t o r e p l a c e
find
both
a n d by a n d .
In t h e f o l l o w i n g I will g i v e a d i s c u s s i o n o f a s e l e c t e d n u m b e r
of
passages.
22,11
'
.
T S i G H Nil
Par:
A C Y y S z J Vat. T h e
particle
h a s restrictive f o r c e : "but e m p l o y o n l y c h o i c e a n d refusal,

these
too b u t l i g h t l y , a n d w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s , a n d w i t h o u t
and
straining"
( O l d f a t h e r ; m y italics). T h i s m i g h t s e e m to imply that t h e a d d r e s s e e

c o u l d d e c i d e n o t t o e m p l o y c h o i c e a n d r e f u s a l , if h e s h o u l d
feel
u n a b l e t o d o t h i s l i g h t l y ( e t c . ) . B u t a l t h o u g h it is p o s s i b l e t o e l i m i n a t e
a n d , w h i c h are c o n c e r n e d with , this
does
n o t h o l d for a n d , w h i c h
( c f . III 2 , 2 ; s e e B o n h f f e r ,
have to d o with
Stoa 2 2 f f . ) . T h i s is t h e m a i n
reason for not adopting . Besides, the branch of the tradition

represented
to
add
p a r t i c l e s in o t h e r p l a c e s as w e l l (cf. 2 5 4 , 1 3 ; 51 ' , 3 ) . Finally, in
by A C
and
their c o n g e n e r s
has a tendency
Ench
t h e r e is a p a r a l l e l f o r a n i m p e r a t i v e f o l l o w e d b y s o m e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
w i t h o u t particle: 315,23-25
,
.
3,1
'
Sa Simp (VIII 1 3 ) Par Vat: A C Y y T S A Nil.
Both
a n d are f o u n d in c o m b i n a t i o n with .
, h o w e v e r , h a s d i s t r i b u t i v e v a l u e : "to h a v e ( s e v e r a l ) a p p l i c a t i o n s " o r "to r e n d e r ( s p e c i f i c ) s e r v i c e s " ; a c c o r d i n g l y , is u s u a l l y
a c c o m p a n i e d b y a q u a l i f i c a t i o n , s u c h a s o r ; s e e II 8 , 8

(sc. )
'
. c a n b e u s e d
in t h e s a m e way, e.g. Ill 2 6 , 2 6
' . But , without further

q u a l i f i c a t i o n , is "to b e u s e f u l " i n g e n e r a l ; s e e f o r i n s t a n c e A r i s t o ,
iWI
3 5 2 , (sc. ) .
T h i s g e n e r a l m e a n i n g s e e m s to b e restricted to t h e singular, a n d this
is c l e a r l y w h a t is r e q u i r e d i n o u r p a s s a g e .
3 , 3 ,
.
AP C : cett.: ( s c . )
Par.
T h i s p l a c e m u s t b e d i s c u s s e d in c o n j u n c t i o n with t h e r e a d i n g s at
2 6 , 2 . 4 : a t 2 6 , 2 is r e a d by AP c SzG T.SVC
is f o u n d i n A
ilc
CSzJ Nil Par;
Simp Vat, w h i l e -
at 2 6 , 4 h a v e
Simp), a g a i n s t o f A a c C & G J Nil Vat. I n l a t e r G r e e k n o n - a u g m e n t e d aorist f o r m s o f frequently have the stem ( c f . LSJ s . v . ) ; t h e r e f o r e t h e f o r m w i t h o u t c o u l d b e q u a l i f i e d a s lectio
difficilior, t h a t is, it is m o r e l i k e l y t h a t a n w a s a d d e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f
the tradition t h a n that an original was d e l e t e d . Moreover, there are
two p a s s a g e s in t h e Diatribes
w h e r e t h e codex unicusS
anything but a sophisticated MS)

w i t h o u t (III 2 4 , 8 4
presents the aorist
( w h i c h is
subjunctive
; IV 1 0 , 3 4 - ; b o t h
these
passages m a y have served as the s o u r c e for o u r passage), w h i l e t h e r e

are n o instances o f u n a u g m e n t e d aorist f o r m s with the stem -.
A n d i n all t h e t h r e e p l a c e s i n
Ench t h e r e is s u p p o r t f o r t h e r e a d i n g
w i t h o u t --, w h i l e t h e fact that t h e t h r e e C h r i s t i a n a d a p t a t i o n s a l m o s t

i n v a r i a b l y g i v e - - is i m m a t e r i a l t o o u r a r g u m e n t . O n b a l a n c e , I
h a v e d e c i d e d to p r i n t t h e f o r m s w i t h o u t in t h e t h r e e p a s s a g e s in
Ench,
but I d o not claim that these f o r m s certainly represent w h a t
Arrian wrote (or, for that matter, what Epictetus said).

4,1 "
S Simp ( L 3, a d v e r b u m r e d d e n s ) Nil Par: A C

Simp ( I X 1 6 . 8 3 , l i b r r e d d e n s ) Vat. LSJ s.v. II r e m a r k t h a t
in t h e strictly t e m p o r a l s e n s e c a n b e f o l l o w e d by t h e
aorist
infinitive, but that the present or future infinitives are m o r e frequent.

I n E p i c t e t u s , t h e r e is o n l y o n e c a s e o f + i n f . a o r . , t o w i t II 1 6 , 3 3
( w h e r e m a y b e a c o r r u p t i o n
of ) ; therefore I have a d o p t e d , although
r e a d i n g is n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e M S S o f
is a c o r r u p t i o n o f .
this
Ench i t s e l f . It is p o s s i b l e t h a t
6,5 ' ,
.
A C Si
Val ( c f . I l l 1 , 4 0 ) : SiC Stob. Apost. Nil Par. w i t h
a n a d v e r b i a l c o n s t i t u e n t is u s u a l l y f o u n d w i t h t h e p r e s e n t s t e m , b u t
t h e a o r i s t is a t t e s t e d : LSJ s.v.
. I I . 2 q u o t e Pl., Ap.
39b7 ...
; D e S t r y c k e r - S l i n g s ad loc. e x p l a i n t h e a o r i s t i n f i n i t i v e a s i n g r e s sive. In o u r p a s s a g e , - m e a n s "on e v e r y o c c a s i o n o n w h i c h

y o u are in h a r m o n y with n a t u r e in t h e u s e o f e x t e r n a l expressions";
t h e r e a d i n g - l e a d s to t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n "when y o u will h a v e
r e a c h e d t h e s i t u a t i o n that y o u are in h a r m o n y with n a t u r e
etc."
B e c a u s e t h e w o r d s are a d d r e s s e d to t h e b e g i n n e r in t h e practice o f
t h e Stoic way o f life, I think
the latter r e a d i n g
is p r e f e r a b l e :
it
p r e s e n t s t o t h e a d d r e s s e e t h e f i n a l g o a l h e is t o r e a c h b y m e a n s o f
philosophic
. F u r t h e r , t h e a d d i t i o n o f is m o r e
a p p r o p r i a t e with the aorist futural subjunctive than with the p r e s e n t

i t e r a t i v e s u b j u n c t i v e ; t h e s a m e g o e s f o r t h e f u t u r e i n l i n e 6.
F i n a l l y , a t III 1 , 4 0 w e r e a d ( s c . ) \
' ; this may well have b e e n the s o u r c e o f o u r passage.

T h e r e f o r e , a l t h o u g h t h e s u p p o r t f o r is n o t u n a n i m o u s , I h a v e
f o l l o w e d S c h w e i g h u s e r i n a d o p t i n g it. T h e c h a n g e f r o m t o
(and
vice versa) is e a s i l y m a d e , b e c a u s e o f t h e r e s e m b l a n c e o f
u n c i a l C a n d E.
1 2 a , 1 0 - 1 1 ' '
.
Nil Vat: T t Simp

Stob.: SiC Par. T h e r e a d i n g a c c e p t e d by S c h w e i g -
A C S i
huser,
has caused
some
problems;
thus
R i c h a r d s 1 0 8 , c a l l s it " q u i t e u n m e a n i n g " , a n d a d d s t h a t it m u s t s t a n d
f o r s o m e t h i n g like . S c h w e i g h u s e r ,
who
devotes
a long
note
to
the
passage,
states
that
is e q u i v a l e n t t o , r i g h t l y , t o m y m i n d . T h e
r e a d i n g a l s o a c c o u n t s w e l l f o r t h e o t h e r t w o r e a d i n g s : is a
c o r r u p t i o n o f , w h i l e ( w i t h o u t ) is a s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e
t y p e w e e n c o u n t e r o f t e n i n Par
(SiC
m a y h a v e r e c e i v e d it f r o m
Par
through contamination).
13,5
'
SiC
Par)
Simp Par ( c f . Diss. I V 2 , 7 ) : (
C T t i / 2 p c 5zJ)
A C T t S Nil:
' -
Vat. T h e r e a d i n g ' - fits t h e
r e g u l a r E p i c t e t e a n u s a g e i n t w o r e s p e c t s : i n t h e first p l a c e is
m o r e o f t e n u s e d w i t h o u t t h a n w i t h it ( 4 2 t i m e s a n d 8
times
r e s p e c t i v e l y ) ; i n t h e s e c o n d , is u s u a l l y p l a c e d b e f o r e
accusative with infinitive
( 2 8 t i m e s ) , 6 t i m e s a f t e r it a n d 6
the
times
b e t w e e n the accusative a n d the infinitive. N o w this a r g u m e n t c o u l d

o f c o u r s e also b e u s e d in favour o f ' - . B u t
t h e fact that t h e s o u r c e p a s s a g e in t h e
Diatribes ( I V 2 , 7 ) r u n s '
, , '
turns the scales in favour of ' - .
14a1,1-2 '
,
S A
Nil et l e g i s s e v i d e t u r Simp ( X X I 14; b i s ) , c f . I V 1 , 6 7
: A C T t S E G ' * s l J l s l x Par Vat:

*sij )
om.
Sa
SEG
simp ( X X I 1 2 , s e d v i d e s u p r a ) . B o t h a n d
have c o n s i d e r a b l e s u p p o r t in the tradition, a n d b o t h r e a d i n g s are

possible
in
changed
i n t o t h e o t h e r as a r e s u l t o f a s i m p l e c l e r i c a l e r r o r ,
themselves.
And
each
of
the
two
i n s t a n c e if t h e e n d i n g o f t h e w o r d w a s w r i t t e n
might
have
been
for
per compendium. A
s t r o n g a r g u m e n t i n f a v o u r o f is f u r n i s h e d b y t h e
p a s s a g e I V 1 , 6 7
source
1
, ; A n d in
our
p a s s a g e , t o o , t h e s e q u e l m a k e s it c l e a r t h a t t h e p o i n t a t s t a k e is t h e
i n t e n s i t y ("by all m e a n s " ) r a t h e r t h a n t h e c o n t e n t s ("live f o r e v e r " ) o f
t h e wish: . Finally, t h e w o r d
does not occur elsewhere
in Epictetus. T h e
change
to
m a y h a v e b e e n p r o v o k e d by m e n t a l a s s o c i a t i o n with .
16,1 " S
Simp ( X X I V 8 , X X V I 5 )
Stob. Par: A C T t Nil Vat. I n i t s e l f t h e

a d d i t i o n o f is a t t r a c t i v e , a n d t h e r e a r e m a n y p a r a l l e l s f o r a
verbum sentiendi w i t h + p a r t i c i p l e in t h e Diatribes; s e e f o r i n s t a n c e

I 2 6 , 1 1 ; II 1 3 , 5 ' . F o r
t h e o m i s s i o n o f t h e r e are t h r e e parallels: IV 8 , 7
; III 3 , 1 5 ; ( ) ' ; a n d
III 3 , 1 7 . F e w as t h e s e p a r a l l e l s m a y b e , t h e f a c t
1
T h e phrase occurs eight times in Epictetus, usually in c o m b i n a t i o n
with (see Schenkl's Indexs.v. ) ; for o u r passage cf. esp. IV 7,4 ' ' . T h e m e a n i n g "absolutely",
"by all m e a n s " is b e y o n d d i s p u t e ; t h e p h r a s e c a n n o t possibly m e a n "forever",
because in a t e m p o r a l sense always m e a n s "since" (see LSJ s.v. II 1).
t h a t III 3 , 1 5 - 1 9 is t h e s o u r c e p a s s a g e o f
Ench 1 6 p r o v e s t h a t is t o
be rejected here.
16,5
'
( ) , .
Nil Par Vat: A C : TtSz ( d e s u n t TSz'C Stob.) T h e
singular
[1711])
(which
is f o u n d
in
the
editions
since
Meibom
is q u i t e a c c e p t a b l e i n i t s e l f , if t a k e n t o r e f e r t o
. E v e n s o , I d o n o t t h i n k t h a t it r e p r e s e n t s t h e o r i g i n a l
b e c a u s e o f t h e variant r e a d i n g s given in o u r sources. T h e
is s u p p o r t e d b y Nil Par
text,
reading
Vat, w h i c h is a w e i g h t y a r g u m e n t i n
itself; , t h e r e a d i n g o f A C , l o o k s like a c o r r u p t i o n
f r o m i s o c h r o n y , w h i l e h a s all t h e a p p e a r a n c e
resulting
of being
c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n o f . T h e r e f o r e I have d e c i d e d to r e a d
, w h i c h I take to refer loosely to
i n l i n e s 1-2.
2 4 ' , 2 - 3 ( ) ,
' , .

Sib SiC Nil Vat e t l e g i t Simp ( X X X I I 1 9 - 2 0 . 2 4 - 2 5 . 2 7 ) :
o m . AC. At first sight, t h e w o r d s 2 m a y s e e m

b e c a u s e w o u l d s e e m to b e o n e o f the
puzzling,
par excellence, if
it is t a k e n i n t h e u s u a l s e n s e o f "lack o f r e s p e c t f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e " .
This meaning of
is u s e d i n t h e o p e n i n g s e n t e n c e o f
this
c h a p t e r : "I s h a l l l i v e m y w h o l e l i f e w i t h o u t h o n o u r ( ) , a n d b e a
n o b o d y a n y w h e r e " 3 . T h e a n s w e r t o t h i s c o m p l a i n t is t h e d i f f e r e n c e
between
apparent
and
real
; to t h e Stoic, real
is
equivalent to . In o u r c h a p t e r the phrase

o c c u r s f o u r t i m e s : it is t h e s e q u a l i t i e s t h a t m a k e u p t h e e s s e n c e
of
, t h i s is t h e f i e l d w h e r e o n e c a n b e o f g r e a t v a l u e ( 5 - 7 - ) .
A c c o r d i n g l y , is c o n c e r n e d w i t h , w i t h
(13-14 - ) . In this s e n s e , t h e r e f o r e , c a n
b e c a l l e d a r e a l , w h i c h is e m p h a s i z e d b y t h e w o r d s .
In o r d e r to bring o u t the d o u b l e m e a n i n g o f I have
used
" w i t h o u t b e i n g v a l u e d " f o r i n l i n e 1, a n d "lack o f v a l u e " f o r

i n l i n e s 2 a n d 5.
T h e p h r a s e is n o t u n i q u e : cf. Ench I s ,8-9 ,

( ) .
3
A n o t h e r i n s t a n c e of this everyday m e a n i n g of is f o u n d in IV 1,60,
w h e r e is m e n t i o n e d in o n e breath with o t h e r such as d e a t h , exile,
loss of g o o d s a n d e m p r i s o n m e n t .
T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f with moral e x c e l l e n c e , a n d o f
with
moral
depravity,
is g o o d
Stoic
doctrine;
see
for
instance
S t o b a e u s SVF III 5 6 3 ,
,
. C f . C i c e r o SVF III 3 1 2 Q u a r e q u u m e t b o n u m e t
malum
natura i u d i c e t u r et ea sint principia naturae: certe h o n e s t a q u o q u e et

turpia simili ratione d i i u d i c a n d a et ad naturam r e f e r e n d a sunt.
W h a t E p i c t e t u s t h e r e f o r e s t a t e s is: " D o y o u f e a r ? Y o u a r e
r i g h t , b e c a u s e it is b a d a n d s h a m e f u l ; h o w e v e r , is n o t w h a t y o u
b e l i e v e it t o b e : it d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n w h a t o t h e r s d o t o y o u o r t h i n k
a b o u t you, but only o n yourself."
24'-,6 ,
, ;
E & G ' V
SiC Par Val e t ita l e g i s s e v i d e t u r Simp X X X I I 7 5 - 8 1 :
A C b S i b Nil. T h e s u p p o r t f o r r e j e c t i n g is s t r o n g e r t h a n
that for accepting
it, t w o o f t h e t h r e e C h r i s t i a n a d a p t a t i o n s
not
h a v i n g t h e p r o n o u n . F r o m S i m p l i c i u s ' d i s c u s s i o n it is n o t q u i t e c l e a r
w h a t h e r e a d in his text, b u t I b e l i e v e that h e d i d n o t r e a d
b e c a u s e h e p a r a p h r a s e s as t h e
: t h e w o r d s u g g e s t
rather t h a n . A n d in fact, this also a p p e a r s to b e
t h e c l u e t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s p a s s a g e , if w e o m i t t h e w o r d
. T h e
anonymous
interlocutor
complains
that h e will
be
n o b o d y anywhere; "being a nobody" stands for n o t b e i n g important,

"being n o w h e r e " m e a n s n o t playing any role in the political life of
t h e ; t h e t w o p h r a s e s t a k e n t o g e t h e r m e a n : "I will n o t p l a y a n y
political role." In his reply, E p i c t e t u s treats t h e two topics
and
separately. T h e c o m p l a i n t
r e f u t e d by p o i n t i n g o u t that o n e o n l y h a s to b e in ,
is
the
t h i n g s t h a t a r e u n d e r o n e ' s c o n t r o l ; l i t e r a l l y m e a n s "to b e i n
a p l a c e " , b u t E p i c t e t u s a l s o h i n t s a t t h e m e a n i n g "to b e e n g a g e d i n "
(LSJ s.v. C . I V . 3 . a ) 4 . A n d t o t h e p h r a s e E p i c t e t u s
retorts with .
If, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w e a c c e p t , t h e p h r a s e
is a r e p l y t o b o t h a n d
, s o t h a t t h e final p h r a s e
b e c o m e s p l e o n a s t i c ; t h i s is m y m a i n a r g u m e n t f o r r e j e c t i n g
T h e r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a familiar phrase is in line with the t r e a t m e n t of the

word at the b e g i n n i n g of the c h a p t e r (see previous n o t e ) .
M o r e o v e r , P r o f . S.R. S l i n g s tells m e that h e f e e l s t h e p h r a s e

" y o u m u s t b e s o m e b o d y " t o b e v e r y c l u m s y i n itself.
W i t h r e g a r d to t h e p r e s e n c e o f in A C
noted
bSib Nil it s h o u l d b e
t h a t t h e r e a r e o t h e r c a s e s w h e r e A C bSib i n s e r t
pronouns,
particles a n d t h e like .
242,8
'
.

Par).
(deficit
SiC) Nil, A C S i Vat ( Simp
T h i s is o n e o f t h o s e p a s s a g e s w h e r e it is h a r d l y p o s s i b l e t o m a k e
a convincing choice. Both and
are f o u n d
in
E p i c t e t u s , b u t is l e s s f r e q u e n t t h a n ( 4 t i m e s a n d
15 t i m e s respectively); t h e r e f o r e m i g h t r e p r e s e n t a g l o s s o n
. T h e w o r d is a l s o f o u n d i n l i n e 1 6 o f t h i s c h a p t e r ,
which
may have induced
Schweighuser
a scribe to write t h e s a m e w o r d
rightly n o t e s that the d i m i n u t i v e
here.
may
c o n v e y c o n t e m p t , w h i l e is a m o r e n e u t r a l t e r m .
T h e f a c t t h a t Par h a s h e r e m a y b e a s l i g h t a r g u m e n t i n
f a v o u r o f . Par h a s a r e p u t a t i o n f o r s u b s t i t u t i n g r a r e w o r d s
b y w e l l - k n o w n t e r m s . N o w i n l i n e 1 6 Par m a i n t a i n s ; if t h e
copy of
Ench c o n s u l t e d b y t h e a u t h o r o f P a r a l s o h a d i n t h e
first p a s s a g e , w h y t h e n was t h e w o r d c h a n g e d i n t o in t h e first

passage, a n d left u n c h a n g e d in the second?
2 5 ' , 1
, ,
, ,
Par
Vat: S: A C Nil.
The
p r o b l e m w i t h ( i f it is a p r o b l e m at a l l ) is t h a t a f t e r t h e p r o t a s i s
t h e r e f o l l o w two a p o d o s e i s , e a c h p r e c e d e d by
a c o n d i t i o n a l clause. N o w d o u b l e c o n d i t i o n a l protaseis are by
means
exceptional;
see
KG
II 4 8 7 - 4 8 8 .
In
Epictetus
there
i n s t a n c e s a t I 1 2 , 3 0 ; II 1 , 4 - 5 ; II 2 0 , 2 9 . T h e c l o s e s t p a r a l l e l f o r
no
are
the
p r e s e n t p a s s a g e , w i t h d o u b l e a p o d o s i s , is f o u n d at II 1 8 , 8
,
{ } ,

. T h e o m i s s i o n o f in A C a n d
Nil,
t h e r e f o r e , is p r o b a b l y t o b e r e g a r d e d a s a n a t t e m p t a t s i m p l i f y i n g t h e
syntax.
See f o r instance 25 ',4 ; 25 4 ,13 or ; 51 ',3 .
26,3 ,
.
SiC Nil Par Simp: AC& Vat. I n E p i c t e -
t u s t h e r e a r e i n s t a n c e s of a c c o m p a n i e d b y o r
( s e e S c h e n k l ' s Index
s.v. ) ; t h e r e a r e n o c a s e s o f
, while in three passages stands alone. T h e r e f o r e

is p r o b a b l y a n i n t e r p o l a t i o n i n o u r p a s s a g e .
T S C Nil Par. A C Si Vat Simp. I n E p i c t e t u s t h e r e a r e
n o i n s t a n c e s o f w i t h t h e i n f i n i t i v e , b u t t h e e x p r e s s i o n is
attested for o t h e r authors. A b o u t Schweighuser notes
the
d e s o l a cogitatione a g i t u r , s e d h o c a i t
continuo hoc dicere, in ore gerere, i n m e m o r i a m r e v o c a r e e i ,
f o l l o w i n g : "(...) at h.l. n o n
Epictetus,
q u e r n i r a t u m s e r v u l o v i d e m u s , consuevimus;
quare perapte, ut dixi,
v e r b u m a d j e c t u m videri d e b e t , q u e m a d m o d u m
etiam
r u r s u s ait, ." A s to S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s
mox
first
a r g u m e n t : t h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p h r a s e is a d d r e s s e d t o t h e
a n g r y m a s t e r o f t h e c l u m s y s l a v e ; a n d t h e w o r d i n i t s e l f is
s u f f i c i e n t to serve as a c o u n t e r p a r t to .
T h e r e f o r e I t h i n k t h a t is b e t t e r o m i t t e d .
2 9 t o t u m c a p u t h a b e n t AC Si Nil Vat, 29 1 " 4 h a b e t ; 2 9 " h a b e t T t ;
t o t u m c a p u t o m . T C Par, s i l e n t i o p r a e t e r i t S i m p l i c i u s . C h a p t e r 2 9
would
be the only attested
Diatribes,
instance of a long passage from
or rather an almost c o m p l e t e
r e t u r n s a l m o s t l i t e r a l l y i n t h e Encheiridionfi.
the
Diatribe (III 1 5 , 1 - 1 3 ) , t h a t
This w o u l d be e n o u g h to
r a i s e s u s p i c i o n e v e n if c h . 2 9 w e r e p r e s e n t i n all t h e w i t n e s s e s ; t h e f a c t
that o n e branch of the direct tradition omits the chapter,
together
w i t h Par a n d S i m p l i c i u s , is s u f f i c i e n t p r o o f t h a t t h e c h a p t e r s h o u l d b e
r e g a r d e d as a n i n t e r p o l a t i o n in Ench.
A s t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f c h . 2 9 i n Nil und
significant agreement between
Vat: t h e r e a r e m o r e c a s e s o f
Nil a n d ACSib, a n d t h e s a m e g o e s f o r
Vat. I h a v e p r i n t e d t h e t e x t as it is f o u n d i n t h e w i t n e s s e s t o t h e t e x t o f
Ench,
w i t h o u t t r y i n g t o r e c o n c i l e t h e t e x t w i t h III 1 5 , 1 - 1 3 , a s is t h e
p r a c t i c e of p r e v i o u s e d i t o r s . T h e c o m p a r i s o n o f III 1 5 , 1 - 1 3 w i t h
Ench
2 9 is i l l u s t r a t i v e o f t h e d e g r e e o f c o r r u p t i o n w h i c h m a y t a k e p l a c e i n
the earlier stages of the tradition.
3 1 2 , 7 - 8 ,
6
With r e g a r d to ch. 24 U p t o n remarks: " C a e t e r m e g o nullus d u b i t o , quin
c a p u t h o c totum ad Dissertationum libros pertineat." H e is q u o t e d with approval by
Schweighuser.
' '
.

Par, e t l e g i s s e v i d e t u r Simp ( X X X V I I I 8 6 - 8 7
' ,
' ) : A C 0 S i 0 ( SiG 1 ** 1 , d e l e t o )
Vat, e t l e g i t [Ant.]:
SiC
Nil
(nullo spatio vacuo). Schweighuser was
t h e first e d i t o r to p r i n t i n s t e a d o f . In his l e n g t h y
n o t e o n t h i s p a s s a g e h e s t a t e s t h a t i n i t s e l f is u n o b j e c t i o n able, a d d u c i n g parallels f o r this u s e o f in t h e
The
only objection
Schweighuser,
Diatribes'7.
to as r e g a r d s c o n t e n t , a c c o r d i n g
is t h a t
Epictetus
is n o t
so
much
to
speaking
"de
adpetitione regenda aut coercenda", b u t r a t h e r t r i e s t o p e r s u a d e u s t h a t it

is e s s e n t i a l "ut rede de rebus sentiamus, u t redas rerum notiones menti
informatas habeamus". B u t h e a d d s t h a t i n i t s e l f t h i s o b j e c t i o n is n o t
sufficient to reject the r e a d i n g . With regard to
( w h i c h S c h w e i g h u s e r r e a d i n Par a n d SimpR
t i v e o f SimpG
[Par. gr. 1 9 5 9 , a deriva-
] ), h e a d m i t s t h a t h e f i r s t j u d g e d it c o r r u p t ; o n l y w h e n
h e h a d a c l o s e r l o o k at t h e s e q u e l , h e n o t i c e d h o w w e l l c o n t r a s t s
with t h e f o l l o w i n g .
I am
fully c o n v i n c e d
by S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s a r g u m e n t s .
Schweig-
h u s e r ' s f i r s t r e m a r k , t h a t it is o u r o p i n i o n , r a t h e r t h a n o u r
beha-
v i o u r , w h i c h is a t s t a k e h e r e , is s u p p o r t e d b y a n u m b e r o f w o r d s i n
t h e d i r e c t s e q u e l o f o u r p a s s a g e : (1. 9 ) , (1. 1 2 ) ,
(1. 1 4 ) a n d
(1. 1 5 ) . A n d f o r t h e c o u p l e
t h e r e a r e two p a r a l l e l s in
'
; 4 8 b s , 6 - 8
'
Ench: 2 - , 6 - 7
'
31 ,18 ' ' ,

' A C &GJ (cf.
Diss IV 5 , 2 9
) : Nil: SiC:
'
: ' : Simp ( X X X V I I I 5 0 - 5 1 ) p r a e b e t
persuasit,
: P e r o t t u s vertit
i.e.
. The words
editions
since Trincavelli's
are f o u n d
(1535);
this e d i t i o n
shows
i n all
traces
the
of
T h e closest parallel is I 4,18 ; '

.
c o n t a m i n a t i o n w i t h ( s e c p. 5 9 ) . T h e y a r e c l e a r l y d u e t o c o n j e c t u r a l
e m e n d a t i o n in , as a l r e a d y a p p e a r s f r o m t h e d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n in
w h i c h they a r e f o u n d in t h e a p o g r a p h s o f . T h e r e a d i n g o f
and
t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f P e r o t t i , t o o , a r e in all p r o b a b i l i t y a t t e m p t s
emendation
of what was c o n s i d e r e d
a corrupt
text.
at
Simplicius'
p a r a p h r a s e , finally, b e l o n g s to the type w e e n c o u n t e r c o n s t a n t l y in

his c o m m e n t a r y .
T h e s o u r c e passage in the
Diatribes s h o w s b e y o n d a n y d o u b t t h a t
t h e t e x t a s t r a n s m i t t e d i n t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e s o u r c e s is s o u n d .
is u s e d w i t h a s i n g l e o b j e c t w i t h o u t a p r e d i c a t i v e c o m p l e m e n t ;
and
t h e n a m e s o f E t e o c l e s a n d P o l y n e i c e s a r e m e a n t t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r typical
and
well-known
behaviour:
"this
made
an
Eteocles
and
Polyneices".
3 2 - , 5 ff. ( ,
),
, (
)
A C
Sib SiC e t l e g i t Simp ( X X X I X 1 0 - 1 3 . 3 4 - 3 5 ) : Val II
S.R. S l i n g s ( p r i v a t i m ) : '
ACSiG
SiC
Val: '
om.
SJ
( d e l e v e r a n t R e i s k e e t C a s a u b o n ) Il A C Sib T Vat: o m . SiC (Nil
and
Par o m i t c h . 3 2 a l t o g e t h e r ) . T h i s is o n e o f t h e m o s t p u z z l i n g p a s s a g e s
in t h e w h o l e
Enchemdion, a n d I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e t e x t as c o n s t i t u t e d b y
m e is a t b e s t o n l y a n a t t e m p t a t r e s t o r a t i o n o f t h e a u t h e n t i c
text,
r e s u l t i n g a s it d o e s i n a t y p e o f a n a c o l u t h o n w h i c h s e e m s t o
u n p a r a l l e l e d i n Ench.
be
S c h w e i g h u s e r h a s a very l o n g critical n o t e o n
this passage.
The
p r o b l e m s b e g i n w i t h : w i t h t h i s r e a d i n g , w h i c h
is
s u p p o r t e d b y all t h e w i t n e s s e s w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f Vat, t h e f o l l o w i n g
p h r a s e s t a n d s by itself; t h e w o r d s
, a c c o r d i n g l y , i n t r o d u c e a n e w s e n t e n c e , w h i c h , h o w e v e r , s e e m s to
l a c k a f i n i t e v e r b o f its o w n . I n o r d e r t o e v a d e t h i s p r o b l e m S c h w e i g h u s e r ( f o l l o w i n g a s u g g e s t i o n b y H e y n e ) c h a n g e s i n t o ,
w h i c h (as n e i t h e r H e y n e n o r S c h w e i g h u s e r c o u l d k n o w ) p r o v e s to
b e t h e r e a d i n g o f Vat.
W i t h t h e v e r b is t a k e n a s a n
i m p e r a t i v e , a n d t h e p a r t i c i p l e is t a k e n p a r a l l e l t o ,
s o t h a t 110 n e w f i n i t e v e r b is n e e d e d f o r ; t h e
particle ' after marks the transition to a n e w s e n t e n c e , b u t in
o r d e r t o m a k e t h i s s e n t e n c e r u n s m o o t h l y , S c h w e i g h u s e r is c o m p e l l e d to d e l e t e after (with
SiC).
T h e p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i o n t o t h i s s o l u t i o n is t h a t it is i m p o s s i b l e t o
t a k e a s a n i m p e r a t i v e . LSJ s.v. m e n t i o n A r . , Nu. 6 3 3 ,
w h i c h a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s c h o l i a s t is a n i m p e r a t i v e ; b u t it is f a r m o r e
likely to b e f u t u r e indicative. T h e r e are n o attested i n s t a n c e s o f an
i m p e r a t i v e ( e i t h e r o f t h e simplex o r o f composita)
in t h e papyri; s e e
M a n d i l a r a s a n d G i g n a c . T h u s w e h a v e t o a c c e p t t h e r e a d i n g ;
t h e r e a d i n g o f Vat s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d a s a n a t t e m p t a t c o n j e c t u r a l
e m e n d a t i o n , comparable to the reading of
Vat 4 , 9 - 1 0 ( = Ench 2 ^ , 1 0 )
.
W i t h r e g a r d to I f o l l o w M e i b o m ' s s u g g e s t i o n :
with
the
parenthesis
syntactically; w h e n
finally
the
finite
the
sentence
gets
derailed
verb must be introduced,
p a r t i c i p l e c o n s t r u c t i o n is r e s u m e d b y
the
thus
b e l o n g s to a n d . With this s o l u t i o n , h o w e v e r ,
t h e r e is a p r o b l e m w i t h ' , w h i c h is s o l v e d m o s t d r a s t i c a l l y b y
d e l e t i n g ' , a s p r o p o s e d by R e i s k e a n d C a s a u b o n 9 . H o w e v e r , P r o f .
S . R . S l i n g s s u g g e s t s r e a d i n g ' a s , t h a t is, c r a s i s o f 1 0 ; t h i s
s o l u t i o n a p p e a r s v e r y a t t r a c t i v e t o m e , e s p e c i a l l y b e c a u s e it h a s t h e
great a d v a n t a g e of r e s p e c t i n g the tradition. For after universalizi n g r e l a t i v e s s e e D e n n i s t o n s.v.
9.vi ( p p . 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 ) . In
t h e r e are two i n s t a n c e s o f (IV 12,6; A 2 6 ) .
Epictetus
Simp X X X I X 2 6
h a s , b u t t h i s m a y b e t h e r e s u l t o f
the
liberty S i m p l i c i u s usually permits h i m s e l f (in this case, Simplicius also

has for ).
With regard to the a n a c o l u t h o n
p h e n o m e n o n is f r e q u e n t i n t h e
8
it s h o u l d
be a d d e d that
this
Diatribes, b u t o c c u r s o n l y r a r e l y i n t h e
T h e r e a d i n g of T & C is in all probability a gloss on .

SiJ omits '. Prof. C.J. Ruijgh points out to me that ' , if it is an i n t e r p o l a t i o n ,
may have i n t r u d e d into the text as a result of dittography of the of the following
: especially in majuscule script a n d A look m u c h alike.
10
Cf. Khner-B1ass I 222g (with II 580). R a d e r m a c h e r 199 notes the collocations (= ) a n d , which were developed in later Greek; he adds
t h a t usually a p p e a r s in t h e MSS as ' , thus causing trouble. See also
U s e n e r 66 f., who refers to Bast 219, n. 91, r e m a r k i n g that in all the places w h e r e
Bast p r o p o s e s r e a d i n g ' we should read instead. Dott. Francesco cle Nicola
has kindly s e n t m e a list of passages c o n t a i n i n g , f o u n d with t h e h e l p of SNSGreek; it is especially interesting to find a n u m b e r of o c c u r r e n c e s in Galen, H e r o
a n d H e r m o g e n e s , because these a u t h o r s b e l o n g m o r e or less to t h e same period as
Epictetus; H e r o , Aut. 23,6 (I 420,9 S c h m i d t ) ; Gal., in Hipp. Prorrh. XVI 530,11
K h n ; H e r m o g . , Stat. 7 (p. 78, 20.21 Rabe); , Inv. 3,15 (p. 167,6 R a b e ) . S o m e
later instances: Vett. Val., Anth. 20,8 etc.; Phlp., in APr. (CAG 13,2), 47,16; , in
APo. (CAG 13,3), 156,22; 307,3; , in de An. (CAG 15), 304,33; 578,3. U n k n o w n ,
unloved: t h e r e may be o t h e r instances of w h e r e editors have p r i n t e d ; such
cases c a n n o t be d e t e c t e d with the help of SNS-Greek, Ibycus etc.
9
Encheiridion. Y e t it is r e m a r k a b l e t h a t a n o t h e r s t r i k i n g a n a c o l u t h o n is
f o u n d c l o s e b y ( a t 3 3 2 ) , w h i c h is d i s c u s s e d b e l o w .
3 3 2 , 3 ff.
, - ,
, , ,
.
A C S i Stob.
Nil
Vat: SiC.
About
h u s e r states: " N e q u e vero per se q u i d e m a d m o d u m
Schweig-
incommoda
v i d e r i d e b e b a t ilia s c r i p t u r a " ; n e v e r t h e l e s s h e p r i n t s , w i t h
t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e first p e r s o n plural, a l t h o u g h n o t
in
uncommon
Ench , is a w k w a r d i n t h i s p l a c e , b e c a u s e o f t h e i m p e r a t i v e s i n t h e
s e c o n d p e r s o n singular w h i c h p r e c e d e a n d f o l l o w 1 2 . B u t in fact, t h e
imperatives which precede
immediately a r e i n t h e t h i r d p e r s o n s i n g u -
lar ( a n d ) . T h i s is a l s o n o t e d b y S c h w e i g h u s e r ,
w h o r e m a r k s that t h e s e i m p e r a t i v e s s h o u l d b e a c c o m p a n i e d by ,
w h i c h is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e c a s e . A n ( a d m i t t e d l y s l i g h t )
against the imperative
is c o n s t i t u t e d
by t h e
argument
immediately
f o l l o w i n g : i n l a t e r G r e e k it is n o t u n u s u a l t o f i n d i n s t e a d
o f , b u t f o r s e e m s e x c e p t i o n a l 1 3 . T h e p r o b l e m s with t h e foll o w i n g p h r a s e , - , will b e d e a l t w i t h b e l o w . T o
my
m i n d m u s t be attributed to conjectural e m e n d a t i o n .
SiC Nil Va< a c 2 : A C Sib
Vat2Pc. I n E p i c t e t u s t h e r e a r e m a n y i n s t a n c e s o f f o l l o w e d by o n e o r
m o r e ' 5 ( s e e S c h e n k l ' s Index s.v. ) , b u t t h e r e a r e n o p a s s a g e s
w h e r e is f o l l o w e d by i n a s e r i e s o f n e g a t i o n s , a s is t h e c a s e i n
our passage with the reading of A C
Sib Vat2 P c . T h e r e f o r e I h a v e
accepted of SiC Nil Vafc.

SzG Slob.
videtur
Nil
Vat, e t l e g i s s e
Simp ( X L 5 7 - 5 8 . 6 1 - 6 2 ) :
AC&J: : SiC: S c h w e i g h u s e r e x B b [ P a r .
g r . 2 1 2 3 ] , T h e s e n s e o f t h i s p a s s a g e is q u i t e c l e a r : w h e n o n e
speaks
a b o u t p e o p l e , o n e s h o u l d refrain from blame, praise a n d
compa-
r i s o n . It is t h e a c c u s a t i v e s t h a t h a v e c a u s e d t r o u b l e : h o w a r e t h e s e t o
b e fitted into the s e n t e n c e syntactically? S c h w e i g h u s e r prints
11
the
See 5a,4-6; 26,8; 38,3-4; 52 2 ,8-l 1.

S c h w e i g h u s e r r e a d s - - in lines 8-9, taking t h e
nominatives with the imperative .
13
Both SiC a n d Nil do read .
12
participles in t h e n o m i n a t i v e singular, so that they are in a c c o r d a n c e

with (Schweighuser's reading for ) 1 4 ; ,
reading
, has the participles in the n o m i n a t i v e plural. But the s u p p o r t

for the
accusatives
is o v e r w h e l m i n g ,
and
I think
that
they
are
u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e , if w e a r e r e a d y t o a c c e p t a n a n a c o l u t h o n . First it is
s t a t e d t h a t i n s o m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w e will h a v e t o say s o m e t h i n g , w i t h
the
proviso
that o u r utterances w o n ' t
be dealing with
everyday
s u b j e c t s . T h i s p r o v i s o is s u b s e q u e n t l y s p e c i f i e d b y a s e r i e s o f p h r a s e s
i n t r o d u c e d by ; w h e n t h e s e n t e n c e h a s f i n a l l y r e a c h e d t h e p h r a s e
, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n is t u r n e d i n t o a k i n d
o f f r e e a c c u s a t i v e w i t h infinitive, w i t h o u t e x p r e s s e d s u b j e c t (cf. KG I
36). As an u n e x p r e s s e d predicate we may supply or .
3 3 , : \ 4 0 . 3 3 | 4 , 4 1
. 3 4 , 9 '
. 49,2 .
3 3 ' 3 , 4 0 A C : T t SiG
: Par.
ACA
Nil Par Vat\ 3 3 1 4 , 4 1 T t
v e l S Nil
AC.S'zJ SiC Nil: :
Vat: A C S H , m K j ; 3 4 , 9
Tt.SzG Par Vat; 4 9 , 2

SACDFG Vat.
In later
: :
G r e e k f o r e t c . is q u i t e f r e q u e n t , b u t i n E p i c t e t u s it
a p p e a r s to b e rare. In t h e
-
Diatribes
there are f o u r instances o f - for
(II 8 , 1 4 ; II 2 6 , 7 ; III 1 2 , 1 0 ; IV 1 , 1 1 0 ) ' ; i n t h r e e o f t h e
i n s t a n c e s i n t h e Diatribes
four
t h e p r e c e d i n g w o r d e n d s in , so that a n
o r i g i n a l initial - m a y w e l l h a v e d i s a p p e a r e d as t h e result o f h a p l o g r a p h y or i n n e r dictation16. O f the f o u r possible instances in

are p r e c e d e d by ( 3 3
13
Ench
two
,40; 49,2). T h e similarity of majuscule C
a n d m a y a l s o h a v e p l a y e d a r o l e in t h e p r o c e s s o f c o r r u p t i o n . All in
a l l I t h i n k it m o s t l i k e l y t h a t A r r i a n u s e d f o r m s w i t h - a n d
throughout,
to
and
that
the
forms with
- or -
are
due
corruption.
3 3 1 5 , 4 5
.
ACTtSzG1 *mKj Stob,
(bis)
Max. Simp Vat:
SiG Nil.
two w o r d s a n d are o f t e n c o n f u s e d in o u r MSS.
The
Upton
14
Schweighuser takes this r e a d i n g f r o m Parisinus gr. 2123, which goes back to
the 1540 Paris edition; this edition has a lot of conjectures; see pp. 60-61.
15
T h e r e a r e i n n u m e r a b l e instances of - a n d -; see S c h e n k l ' s i n d e x s.v.
.
16
For t h e complicated state of affairs at IV 1,110 see Schenkl's apparatus.
w a s t h e f i r s t e d i t o r t o p r i n t ; t h i s r e a d i n g is a l s o a c c e p t e d b y
Schweighuser,
who
adduces
a rather
surprising
argument
r e a d i n g : "Quae scriptura [], q u o p l a n i o r erat,
for
quove
s p e c i o s i o r p e r se videri p o t e r a t , e o m a g i s s u s p e c t a e s s e d e b u i t eis,
q u i b u s altera scriptura, , innotuit". T h e w o r d usually
i n d i c a t e s a w a y o f l i f e , a c h a r a c t e r , o r h a b i t s (LSJ s.v.
III 1 a n d 2 ) . I
w o n d e r w h e t h e r t h i s f i t s : t h e w a r n i n g is n o t s o
much
"do n o t practise the habit of raising laughter", but rather "do

raise l a u g h t e r "
not
tout court, t h a t is, a v o i d d o i n g s o i n a n y c i r c u m s t a n c e s
a n d a t a n y t i m e . F u r t h e r , I t h i n k t h a t t h e w o r d is m u c h
m o r e appropriate with than with : "from this place o n e
e a s i l y s l i p s i n t o v u l g a r i t y " e t c . , t h a t is, if y o u
situation
of
raising
laughter
you
will
find
readily
y o u r s e l f in
slip
into
the
vulgar
behaviour.
331(l,47 .
Tt TSiC Nil Par: AC Sib Vat. S c h w e i g h u s e r d e -
f e n d s b y p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t t h e s a m e w o r d is u s e d i n t h e
next sentence
( ) . Yet this c o u l d a l s o b e u s e d as a n
a r g u m e n t in f a v o u r o f , w h i c h
may have b e e n
changed
( c o n s c i o u s l y o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y ) i n o r d e r t o m a t c h ; it is
also h a r d to see h o w s h o u l d have b e e n c o r r u p t e d
into
. W h a t is m o r e , I t h i n k t h a t is p r e f e r a b l e o n i n t e r n a l
g r o u n d s . T h e w a r n i n g is n o t a d d r e s s e d t o s o m e o n e w h o w o u l d
foul
language
deliberately,
which
would
be
the
use
connotation
of
; r a t h e r t h e a d d r e s s e e is w a r n e d t o b e w a r e o f d o i n g
so
i n v o l u n t a r i l y , in w h i c h c a s e is m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e .
3 4 , 7 ff. ,
, '
.
T S C Stob. Nil: AC.S'z Vat: Simp:

T t . T h e c h o i c e is b e t w e e n a n d ; S i m p l i c i u s '
m i g h t b e d e r i v e d f r o m b o t h , a l t h o u g h it is m o r e
based
on
probably
t h a n o n . In itself
seems
p r e f e r a b l e t o m e , b e c a u s e is q u i t e s u p e r f l u o u s ( w h i c h m a y h a v e
i n d u c e d S i m p l i c i u s t o o m i t i t ) . T h e w o r d is a l s o f o u n d at
3 3 1 6 , 4 7 , b u t ( a s o f t e n ) t h i s c a n b e e x p l a i n e d i n t w o ways: e i t h e r t h e
w o r d still l i n g e r e d i n A r r i a n ' s m i n d w h e n h e w r o t e 3 4 , 7 , o r it w a s
i n t r o d u c e d by a scribe w h o r e m e m b e r e d t h e p h r a s e at t h e e n d o f ch.
33. T h e c o r r u p t i o n
a n d c.
m a y b e partially e x p l a i n e d by c o n f u s i o n o f
Tt T S C Simp Stob. Par: A C S ) Nil Vat. It is
possible to argue both for interpolation and for omission of
the
w o r d s . In a tricolon, o n e m e m b e r m a y easily have fallen out;

o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it is q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t r e p r e s e n t s a n
o r i g i n a l g l o s s o n (or, less probably, o n ) . B u t are t h e
w o r d s n e c e s s a r y , o r e v e n a c c e p t a b l e ? I d o n o t t h i n k s o : E p i c t e t u s says
t h a t if t h e r e is a s u i t a b l e o c c a s i o n f o r e n j o y i n g a , o n e is e n t i t l e d
to d o so, o n t h e c o n d i t i o n that o n e d o e s n o t allow o n e s e l f to
be
o v e r c o m e b y its e n t i c i n g a n d a t t r a c t i v e a s p e c t s . T h a t is, o n e m a y e n j o y
the
pleasant
element
of (
and
have the
same
s e m a n t i c s t e m ) , a s l o n g a s o n e d o e s n o t l o s e c o n t r o l o f o n e s e l f . If
E p i c t e t u s w o u l d h a v e d e e m e d it p o s s i b l e t h a t o n e m i g h t b e o v e r c o m e
by t h e p l e a s a n t e l e m e n t itself, h e h a d b e t t e r h a v e d i s s u a d e d
the
a d d r e s s e e to i n d u l g e the pleasure u n d e r any circumstances.

T S i C
Simp Stob.: A C T t S i Nil Par Vat. O n c e
m o r e , t h e c h o i c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s is v e r y d i f f i c u l t .
T h e two families of the M S S o f
Ench a r e n e a t l y d i v i d e d ; a n d b o t h
readings have substantial support from the indirect tradition.

w o r d is f o u n d t w i c e i n t h e
The
Diatribes (II 1 4 , 3 ; III 2 2 , 8 9 ) , w h i l e
is f o u n d n o w h e r e i n E p i c t e t u s . W i t h t h e h e l p o f I b y c u s I
have c h e c k e d a n u m b e r of pagan authors (Plutarch, Galen,
Sextus
E m p i r i c u s , Arrian, L u c i a n ) as well as a n u m b e r o f C h r i s t i a n a u t h o r s
(John Chrysostom, C l e m e n t o f Alexandria, O r i g e n , Gregory o f Nyssa,
G r e g o r y o f N a z i a n z u s , Basil, E u s e b i u s , T h e o d o r e t u s )
for the words
a n d i n t h e s e n s e o f "attractive". I n g e n e r a l ,
is m o r e f r e q u e n t t h a n . T h e r e f o r e I t h i n k it l i k e l y t h a t i n o u r
passage an original was c h a n g e d into , rather than
the o t h e r way round.
36,1
, , .
A C S G : S B :

Vat ( c f . Simp U V 1 8 - 1 9 . 2 9 - 3 0 . 3 3 - 3 4 ) :
1 rn
T t SzG * K': S ( p r a e t e r .SB;

()
SH):
Simp ( L I V 8 . 1 2 - 1 3 . 2 6 - 2 7 . 3 0 - 3 1 ) :
SJacl, probantibus S c h w e i g h u s e r et Koraes (add.

SJlsl): SiG'*sl ( c o n i e c e r a t Reiske). T h e g e n e r a l
p u r p o s e o f t h e c o m p a r i s o n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f c h . 3 6 is c l e a r : "just as
A is g o o d f o r B, b u t b a d f o r C , s o t a k i n g t h e l a r g e s t s h a r e at a b a n q u e t
is g o o d f o r y o u r b o d y , b u t b a d f o r y o u r s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s " . B u t
the
d e t a i l s o f t h e c o m p a r i s o n h a v e l e d to m u c h c o n f u s i o n , as a p p e a r s
f r o m t h e v a r i e t y o f t r a n s m i t t e d a n d c o n j e c t u r e d r e a d i n g s . It s h o u l d
b e b o r n e in m i n d , in t h e first p l a c e , that t h e t e r m s a n d
stand for and
( c f . S V F I V , ss.vv.,
with the passages m e n t i o n e d ) . This appears
t o b e fatal to S i m p l i c i u s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : S i m p l i c i u s states that

serves to m a k e a disjunctive syllogism, b u t in fact
the phrase
itself is a ( s c . ) l 7 . T h e r e a d i n g
, f o u n d in
Vat ( a n d , w i t h o u t , i n T t
SG 1 *" 1 ),
w h i c h m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n b o r r o w e d f r o m S i m p l i c i u s ' c o m m e n t a r y , is
a , a n d c a n n o t t h e r e f o r e r e p r e s e n t the a u t h e n t i c text.
A n d so we are left with the reading of
ACSiG, w h i c h I i n t e r p r e t a s
f o l l o w s : "just a s t h e s t a t e m e n t s It is d a y a n d It is n i g h t c a n
be
used for making a disjunctive proposition
[ e i t h e r it is d a y o r it is
night],
one
but not for making a conjunctive
[ * i f it is d a y , it is
night]".
3 6 , 7 ,
,
.
A C T t S z : T l l v Nil:
SiC
Vat:
ci. S c h w e i g h u s e r .
Schweig-
h u s e r d e v o t e s m o r e t h a n six c o l u m n s to t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f this pass a g e . T h e e d i t i o n s b e f o r e S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s all r e a d . S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s o b j e c t i o n s to are t h r e e f o l d . In the
first
place, h e d o u b t s w h e t h e r allows o f the

meaning
aestimationem v e l reverentiam servare erga aliquem. N e x t , h e
c o m p l a i n s t h a t is u s e d i n a d i f f e r e n t s e n s e a n d is n o t r e p e a t e d
e i t h e r . Finally, h e c l a i m s that, in o r d e r to save t h e t r a n s m i t t e d
, not only
;
should be added,
this results in
but also the genitive
, "quae &
p e r se a l i n a erat, & e o r u m i p s o r u m rationi, qui v u l g a t a m s c r i p t u r a m
tuentur, adversabatur". T h e r e f o r e S c h w e i g h u s e r assumes that
is a c o r r u p t i o n o f ; f o r t h i s c o n j e c t u r e h e c o m p a r e s
the
r e a d i n g f o r i n l i n e 4 , f o u n d i n U [ P a r . g r . 2 1 2 4 ] ( t h i s is
also the reading of
SiC).
T o my m i n d , the suppletion o f with

is n e c e s s a r y , b e c a u s e t h e w h o l e c h a p t e r d e a l s w i t h a n d .
A n d instead of supplying here, o n e m i g h t also
17
T h e same goes for Reiske's c o n j e c t u r e , which was anticipated by Bessarion.
t h i n k o f s o m e t h i n g like "the v a l u e < o f y o u r b e h a v i o u r at d i n n e r > w i t h

r e g a r d t o y o u r f e l l o w - g u e s t " , w h i c h is m o r e o r l e s s e q u i v a l e n t w i t h t h e
concept
of
In
this sense
Simplicius
(LIV
39-40)
p a r a p h r a s e s (sc. ) ,
.
S c h w e i g h u s e r also objects to the passive , because, h e
a r g u e s , t h e n a t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e is
, ; accordingly, Schweighuser conjectures
for the transmitted . However, I think that
m a y well b e r e p e a t e d : () ( ) .
Prof.
S.R.
Slings points
out
to m e
that the
passive
infinitive
m a y b e an e q u i v a l e n t o f the classical m i d d l e
infinitive
18.
A f t e r all, I t h i n k t h a t t h e t r a n s m i t t e d r e a d i n g c a n j u s t b e
swal-
l o w e d , a l t h o u g h I a d m i t t h a t t h e p h r a s e is a w k w a r d . I i n t e r p r e t t h e
t e x t a s f o l l o w s : " w h a t y o u s h o u l d b e a r i n m i n d is n o t o n l y w h a t t h e
quality of the dishes d o e s for your body, but also h o w the quality of
your behaviour towards your host must be observed".
A f i n a l p r o b l e m r e g a r d s t h e w o r d , w h i c h is o n l y s u p p o r t e d b y
A C T t S i , t h e o t h e r w i t n e s s e s h a v i n g . B u t b e c a u s e t h e r e is n o
a n t e c e d e n t to w h i c h the m a s c u l i n e or n e u t e r c o u l d
possibly
r e f e r , w e w i l l h a v e t o a c c e p t d e s p i t e its s l i g h t s u p p o r t .
3 9 . 2 , ,
, ,

(praeter )
SiC Stob. Par
Vaac2: A C Q E &
VafiPc:
Nil. A l l t h e e d i t i o n s h a v e , b u t t h i s r e a d i n g is o n l y f o u n d i n
(the majority of)
the direct tradition. T o
m y m i n d , is
better
o m i t t e d , b e c a u s e t h e s e n t e n c e i n t r o d u c e d b y is a n e l a b o r a t i o n o f t h e t h e s i s o f t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e , r a t h e r t h a n its c o n s e q u e n c e .
T h e - p a r t is a r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e t h e s i s , w h i l e t h e - p a r t i n t r o d u c e s a new element, which d o e s not necessarily follow from
the
t h e s i s i t s e l f : it t e l l s w h a t h a p p e n s if t h e r e c o m m a n d e d p r i n c i p l e is n o t
respected. T h e reading may be a conflation of
, r e s u l t i n g f r o m c o n t a m i n a t i o n w i t h Nil's
and
4 1 . 3 ,
18
A b o u t M e i b o m n o t e s "pro est".
] Vat: Par:
o m . Nil.
ci. U p t o n :
It is s u r p r i s i n g t o find t h e last e l e m e n t o f t h i s e n u m e r a t i o n
w i t h o u t the a n a p h o r i c , a n d predictably the w o r d s have b e e n

added
conjecturally
(by U p t o n ) .
Enumerations
of this type
are
f r e q u e n t i n E p i c t e t u s , a n d u s u a l l y t h e a n a p h o r i c e l e m e n t is a d d e d t o
e v e r y p a r t o f t h e e n u m e r a t i o n ; s e e f o r i n s t a n c e II 2 , 7
, , , , ,
. But t h e o m i s s i o n o f a n o r i g i n a l b e f o r e
i n o u r p a s s a g e is h a r d t o e x p l a i n , a n d , w h a t is m o r e , t h e r e is a
s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l a t III 2 0 , 1 2 , , ,
, 1 9 . T h e a d d i t i o n o f ,
which
is f o u n d i n Par a n d Vat,
c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n : Par
is i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y t h e r e s u l t
a b o u n d s in a c c o m m o d a t i o n s o f
of
this
t y p e , a n d Vat m a y e i t h e r h a v e b o r r o w e d t h e w o r d f r o m Par o r a d d e d
it suo Marie*'.
4 4 , 1 - 3 ,
, . (...)
, ,
.
prius
ACSib
AC SBEGJx Vat:
T : o m . Nil
om.
SACDFH Nil Par
II a l t e r u m
Vat. I n b o t h c a s e s , is o n l y f o u n d i n t h e d i r e c t
t r a d i t i o n ( t h e first in Vat a s w e l l ) , a n d in i t s e l f t h e t e x t is p e r f e c t l y
intelligible w i t h o u t . Even so I p r e f e r to retain t h e w o r d , b e c a u s e
its o c c u r r e n c e h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
Epictetean
u s a g e . W i t h t h e h e l p o f S c h e n k l ' s i n d e x I h a v e c h e c k e d all t h e o c c u r r e n c e s o f i n E p i c t e t u s ; I h a v e f o u n d t h a t is u s u a l l y
pressed
21
ex-
. T h e o n l y c a s e s w h e r e t h e r e is a n e l l i p s e o f a r e f o u n d i n
p h r a s e s that i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w p h r a s e s h a v i n g a f o r m o f 2 2 ; in
19
Cf. also II 5,16 , , ,
; II 17,36 , , ,
, {) ; III 22,22 ' , , ,
, , , ; IV 7,37 ,
, ,
, , , .
20
For two i n s t a n c e s of a n a n a p h o r i c e n u m e r a t i o n with b e f o r e t h e last
e l e m e n t , see II 21,19 , ' ,
; III 22,104
, , ,
, ( ) , , ;
21
See I 10,6; I 19,2; II 19,29; II 21,2; II 24,24; III 1,23; III 7,29; III 22,88; IV 1,8;
IV 7,31; IV 8,15-16; IV 8,26-27; fr. 18,3.
22
III 1,23-24 . (...) ; ;
IV 7,36 ,
o u r p a s s a g e s , t o o , t h e f i r s t p h r a s e h a s , w h i l e it is a b s e n t i n t h e
s e c o n d phrase.
4 5 , 3 , ;

Tt:
ASiG:
Nil:
CSzJ:
TSzC Vat.
The
p r o b l e m h e r e d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e p a s s a g e , w h i c h is
c l e a r b e y o n d d o u b t : "for u n t i l y o u h a v e a c q u i r e d i n s i g h t i n t o
judgment". T h e variant reading of
TSzC Vat
can be
his
discarded
b e c a u s e o f IV 8 , 3 , w h i c h is c l e a r l y t h e
s o u r c e of o u r passage. A n d Simplicius t o o read or , witness
his p a r a p h r a s e (LXIII 1 0 . 1 8 ) .
T h e s u p p o r t f o r is v e r y w e a k , a n d its o c c u r r e n c e i n C & J is
a l m o s t certainly d u e to conjectural e m e n d a t i o n . In K o i n Greek,
is m o r e f r e q u e n t t h a n a l o n e , a c c o r d i n g t o B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r R e h k o p f 3 9 5 ; R a d e r m a c h e r 2 0 1 , n. 7. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e a r e
n o o t h e r i n s t a n c e s o f in E p i c t e t u s , w h e r e a s t h e r e a r e five
instances of with the infinitive-3.
Further, a c h o i c e has to be m a d e b e t w e e n a n d
. c a n b e u s e d as a p r e p o s i t i o n , f o l l o w e d by t h e g e n i t i v e
( s e e LSJ s.v.
A . I I . 4 ) ; LSJ a l s o q u o t e i n s t a n c e s o f w i t h
the
infinitive, a.o. in Sextus Empiricus. But the fact that c a n b e u s e d

a s a p r e p o s i t i o n d o e s n o t e n t a i l t h a t t h e s a m e is v a l i d f o r .
F u r t h e r , is i n i t s e l f m o r e a t t r a c t i v e t h a n t h e simplex
b e c a u s e it i n d i c a t e s
full
k n o w l e d g e . T h e r e f o r e I have d e c i d e d to print
, b u t I k e e p b e i n g p u z z l e d by t h e q u e s t i o n
of
h o w originated. T h e only e x p l a n a t i o n I can

t h i n k o f is t h a t ( w h i c h is i n f a c t o n l y r e a d b y
Nil)
is a c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f a n d
. B u t t h e n , a g a i n , w e h a v e to ask o u r s e l v e s h o w t h e
latter
reading c a m e into being: might be based u p o n misreading

in ? T h e tradition o f this passage r e m a i n s a p u z z l e .
4 6 ' , 2 ,
, .
; fr. 18,4-5 , .
23
R a d e r m a c h e r r e m a r k s : "(...) oft ist die Rcksicht auf H i a t u s f r die Wahl
e n t s c h e i d e n d , also lieber vor Vokalen, vor K o n s o n a n t e n (...)". In
Epictetus we find before a vowel at I 10,5 ( ) , II 12,25 ( ) a n d
II 17,8 ( ) ; at IV 1,47 we read ( ) , but h e r e
would have been awkward following ; at Ench 48^,6 we d o read b e f o r e a
c o n s o n a n t ( ).

S E G Nil:
SACDFHJ
(deest
SB) Vat:
( a b s q u e ) Par
Simp
ACWw
LXIV 44). T h e r e a d i n g without the article
is b e t t e r s u p p o r t e d t h a n t h e r e a d i n g ( t h e r e a d i n g
in S i m p l i c i u s ' c o m m e n t a r y s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as o n e o f
the countless instances w h e r e Simplicius paraphrases Epictetus' text
f r e e l y ) . T h e p h r a s e is f o u n d f r e q u e n t l y i n t h e
and
Ench, t h i s
Diatribes
m a y have i n d u c e d a scribe to insert t h e article in o u r
p a s s a g e t o o . In itself t h e r e a d i n g w o u l d s e e m
p r e f e r a b l e o n e : E p i c t e t u s is n o t a d v i s i n g t o a b s t a i n f r o m
the
delivering
e x p o s i t i o n s o n the w h o l e set of Stoic doctrines, but to k e e p silent o n

any doctrines.
4 8 b - , 3 .
Par24
SiC Nil).
LSJ s.v.
Vat: A C bSib:
T t
(desunt
B o t h a n d a r e a c c e p t a b l e i n t h e m s e l v e s ( s e e
, A . I I . 5 . a ) ; n o r is t h e r e a n y p r o b l e m i n a c c o m p a n y i n g
t h e p a r t i c i p l e in t h e g e n i t i v e , w i t n e s s Pl.,
Euthd.
303c8-dl
( q u o t e d by
L S J )
. I n E p i c t e t u s w e c o n s t a n t l y l i n d : s e e II
2 4 , 1 9 ; III 1 4 , 2 ; III 1 6 , 1 6 ; IV 8 , 2 5 . 3 9 ; IV 1 2 , 1 0 ;
s i t e is u s u a l l y ( f o r i n s t a n c e
Ench
Ench
13,2-3; t h e o p p o -
2 4 ' , 2 ) , a l t h o u g h a t IV
. A n d t h e s o u r c e p a s s a g e
. T h i s
Diatribes
8 , 2 5 w e f i n d
in t h e
r u n s
would seem
to
p l e a d in f a v o u r o f . B u t in f a c t c a n b e b o t h m a s c u l i n e a n d
n e u t e r . A n d a l t h o u g h t h e r e are i n s t a n c e s o f ' (= )
, a n d ( s e e LSJ, I.e.;
H e a d l a m o n H e r o d a s 6,54), I have not f o u n d instances of
( e t c . ) , i n t h e g e n i t i v e a n d d a t i v e s i n g u l a r a n d p l u r a l . N o w
is a t t e s t e d ( s e e a b o v e ) , b u t s e e m s i m p o s s i b l e ; t h i s m a y
h a v e i n d u c e d A r r i a n t o w r i t e . F i n a l l y , it m u s t b e
noted
t h a t h a s m u c h m o r e s u p p o r t t h a n i n ouip a s s a g e ; a n d t h e c o r r u p t i o n i n t o m a y h a v e b e e n c a u s e d by t h e
s u r r o u n d i n g participles a n d 25.
4 9 , 9 -
. , .
24
At Par 172,3 Par has , while t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g passage

Ench 13,3 r u n s .
25
Conversely, o n e c o u l d a r g u e that an a u t h e n t i c was c o r r u p t e d into by
anticipation of the two following -s.
ACbSib: T
Vat II A C S :
Obviously, the two textual p r o b l e m s s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d
Vat.
together.
B u t w h i c h r e a d i n g s h o u l d b e a c c e p t e d as the a u t h e n t i c o n e ?
No
s t e m m a t i c a l a r g u m e n t c a n b e b a s e d o n t h e f a c t t h a t is s u p p o r t e d b y
Vat, b e c a u s e Vat d o e s n o t h o l d a f i x e d s t e m m a t i c p o s i t i o n ; a n d i n t h i s
same
chapter
(line
13)
Vat
share the probably wrong
reading
for '26.
In t h e first p h r a s e m i g h t s e e m to b e p l e o n a s t i c i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h , b u t t h e r e is a p a r a l l e l a t IV 1 , 1 4 2 ( . . . )

' ' . I n t h e s e c o n d p h r a s e
w o u l d s e e m to b e s u p e r f l u o u s , b u t t h e r e are parallels at I 2 8 , 7
a n d a t IV 1 3 , 1 6 ( . . . )

On
the hypothesis that the reading of
Vat is a u t h e n t i c ,
m i g h t a r g u e as follows: w h e n c o p y i n g t h e p a s s a g e , a s c r i b e
one
inter-
c h a n g e d a n d , writing .
; a n o t h e r scribe, t h e n , n o t i c e d t h e e r r o r a n d
a d d e d a n d in the m a r g i n or a b o v e t h e line; t h e
next
scribe failed to n o t i c e that t h e s e w o r d s w e r e i n t e n d e d to r e p l a c e t h e

o r i g i n a l t e x t , a n d r e g a r d e d t h e m as a d d i t i o n s .
If, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it is s u p p o s e d t h a t A C S i g i v e t h e t r u t h ,
a n d may well have disappeared unintentionally or deliberately, as a result o f t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f p r o n o u n s .
T h e first e x p l a n a t i o n a p p e a r s l e s s l i k e l y t h a n t h e s e c o n d o n e , a n d ,
w h a t is m o r e , t h e e m p h a s i s w h i c h r e s u l t s f r o m a n d
fits t h e p a s s a g e well. T h e r e f o r e I h a v e c h o s e n to a d o p t
the
r e a d i n g o f ACS.
49,12
, .
:
Vat ( ' Vat2*1): -
A C b S i b . B o t h r e a d i n g s a r e e q u a l l y p o s s i b l e in
B u t w h e n w e ask t h e q u e s t i o n
themselves'27.
utrum in alteram, it is o b v i o u s t h a t a
c o r r u p t i o n o f an original into
26
is
much
E p i c t e t u s usually has t h e m a t i c f o r m s of ; a t h e m a t i c f o r m s a r e very

rare (see S c h e n k l ' s Index).
27
For cf. II 16,34; III 21,7. For as t h e o b j e c t of verbs
such as see e.g. Ill 2,13.
m o r e likely t h a n the o t h e r way r o u n d , b e c a u s e the n a m e o f Chrysipp u s o c c u r s f o u r t i m e s in this c h a p t e r .

5 0 , 2 ,

Par:
Simp Vat:
S i C :
' x t A C S i Nil.
A l l e d i t i o n s h a v e ' .
N o w a s a p r e s e n t t e n s e is p o s s i b l e i n l a t e r G r e e k ( s e e LSJ
s.v.
) , b u t i n E p i c t e t u s t h e r e is o n l y o n e p o s s i b l e i n s t a n c e f o r t h i s u s e ,
n a m e l y II 8 , 2 6 ,
.; t h e r e are n u m e r o u s
instances of
as a
future.
F u r t h e r , t h e p h r a s e is b e s t t a k e n a s d e p e n d e n t o n t h e f o l l o w i n g
; in that case an
object clause
28
indirect question
is p r e f e r a b l e
to
. F i n a l l y , a t II 2 , 1 7 w e r e a d '
an
' ; this p a s s a g e m a y w e l l b e
the
source of our phrase.

51',2
;
SiC
Vat:
Nil:
A C T t S z . T h e r e a d i n g o f Nil is a n o b v i o u s c o r r u p t i o n o f
29.
The
direct
tradition
is a l m o s t
unanimous
in
r e a d i n g , b u t e v e n s o I t h i n k t h a t is p r e f e r a b l e .
T h e e x p r e s s i o n o c c u r s a n u m b e r o f times in Epictetus;
in
Ench
t h e r e is a n i n s t a n c e a t 3 2 s , 18; t h e p h r a s e i s
a t t e s t e d in t h e S t o i c s s i n c e C h r y s i p p u s (SVFIII 3 8 4

)30. O n the o t h e r h a n d , I have
n o t f o u n d i n s t a n c e s o f t h e c o m b i n a t i o n . A n d in itself,
" t h e o r d e r s o f r e a s o n " is p r e f e r a b l e t o " t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s o f r e a s o n " .
51',3
Nil Vat
(LXIX 11-14):
the
o b v i o u s c o r r u p t i o n for in A C A ^ S z J ,
the
e t ita l e g i s s e v i d e t u r
Simp
QTSZG : A C A r y S i J . A p a r t f r o m
t r a d i t i o n is u n a n i m o u s i n t r a n s m i t t i n g
a n d . T r a n s l a t o r s usually r e n d e r t h e w o r d as
(so
Oldfather),
following
Simplicius'
paraphrase
"accept"
(LXIX
12-14
28
S c h e n k l , in his Index, is inconsistent: s.v. h e states t h a t t h e v e r b
is c o m b i n e d with an i n d i r e c t q u e s t i o n in o u r passage; s.v. h e n o t e s t h a t
m u s t b e r e g a r d e d as t h e equivalent of quodcumque.
29
T h e c o r r u p t i o n o c c u r s f r e q u e n t l y ; see S c h e n k l ' s Index s.v. D.
30
See also F a r q u h a r s o n ' s n o t e o n M.Ant. II 5.
,
,
).
At
the
b e g i n n i n g o f his l e n g t h y n o t e o n this phrase S c h w e i g h u s e r remarks:

"Caeterum
in d i c t i o n e m illam insolitam prorsus,
(vel
) , ita c o n s e n t i u n t o m n e s , u t s u s p i c i o n i d e
s c r i p t u r a e c o r r u p t e l a vix l o c u s r e l i n q u a t u r ; qui etsi d a r e t u r ,
tarnen c o n j e c t u r a nulla d e e m e n d a n d a vulgata l e c t i o n e n e
lando quidem
occurrisse profiteor." Schweighuser
Epictetus
mihi
hario-
n o t e s that in
with t h e dative c a n b e u s e d in t h e s e n s e
of
occurrere alicui, congredi cum aliquo, r e f e r r i n g t o III 9 , 1 2 a n d I V 1 2 , 7

( a d d III 9 , 1 3 ; III 2 4 , 7 8 a n d Ench 3 3 ' * , 3 8 ) ; s e e LSJ s.v. I 1 1 . B u t f o r t h e
p h r a s e S c h w e i g h u s e r k n o w s n o parallel,
a l t h o u g h h e l e a v e s o p e n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e p h r a s e m a y s t e m ex
usu aliquo Stoicae scholae profmo; y e t t h e i n d e x o f SVF does n o t m e n t i o n

any special use of the active .
After m e n t i o n i n g
the
congredi, W o l f amplecti,
S u a r e z intellectu assequi, M e i b o m a n d U p t o n se adplicare), h e s u b m i t s
interpretations of other scholars (Naogeorgus
"Sed fortasse
,
in
ista
constructione
idem
valet
ac
adsentiri, q u a m i n p a r t e m S i m p l i c i u s i n t e r p r e t a t u s e s t "
( s e e a b o v e ) . Yet t h e fact t h a t n o t a s i n g l e p a r a l l e l f o r this u s e c a n b e

a d d u c e d , s e e m s d e c i s i v e a g a i n s t its o c c u r r e n c e h e r e . M o r e o v e r ,
the
w h o l e p h r a s e in the s e n s e "which you o u g h t to

a c c e p t " a p p e a r s s u p e r f l u o u s to me: o c c u r s e l s e w h e r e in
t h e s e n s e o f "the p h i l o s o p h i c p r i n c i p l e s "
tout court ( O l d f a t h e r ) , e . g . a t
46',2; o n e can hardly a s s u m e that a distinction
is m a d e
between
p r i n c i p l e s t h a t a r e t o b e a c c e p t e d a n d t h o s e t h a t a r e n o t : all S t o i c
principles m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d essential.
I t h i n k t h a t t h e a u t h e n t i c r e a d i n g is f o u n d i n Nil a n d Vat,
omit
b e f o r e . T h e phrase
which
is a n a u t o n o m o u s s e n t e n c e , m e a n i n g " y o u h a v e
con-
v e r s e d w i t h t h o s e with w h o m y o u h a d to c o n v e r s e " , i.e. y o u
have
f o l l o w e d t h e l e s s o n s o f t h e r i g h t t e a c h e r s 3 1 . T h i s is e x a c t l y t h e u s e o f
f o r w h i c h S c h w e i g h u s e r q u o t e s p a r a l l e l s in
Epictetus
( s e e a b o v e ) . M o r e o v e r , if t a k e n i n t h i s w a y , t h e r e is a n i c e t r a n s i t i o n
. T h e
Ench is p r o b a b l y d u e t o c o n j e c t u r a l
to t h e f o l l o w i n g p h r a s e
i n s e r t i o n o f in t h e M S S o f
e m e n d a t i o n : if is ( w r o n g l y ) a t t a c h e d t o , t h e a s y n d e t o n
of and must have appeared intolerable.
31
T h e fact that Simplicius uses t h e participle instead of

a p p e a r s to indicate thai Simplicius did not read .
5 1 3 ,
T t 5 z G Nil
Vat: A C S z J Simp.
The omission of
h a s s l i g h t l y b e t t e r s u p p o r t t h a n its a d d i t i o n : i n all p r o b a b i l i t y SzJ h a s

the w o r d f r o m the s o u r c e o f E B [Laur. Red. 15], a n d Simplicius o f t e n
q u o t e s f r e e l y . T h e p a r t i c l e is e a s i l y d i s p e n s e d w i t h . F o r i n s t a n c e s o f
a s y n d e t o n in p a s s a g e s like t h e s e cf. I 2 7 , 1 0
; II 1 6 , 1 4
,
;
5P.6
'
'
'
.
T t : AC5(J:
Vat: SiG Nil:
Simp ParM: Para.
S c h w e i g h u s e r r e a d s , w i t h m a n y o f t h e p r e v i o u s e d i t i o n s . H e h o l d s t h a t m u s t m e a n "delay", w h i c h is
evidently the s e n s e r e q u i r e d here; for this m e a n i n g o f h e
r e f e r s t o S u d a s.v.
(IV 2 0 8 , 8 ff. A d l e r ) , w h e r e w e
( n e w l e m m a )
32
find
. B u t LSJ d o n o t g i v e t h e
m e a n i n g " d e l a y " f o r , a n d r i g h t l y s o . T h e w o r d is
also f o u n d at IV 12,3, w h i c h a p p e a r s to b e t h e s o u r c e o f o u r passage;
m o r e o v e r , t h e v e r b in line 4 has t h e s a m e s e m a n t i c stem. T h e
c o r r u p t i o n o f into may have b e e n p r o v o k e d by
the p r e c e d i n g chapter, w h i c h deals with the c o n c e p t of in
the usual Stoic sense of "purpose". T h e r e a d i n g of Simplicius a n d
Par, , m a y b e a c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n
;
alternatively,
it m a y
be
a deliberate
of the
corrupt
substitution
for
.
5 1 2 , 1 3 - 1 4
',
v i d e n t u r Ant.
ACTtS
Nil
Vat,
e t ita
legisse
( ) e t Par ( { }
):
Simp.
S c h w e i g h u s e r d e v o t e s a l o n g n o t e t o t h i s p a s s a g e , d i s c u s s i n g all t h e
32
For t h e words see Adler's apparatus.
p r o p o s a l s at e m e n d a t i o n g i v e n by p r e v i o u s scholars. T h e p h r a s e
Schweighuser,
i t s e l f is u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e ,
according
b u t the p r o b l e m s arise with the f o l l o w i n g
to
verbs
a n d : because these verbs have opposite meanings,

t h e s a m e is s u p p o s e d t o b e t r u e f o r t h e t w o n o u n s . T h e
conjectures
d i s c u s s e d by S c h w e i g h u s e r a i m at f u l f i l l i n g this c o n d i t i o n .
Thus
Isaac C a s a u b o n p r o p o s e s , to w h i c h
Schweighuser objects that c a n n o t be c o m b i n e d with a noun33.
M e i b o m proposes reading , referring
t o a n d t o ; is r e n d e r e d a s
instantia b y M e i b o m . H e y n e c o m p a r e s t h e r e a d i n g o f Par
{ }
{ } ; o n the basis o f this r e a d i n g H e y n e
p o s e s r e a d i n g the passage in
Schweighuser,
pro-
Ench as ;
as usual, p r a i s e s H e y n e ' s p r o p o s a l lavishly.
Ville-
brune, otherwise the constant target of Schweighuser's scorn, for

o n c e is m e n t i o n e d w i t h a p p r o v a l f o r h i s p r o p o s a l
. S c h w e i g h u s e r also tentatively submits a conjecture
of
h i s o w n i n v e n t i o n : " P o t e r a s v e r o , si s a t i s e r a t c o n j e c t u r i s a g e r e , i n
aliam pariter c o g i t a t i o n e m incidere n o n m i n u s p r o b a b i l e m , suspicariq u e sic o l i m s c r i p t u m i n E n c h i r i d i o f u i s s e , , vel , a l t e r u m q u e orationis m e m b r u m , c u j u s pars a P a r a p h r a s t e servata est, in E n c h i r i d i i libris
s c r i b a r u m n e g l i g e n t i a i n t e r c i d i s s e . " B u t t h i s is o n l y a p r e a m b l e t o t h e
d i s c u s s i o n o f S i m p l i c i u s ' , w h i c h is
d e f e n d e d at l e n g t h b y S c h w e i g h u s e r a s t h e g e n u i n e r e a d i n g .
T o m y m i n d t h e p h r a s e is p l e o n a s t i c a f t e r
, w h i c h picks u p ; a n d
a s s u c h , w i t h o u t a n y q u a l i f i c a t i o n , is i n t o l e r a b l y f l a t . I t h e r e fore believe
that t h e t e x t as g i v e n by t h e large m a j o r i t y o f
the
witnesses should be accepted. T h e words
are
sufficiently s u p p o r t e d by t h e direct c o n t e x t : t h e m e t a p h o r o f t h e
O l y m p i c g a m e s is l o g i c a l l y c o n t i n u e d b y t h e c o n c e p t s o f d e f e a t a n d
giving in. T h e two s h o u l d n o t b e r e p l a c e d by two n o u n s with o p p o s i t e
m e a n i n g ; o n t h e c o n t r a r y , e x p a n d s a n d i n t e n s i f i e s . It is
n o t j u s t o n e total d e f e a t w h i c h c a n d e s t r o y y o u r progress, e v e n
33
one
Dr A. Rijksbaron p o i n t s o u t to m e that it is possible to c o m b i n e with a

n o u n (see KG II 197,4; in Epictetus see f o r instance III 26,8 ), b u t in
t h a t case t h e n o u n s h o u l d follow immediately, which is n o t t h e case in Casaubon's conjecture.
m o m e n t o f g i v i n g i n is s u f f i c i e n t t o d o s o . T h e w o r d , o n t h e
o t h e r h a n d , stresses that o n e a c h o c c a s i o n w h e r e the
proficiens
d e f e a t e d but strongly maintains his position, his progress
is n o t
remains
intact. T o give a n i n s t a n c e f r o m everyday life: a n a l c o h o l i c w h o h a s

s u c c e s s f u l l y c o n c l u d e d a w i t h d r a w a l c o u r s e is d o o m e d t o c o n t i n u e
t h e f i g h t a g a i n s t h i s a d d i c t i o n e v e r y m o m e n t o f t h e r e s t o f h i s l i f e ; if
h e d o e s n o t resist t h e t e m p t a t i o n o f d r i n k i n g o n e b o t t l e ( )
or
e v e n o n e g l a s s ( ) o f a l c o h o l , all h i s p r e v i o u s e f f o r t s w i l l h a v e
been
in vain; o n
the o t h e r h a n d , every glass h e d o e s n o t
r e p r e s e n t s a victory. In t h e s a m e way, t h e
proficiens c a n
drink
destroy or save
the progress h e has m a d e in o n e single m o m e n t o f failure.

5 1 3 , 1 5 - 1 6 ,

LXIX
49-53
(cf.
Vat:
Diss
Nil,
Simp
e t ita l e g i s s e v i d e t u r
III 2 3 , 2 1 ) :
ACbSib
Tt:
)
ci. M e i b o m .
:
(vel
Schweig-
h u s e r , in his n o t e o n this p l a c e , r e m a r k s that t h e r e a d i n g

"nullam habet difficultatem", but he
takes o f f e n c e at t h e p h r a s e , a b o u t w h i c h h e remarks:
"sed d i c t i o n e m , h a c p r a e s e r t i m n o t i o n e ,
lo me ipsum,
incito, impel-
n e c a g n o s c e r e n e c ferre m i h i visus est graeci
u s u s " . B u t LSJ, s.v.
sermonis
I 4, q u o t e D . 2 3 , 1 ,
so that S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s d o u b t s are r e f u t e d . Prof. A. Carlini

o u t to m e that Simplicius' p a r a p h r a s e
points
(LXIX 49-53) confirms
the
r e a d i n g a s g i v e n b y Nil. T h e c o n f u s i o n o f t h e p r e v e r b s a n d p r e p o s i t i o n s a n d is f r e q u e n t , a n d n e e d n o t b o t h e r u s .
5 3 ] , 2 " ', , ,
ASiG Diss ( t e r ) : '

CWwSJ Diss ( s e m e l ) . T h e

p a s s a g e s i n t h e Diatribes
Vat2mS Vett.
(bis): '
Anon.:
' :
r e a d i n g is f o u n d i n t h r e e o f t h e f o u r
w h e r e t h i s q u o t a t i o n o c c u r s (III 2 2 , 9 5 ; I V
1 , 1 3 1 ; I V 4 , 3 4 ) ; i n o n e p l a c e (II 2 3 , 4 2 ) w e f i n d a l o n e 3 4 . B e c a u s e t h i s
r e a d i n g h a s b y f a r t h e s t r o n g e s t s u p p o r t i n t h e t r a d i t i o n o f Ench,
t h i n k t h a t it c a n b e r e g a r d e d a s c e r t a i n t h a t is w h a t A r r i a n
w r o t e . O f c o u r s e , a s is s t a n d s d o e s n o t s c a n , b u t p r o b a b l y A r r i a n
34
In t h e f o u r places in t h e Diatribes S c h e n k l p r i n t s ' . But o n p. LXXV h e

states t h a t in all these places s h o u l d b e r e a d instead of ' . In t h e Addenda et
corrigenda ' is r e p l a c e d by in all f o u r passages; Schenkl is silent on t h e passage
in Ench.
preferred
scriptio plena t o t h e r a t h e r u n u s u a l ( o r r a t h e r , w i t h t h e
coronis, ) 3 5 . T h e r e a d i n g o f is p r o b a b l y a c o n j e c t u r e . F o r t h e t y p e
o f i n v o c a t i o n i n o u r p a s s a g e D e N i c o l a , Osservazioni, a p t l y c o m p a r e s
h.Hom. 2 9 , 1 3 , , .
T h e r e a d i n g o f t h e A n o n y m u s De sentia politica is v e r y a t t r a c t i v e ; it is
a c c e p t e d by K r o n e n b e r g 1909, 26436.
At 5 3 ^ 2
the MSS have
the
unmetrical
, while
the
Diatribes
p r e s e n t the correct f o r m ' in t h r e e o f t h e f o u r o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e

p a s s a g e ; f o r III 2 2 , 9 5 s e e S c h e n k l ' s a p p a r a t u s . A t 5 3 2 , 6 - 7 t h e P a r i s
e d i t i o n o f 1 5 4 0 is t h e first w i t n e s s t o g i v e t h e f o r m s a n d
' , w h i l e all t h e M S S h a v e t h e u n m e t r i c a l f o r m s a n d
. I h a v e c h e c k e d all t h e p o e t i c a l q u o t a t i o n s i n t h e
Diatribes, a n d I
codex unicus
h a v e f o u n d o n l y t w o p l a c e s w h e r e t h e t e x t as g i v e n by t h e
S d o e s n o t s c a n , t o w i t II 1 3 , 2 7 '
( C. S c h e n k l ) a n d III 2 2 , 9 5 ( =
Ench 5 3 ^ 2 ) 3 7 . I f
m e t r i c a l l y c o r r e c t f o r m s prevail s o m a r k e d l y e v e n in a M S as S, w h i c h
brims with errors, I think w e c a n infer that Arrian p r e s e n t e d poetical
q u o t a t i o n s in t h e c o r r e c t f o r m (for = at 5 3 ^ 2 s e e a b o v e ) .
T h e r e f o r e I h a v e n o t h e s i t a t e d t o r e a d i n 1. 2 , a n d t o f o l l o w t h e
1 5 4 0 e d i t i o n i n c o r r e c t i n g t h e u n m e t r i c a l f o r m s i n 11. 6 - 7 .
The division of the chapters

In the e d i t i o n s t h e r e are basically t h r e e ways o f dividing the text o f
Ench i n t o c h a p t e r s : t h e first, w h i c h is a l r e a d y f o u n d i n H a l o a n d e r ' s

1 5 2 9 e d i t i o n , d i v i d e s t h e t e x t i n t o ca. 6 2 c h a p t e r s ; t h e s e c o n d
i n t r o d u c e d by W o l f in his 1 5 6 0 e d i t i o n , c o u n t s 7 9 chapters;
one,
finally,
U p t o n , in his 1741 e d i t i o n , i n t r o d u c e s a division i n t o 5 2 chapters.

U p t o n ' s d i v i s i o n is a d o p t e d b y S c h w e i g h u s e r , o n t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g
t h a t U p t o n ' s c h . 5 0 is s p l i t i n t o S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s c h s . 5 0 a n d
51.
S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s 5 3 c h a p t e r s r e c u r i n all s u b s e q u e n t e d i t i o n s .
35
De Nicola, Osservazioni, p l e a d s in f a v o u r of r a t h e r t h a n : "(...) la

scriptio plena, p e r a l t r o , se p u essere a b u o n diritto a d d o t t a a sostegno della cong i u n z i o n e , n o n va c o m e tale accettata, c h r i p u g n a al m e t r o e r e n d e p i a r d u o
spiegare la d i f f u s i o n e di ' , c o n g e t t u r a , e l e m e n t a r e , escogitata a p p u n t o p e r elimin a r e la difficolt m e t r i c a ; e d a n a l o g a o r i g i n e h a ' . " T h e a r g u m e n t t h a t '
r e p r e s e n t s a c o n j e c t u r e based o n r a t h e r t h a n o n , is c o n t r a d i c t e d by t h e
f o u r passages in t h e Diatribes, at II 23,42 ' was a d d e d by S^, while S has w i t h o u t
; in t h e o t h e r t h r e e passages t h e c o n j e c t u r e ' is based o n S's r e a d i n g .
36
For a full discussion see De Nicola, Osservazioni.
37
In t h e o t h e r t h r e e passages in t h e Diatribes w h e r e this verse is q u o t e d (II
23,42; IV 1,131; IV 4,34), S has t h e c o r r e c t f o r m '.
It is a l u c k y c o i n c i d e n c e
t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o n is m o r e o r l e s s
a c c o r d a n c e with t h e c h a p t e r division that has b e e n c u r r e n t in

19th and 20th centuries. Therefore, I have maintained
in
the
Schweig-
h u s e r ' s c h a p t e r n u m b e r s ; in the f o u r cases w h e r e I have split o n e

c h a p t e r in S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s e d i t i o n i n t o two ( S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s chs. 5,
14, 19, 4 8 ) I h a v e i n d i c a t e d t h e n e w c h a p t e r s as 5 a / 5 b ,
14a/14b,
1 9 a / 1 9 b a n d 4 8 a / 4 8 b . T h e t r a d i t i o n is u n a n i m o u s i n s p l i t t i n g 5 a a n d
5 b ; 1 4 a a n d 1 4 b a r e s e p a r a t e c h a p t e r s i n T , S i m p l i c i u s , Par a n d
but they are p u t t o g e t h e r in A C
38
a n d Nil;
Vat,
19a a n d 19b are divided in
t h e w h o l e tradition with t h e e x c e p t i o n o f A C (Sib a n d T t split t h e

two); 48a a n d 4 8 b constitute o n e c h a p t e r in Simplicius.
A s p e c i a l c a s e is c o n s t i t u t e d b y c h . 3 3 , w h i c h ( l i k e S c h w e i g h u s e r )
I p r i n t as o n e c o h e r e n t c h a p t e r . In t h e t r a d i t i o n m o s t s e c t i o n s a r e
presented
a s s e p a r a t e c h a p t e r s , b u t it is o b v i o u s t h a t t h e
chapter deals with pieces of practical advice, introduced

p r o g r a m m a t i c first s e c t i o n
39
whole
by
the
. H o w e v e r , I d o n o t believe that section 3
s h o u l d b e s e p a r a t e d f r o m s e c t i o n 2, b o t h o n i n t e r n a l g r o u n d s
and
b e c a u s e t h e t r a d i t i o n is u n a n i m o u s i n u n i t i n g s e c t i o n s 2 a n d 3 , w i t h
the e x c e p t i o n of AC; moreover, section 3 begins with the continuative p a r t i c l e c o m b i n a t i o n . By t h e s a m e t o k e n , I t h i n k
that
s e c t i o n s 1 4 , 1 5 a n d 1 6 s h o u l d b e t a k e n t o g e t h e r : t h e t h r e e s e c t i o n s all
deal with b e h a v i o u r , t h e r e are c o n n e c t i n g particles in
s e c t i o n s 1 5 a n d 1 6 , a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n is p r a c t i c a l l y u n a n i m o u s
uniting the three sections
40
in
Tt has t h e whole of 14a; of 14b it only has lines 3-4 -, which a r e

p r e s e n t e d as a new c h a p t e r , immediately following t h e text of ch. 14a.
39
S i m p l i c i u s (XLII 3) rightly s p e a k s a b o u t a
.
40
In Nil sections 15 a n d 16 of Ench 33 f o r m o n e c h a p t e r , section 14 s t a n d i n g o n
its own. Stobaeus has 3 3 1 4 separately, a n d 33 1 5 " 1 6 as o n e c h a p t e r .
38
PART TWO
[NILUS] ' ADAPTATION
CHAPTER SEVEN
INTRODUCTION
The
Christian
adaptation
of the
Encheiridion
which
is
usually
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h St. N i l u s A n c y r a n u s , w h o l i v e d a b o u t 4 0 0 A . D . 1 , w a s
first e d i t e d by J.M. S u a r e z , t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r w o r k s by N i l u s , in
R o m e , 1 6 7 3 ; I u s e t h e s i g l u m R t o i n d i c a t e t h i s e d i t i o n . S u a r e z ' t e x t is
b a s e d o n o n e M S , w h i c h is n o w h e r e s p e c i f i e d b y h i m . B e s i d e s , S u a r e z
borrowed readings from W o l f s edition of the
Encheiridion a n d f r o m
J [Vat. g r . 7 4 0 ] , a s will b e s h o w n b e l o w ( s e e p. 1 8 1 ) . S u a r e z ' t e x t w a s

r e p r o d u c e d i n M i g n e , PG, v o l . 7 9 , c o l . 1 2 8 5 - 1 3 1 6 .
M. M e i b o m , d u r i n g his stay in C o p e n h a g e n ( 1 6 5 3 - 1 6 6 3 ) , c o l l a t e d
a M S c o n t a i n i n g [Nilus] ' adaptation for his projected e d i t i o n of the
Encheiridion, w i t h o u t r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h i s M S d i d n o t c o n t a i n t h e t e x t
o f t h e a u t h e n t i c Encheiridion. I n 1 7 1 1 A . R e l a n d p u b l i s h e d a n e d i t i o n
o f t h e w o r k o n E p i c t e t u s ' Encheiridion a n d C e b e s ' Tabula, l e f t b y
M e i b o m ; t h i s e d i t i o n a p p e a r e d i n U t r e c h t . It c o n t a i n s , a m o n g o t h e r
Encheiridion a n d a c o l l a t i o n o f t h e M S
Hafniensis
c o n s u l t e d by M e i b o m in C o p e n h a g e n , i n d i c a t e d as t h e
material, a text of the authentic
( H ) . T h i s M S was n o l o n g e r p r e s e n t in t h e C o p e n h a g e n library w h e n
S c h w e i g h u s e r s e a r c h e d f o r it a t t h e e n d o f t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y ,
a n d s h o u l d p r o b a b l y b e r e g a r d e d a s l o s t . R e l a n d d e s c r i b e s t h e M S as
"non a d m o d u m antiquae, b o n a e tamen, notae"2.
S c h w e i g h u s e r , EPhMV
98-138, published a n e w text of
[Nilus]'
adaptation; for this text h e u s e d a third source, Parisinus g r a e c u s

1
T h e a t t r i b u t i o n of t h e a d a p t a t i o n to Nilus h a s b e e n t h e s u b j e c t of m u c h
d e b a t e ; see p p . 156-157. For brevity's sake, I will use t h e n a m e of [Nilus] as t h e
a u t h o r of t h e adaptation, indicating t h e text with t h e abbreviation Nil.
2
For f u l l e r i n f o r m a t i o n see S c h w e i g h u s e r LXI-LXIII, LXIX f., XCVIII-CIV;
Histad passim.
1220
( ) , c o l l a t e d f o r h i m by his s o n Gottfried3.
Schweighuser
a t t a c h e s g r e a t v a l u e to t h e Paris MS, w i t n e s s his r e m a r k "passim vera

scriptura, c u m & in Suaresii e d i t i o n e & in H a f n i e n s i c o d i c e c o r r u p t a
esset,
ex
hoc
codice,
quem
Nili Ms. PaHs. i n s i g n i v i ,
profertur"
(Schweighuser CIV).
In 1892, W o t k e p u b l i s h e d a short article o n [Nilus]' adaptation, in
w h i c h h e d r e w a t t e n t i o n t o t w o f u r t h e r M S S o f this text, Vat. gr. 6 5 3 4
(Wotke's B, P i s c o p o ' s a n d m y W )
a n d Vat. gr. 1 4 3 4 ( W o t k e ' s A,
P i s c o p o ' s a n d m y V ) . W o t k e a r r a n g e s t h e five M S S i n t o t w o g r o u p s ,
t h e first c o n s i s t i n g o f a n d P , t h e s e c o n d o f t h e o t h e r t h r e e M S S . H e
a d d s that V a n d W b e l o n g t o g e t h e r against R. T h e e v i d e n c e o n w h i c h
h e b a s e s h i s s t e m m a is v e r y m e a g r e
indeed,
a n d in s o m e
cases
i n c o r r e c t ( s e e p. 175, n. 13).
P i s c o p o , i n h e r 1 9 7 0 a r t i c l e , g i v e s a n e w d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e five M S S
u s e d by W o t k e ( w h o m s h e o n l y m e n t i o n s in a disparaging m a n n e r in
h e r n o t e 7), w i t h o u t taking n o t i c e o f the fact that three m o r e
MSS
a r e m e n t i o n e d in F r i e d r i c h - F a y e , n a m e l y Vatt. O t t . gr. 1 4 2 , Pal. gr.

3 6 1 , a n d V e n . Marc. gr. 1 3 1 5 . T h e s t e m m a at w h i c h s h e arrives (p.
602)
is e x a c t l y t h e s a m e a s W o t k e ' s , b u t s h e g i v e s a m u c h
fuller
d i s c u s s i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s d i s c u s s i o n is f l a w e d , f o r t w o r e a s o n s .
I n t h e first p l a c e , t h e r e a r e m a n y c a s e s o f w r o n g r e p o r t ( s e e p . 1 7 5 , n .
13); in the s e c o n d , P i s c o p o d o e s n o t b o t h e r to prove that P H f o r m a
separate g r o u p against the o t h e r three MSS.
See Schweighuser CIII-CIV.

This MS is wrongly indicated as C o d . Vat. Reg. Gr. No. 653 by Wotke; Piscopo
r e p r o d u c e s this error.
5
Of course, Piscopo c a n n o t b e b l a m e d f o r n o t having n o t i c e d t h e MSS which
have b e e n wrongly catalogued as c o n t a i n i n g t h e a u t h e n t i c Encheiridion.
4
CHAPTER E I G H T
CATALOGUE OF MANUSCRIPTS OF [NILUS]' ADAPTATION
I n t h i s c a t a l o g u e I will g i v e a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e M S S c o n t a i n i n g
Nil,
i n d i c a t i n g their l o c a t i o n , date, scribe, material, size, n u m b e r o f
f o l i a , t h e f o l i o n u m b e r s o f Nil,
n u m b e r of lines, siglum,
adding
bibliographical references. Further, the stemmatical position of the

M S is b r i e f l y m e n t i o n e d .
1. Athens, Byzantine Museum, Kolyva 58 (olim Museum Loberdou)

1 8 t h c e n t u r y ( a f t e r t h e t e x t o f Nil t h e r e is a s u b s c r i p t i o n w i t h t h e d a t e
1 / 6 / 1 7 9 4 ) ; p a p e r ; 2 1 0 1 5 3 m m . ; ff. 2 9 7 ; Nil f f . 1 5 6 r - 1 7 7 r ; 1 0 l i n e s
(with i n t e r l i n e a r g l o s s e s ) ; p r o b a b l y t h e s a m e s c r i b e as L
4 2 6 3 ] ; s i g l u m C. W r o n g l y c a t a l o g u e d a s c o n t a i n i n g Ench.
i n t e r l i n e a r a n n o t a t i o n s in M o d e r n G r e e k . S e e L a m b r o s ,
[Athous
C has many
Athens 1 2 1 -
122.
C is a g e m e l l u s o f L [ A t h o u s 4 2 6 3 ] , a n d t h u s g o e s b a c k i n d i r e c t l y
to R [the editio princeps]. See pp. 182-183.

2. Athous 4263 (Iviron 143)
1 8 t h c e n t u r y ; p a p e r ; o c t a v o ; f f . 1 7 3 ; Nil
ff. l r - 3 5 r ; 10 l i n e s
i n t e r l i n e a r g l o s s e s ) ; p r o b a b l y t h e s a m e s c r i b e as C [ A t h e n .
5 8 ] ; s i g l u m L ; w r o n g l y c a t a l o g u e d a s c o n t a i n i n g Ench.
(with
Kolyva
contains
n u m e r o u s i n t e r l i n e a r n o t e s in M o d e r n G r e e k . I o w e t h a n k s to D r
E.K. L i t s a s , b y w h o s e c o u r t e s y I h a v e o b t a i n e d r e p r o d u c t i o n s o f L. S e e
Lambros, Athos II 31.

L is a g e m e l l u s o f C
indirectly to
[Athen.
Kolyva 5 8 ] , a n d thus g o e s
back
R [ t h e editio princeps]. S e e p p . 1 8 2 - 1 8 3 .
3. Bucharest gr. 655 (31)

A . D . 1 7 9 6 ; p a p e r ; 2 2 0 1 6 0 m m . ; ff. 1 4 8 ; M i f f . 1 3 0 r - 1 4 8 v ; 2 4 - 2 6 l i n e s ;
s i g l u m B ; w r o n g l y c a t a l o g u e d as c o n t a i n i n g Ench.
S e e Litzica 378.
is a g e m e l l u s o f t h e c o m m o n s o u r c e o f C [ A t h e n . K o l y v a 5 8 ] a n d
L [ A t h o u s 4 2 6 3 ] , a n d thus g o e s back indirectly to R [the

princeps].
S e e pp. 182-183.
editio
4. Pansinus gr. 1054 (Fontebl.-Reg. 2992)

1 4 t h - 1 5 t h c e n t u r y ; p a p e r ; 2 1 1 1 3 2 m m . ; ff. I l l , 2 8 6 , III; Nil
180-
182v; 2 4 - 2 8 lines; s i g l u m G ; c a t a l o g u e d as c o n t a i n i n g e x c e r p t s f r o m
Ench; G h a s Ench 3, 5 a a n d 5 b , w h i l e its r e m a i n i n g c o n t e n t s b e l o n g t o

Nil ( c h s . 1 1 , 1 3 - 1 7 , 2 1 , 2 4 - 3 1 a ) . S e e O m o n t , Inventaire I 2 1 2 .
In s o m e c h a p t e r s G
depends on
[Par. gr.
1220]; in
other
c h a p t e r s G is a g e m e l l u s o f Q [Vat. Pal. g r . 3 6 1 ] . S e e p p . 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 .
5. Pansinus gr. 1220 (Medic.-Reg. 3066)

1 4 t h c e n t u r y ; Nil is w r i t t e n b y t w o s c r i b e s , t h e s e c o n d o f w h i c h o n l y
c o p i e d f. 3 1 2 ' ; o r i e n t a l p a p e r ; 2 2 5 1 4 4 m m . ; ff. 3 2 4 (+ 3 5 b i s ) ; Nil
r
S.
3 0 9 ' - 3 1 5 ; 3 2 - 3 3 l i n e s (f. 3 1 2 , w r i t t e n b y a n o t h e r s c r i b e , h a s 2 8 l i n e s ) ;
s i g l u m P. has m a n y variant readings, s o m e o f w h i c h are written in
r e d ink; s o m e o f t h e s e r e a d i n g s w e r e p r o b a b l y a d d e d by t h e scribes
t h e m s e l v e s ( i n f o r m a t i o n by D r Christian Forstel), b u t in a f e w p l a c e s
it s e e m s c e r t a i n t h a t a d d i t i o n s a r e b y a n o t h e r h a n d t h a n t h o s e o f t h e
t w o s c r i b e s ; t h e s e r e a d i n g s c o m e f r o m Par.
d e s c r i b e d as c o n t a i n i n g
I n t h e c a t a l o g u e , is
"Epicteti e n c h i r i d i o n
N i l u s is n o t m e n t i o n e d . S e e O m o n t ,
interpolatum",
but
Inventaire I 2 7 0 - 2 7 1 .
is p r o b a b l y a g e m e l l u s o f M [ V e n . M a r c . g r . 1 3 1 ] , a n d t h u s a
p r i m a r y w i t n e s s ; h o w e v e r , it is n o t i m p o s s i b l e t h a t d e r i v e s f r o m M ,
i n s t e a d o f b e i n g its g e m e l l u s . S e e p p . 1 6 5 - 1 7 0 .
6. Pansinus Suppl. gr. 684 (miscellaneus)

1 5 t h - 1 8 t h c e n t u r y ; p a p e r ; c a . 1 5 4 c a . I l l m m . ; ff. 2 4 0 ; M / f f . 1 0 3 1 1 1 2 r ; 2 4 l i n e s ; s i g l u m S; w r o n g l y c a t a l o g u e d a s c o n t a i n i n g Ench.
The
t e x t o f Nil b r e a k s o f f a f t e r c h . 5 3 , a n d is f o l l o w e d b y a n o t h e r t e x t b y
Nilus
(this was n o t n o t e d by O m o n t ) .
S has n u m e r o u s
a n n o t a t i o n s , in t h e s a m e h a n d as t h e text. S e e O m o n t ,
marginal
Inventaire III
298-299.
S is a g e m e l l u s o f t h e l o s t c o m m o n s o u r c e o f H [ H a f n i e n s i s d e p e r ditus],
[Vat. Ott. gr. 2 5 ] a n d R [ t h e
editio princeps], t h u s it g o e s
back indirectly to M [Ven. Marc. gr. 1 3 1 ] . S e e pp. 174-175, 177-178.

14th century (15th century a c c o r d i n g to W o t k e 69); paper; 4 1 0 285
m m . ; ff. I, 2 6 6 ; Nil f f . 1 4 5 v - 1 5 0 v ; 3 2 l i n e s ; s i g l u m W ( W o t k e B ) . W is
w r o n g l y d e s i g n a t e d a s V a t . Reg. g r . 6 5 3 b y b o t h W o t k e a n d P i s c o p o .
S e e Devreesse 79-82.
W is a g e m e l l u s o f V [Vat. g r . 1 4 3 4 ] , a n d t h u s g o e s b a c k i n d i r e c t l y
to M [ V e n . Marc. gr. 1 3 1 ] , S e e p p . 174-177.

11th century, a c c o r d i n g to W o t k e 6 9 a n d P i s c o p o 596;
12th-13th
c e n t u r y , a c c o r d i n g t o P r o f . P. C a n a r t ; p a r c h m e n t (ff. 3 0 7 - 3 1 4 o r i e n t a l
p a p e r ) ; ff. 3 1 5 ; Nil 2 8 1 r - 2 8 8 v ; 3 0 - 3 1 l i n e s ; s i g l u m V ( W o t k e A ) .
V is a g e m e l l u s o f W [Vat. g r . 6 5 3 ] , a n d t h u s g o e s b a c k i n d i r e c t l y t o
M [ V e n . M a r c . g r . 1 3 1 ] ; it is t h e s o u r c e o f [ V a t . O t t . g r . 1 4 2 ] . S e e
pp. 174-177.
9. Vaticanus Ottobonianus gr. 25

A . D . 1 5 6 4 - 5 ; o n f. 2 9 7 v t h e r e is a n o t e
.
, . ; p a p e r ; 3 3 5 x 2 1 8 m m . ; f f . 2 9 8 ; Nil f f . 1 3 4 r - 1 4 2 r ; 2 6
lines; s i g l u m ; w r o n g l y c a t a l o g u e d as c o n t a i n i n g
Ench b y F r i e d r i c h -
Faye. S e e Feron-Battaglini 23-24.

is a g e m e l l u s o f H [ H a f n i e n s i s d e p e r d i t u s ] a n d R [ t h e
ceps],
editio prin-
t h u s it g o e s b a c k i n d i r e c t l y t o M [ V e n . M a r c . g r . 1 3 1 ] .
See
pp. 174, 177-180.
10. Vaticanus Ottobonianus gr. 142

1 7 t h c e n t u r y ; p a p e r ; 2 7 9 1 9 8 m m . ; ff. 3 6 5 ; Nil f f . 2 3 1 r - 2 6 0 v ;
13-14
lines; s i g l u m N . S e e Feron-Battaglini 79-80.

is a c o p y o f V [ V a t . g r . 1 4 3 4 ] , S e e p . 1 7 6 .

1 5 t h - 1 6 t h c e n t u r y ; p a p e r ; 1 4 6 1 0 7 m m . ; ff. 2 7 1 ; Nil f f . 2 2 8 - 2 4 9 ; 1 5
l i n e s ; s i g l u m Q . S e e S t e v e n s o n , Pal.
212-215.
Q g o e s b a c k to a lost M S w h i c h also s e r v e d as t h e e x e m p l a r
of
s o m e o f t h e m a t e r i a l i n G [ P a r . g r . 1 0 5 4 ] ; t h u s it g o e s b a c k i n d i r e c t l y
t o M [ V e n . Marc. gr. 1 3 1 ] . S e e p p . 1 7 2 - 1 7 4 .
12. Venetus Maranus gr. 131 (coll. 471)

1 1 t h c e n t u r y ; p a r c h m e n t ; 3 4 5 2 4 5 m m . ; ff. II, 3 6 7 , II; Nil f f . 3 1 l r 322r; two c o l u m n s o f 27 lines; s i g l u m M; this M S o n c e b e l o n g e d
to
B e s s a r i o n ( o w n e r ' s n o t e o n f. 1: S a n c t i N i l i o r a t i o n e s d i v e r s e o p t i m u s
liber B(essarionis)
c a r . T u s c u l a n i , l o c u s 7 5 ) . S e e M i o n i , Ven.
182-
184.
M is a p r i m a r y w i t n e s s ; it is t h e s o u r c e o f a l l t h e o t h e r
witnesses, with the possible exception of
[Par. gr. 1 2 2 0 ] ,
h o w e v e r , m a y g o b a c k to M as well. S e e p p . 1 6 5 - 1 7 0 .
extant
which,
Lost manuscripts
1. Athous 2016 (
3)
1 2 t h c e n t u r y ; p a r c h m e n t ; q u a r t o ; f f . 2 3 0 ; Nil
ff. 1 9 8 r - 2 0 8 v .
Wrongly
c a t a l o g u e d as c o n t a i n i n g Ench} ( L a m b r o s , Athos I 1 7 0 ) . D r E.K. Litsas

(Patriarchal Institute o f Patristic S t u d i e s at T h e s s a l o n i k i ) w e n t to a
g o o d deal o f trouble to arrange to have this M S p h o t o g r a p h e d
me.
In
the
autumn
of
1995
he
found
D r J.
Tavlakis
for
ready
to
u n d e r t a k e the j o u r n e y to the E s p h i g m e n o u Monastery o n m y behalf.

D r T a v l a k i s o b t a i n e d p e r m i s s i o n t o visit t h e library, b u t t o h i s distress
h e d i s c o v e r e d that the library register that was c o m p i l e d in
1912
c o n t a i n e d n o m e n t i o n o f t h e M S , w h i c h m e a n s t h a t it m u s t h a v e g o t
l o s t i n t h e y e a r s b e t w e e n 1 8 8 0 ( w h e n it w a s c a t a l o g u e d b y L a m b r o s )
a n d 19122.
2. T h e M S u s e d by S u a r e z f o r h i s 1 6 7 3
editio princeps,
published in
R o m e ; I use the siglum R to indicate Suarez' edition3. S e e pp.
174-
175, 177-182.
3. T h e C o p e n h a g e n M S c o n s u l t e d by M e i b o m
[Hafniensis],
a colla-
t i o n o f w h i c h is f o u n d i n t h e 1 7 1 1 e d i t i o n b y A . R e l a n d ( p p . 1 0 1 - 1 1 9 ) ;
s i g l u m H . M e i b o m d e s c r i b e s H as " n o n a d m o d u m a n t i q u a e ,
t a m e n , n o t a e " (at t h e e n d o f t h e c o l l a t i o n ) . O f c o u r s e , I h a v e
R e l a n d ' s report; in a n u m b e r o f p l a c e s S c h w e i g h u s e r ' s
bonae
used
report
is
w r o n g or i n c o m p l e t e . M e i b o m remarks that H has ch. 38b,3 - ch. 41

after 33,8; this d i s p l a c e m e n t m u s t have o c c u r r e d in an a n c e s t o r
of
H , b e c a u s e the n u m b e r i n g o f ch. 3 8 b , 3 - ch. 41 i m m e d i a t e l y follows

that o f 33,1-8 (33,1-8 = H 24; 3 8 b , 3 - 3 8 c , 7 = H 25; 39-40 = H 26; 33,8-9
1
T h a t t h e E s p h i g m e n o u MS c o n t a i n e d Nil is p r o v e d by t h r e e c i r c u m s t a n c e s : in
t h e first p l a c e t h e MS exclusively c o n t a i n s works by Nilus; in t h e s e c o n d p l a c e it h a s
t h e t i d e , w h i c h is only f o u n d in MSS of Nil; in t h e t h i r d p l a c e
it e n d s with t h e p h r a s e , , w h i c h is also
f o u n d in Nil ( h e r e E s p h i g m e n o u 3 h a s , w h e r e a s t h e o t h e r s o u r c e s have
) .
2
O n t h e loss of A t h o s MSS c a t a l o g u e d by L a m b r o s see R i c h a r d , Recherche 6.
R i c h a r d , Rpertoire A4 n o t e s : " C e p e n d a n t les c o d d . 3 (...) p a r a i s s e n t m a n q u e r " . Yet
R i c h a r d , Recherche 6 a d d s : " C e p e n d a n t , p o u r ces d e u x b i b l i o t h q u e s [ E s p h i g m e n o u
a n d IvironGJB] n o u s pouvons esprer retrouver u n e partie des manuscrits gars
d a n s les s u p p l m e n t s n o n dcrits."
3
P i s c o p o uses t h e s i g l u m R t o i n d i c a t e t h e MS u s e d by S u a r e z ( P i s c o p o , Nilo
594: " Q u e s t a e d i z i o n e si b a s a su u n c o d i c e (R)..."); b u t of c o u r s e we c a n n o t k n o w
with c e r t a i n t y t h e r e a d i n g s of S u a r e z ' s MS, b e c a u s e his e d i t i o n shows t r a c e s of
intensive c o n t a m i n a t i o n .
= H 2 7 ) . C f . S c h w e i g h u s e r ad 3 3 4 . O n H s e e S c h w e i g h u s e r
LXIX-
LXX; see also Histad 106-107.

H d e r i v e s f r o m t h e s a m e lost s o u r c e as [Vat. Ott. gr. 2 5 ] a n d R
[ t h e editio princeps].
S e e pp. 174-175, 177-180.
C H A P T E R NINE
THE AUTHENTICITY AND

OF
CHARACTER
[NILUS]'ADAPTATION
1. Authenticity
T h e a t t r i b u t i o n o f Nil t o N i l u s A n c y r a n u s is e x c l u s i v e l y b a s e d o n t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e w o r k is t r a n s m i t t e d a m o n g s t o t h e r w o r k s b y N i l u s , a t
l e a s t i n M a n d its d e r i v a t i v e s , t o w h i c h t h e s o u r c e o f t h e
editio princeps
b e l o n g s as w e l l ; a c c o r d i n g to O m o n t , c o n t a i n s o n l y o n e
other
w o r k by N i l u s 2 . , a n d t h e lost M S A t h o u s E s p h i g m e n o u 3
(to
j u d g e f r o m L a m b r o s ' c a t a l o g u e ) d o n o t e v e n m e n t i o n N i l u s ' n a m e at
the b e g i n n i n g or the e n d o f the text3; this i n d u c e d L e o n e Allacci to
c o n s i d e r t h e w o r k a s s p u r i o u s 4 , a l t h o u g h F. L i g u o r i s u g g e s t e d
Nilus refused to put his n a m e
above a work which was only
that
his
adaptation, n o t his original work5.

D e g e n h a r t 19-20, d e n i e s Nilus' a u t h o r s h i p o n internal
grounds.
H e a r g u e s t h a t t h e w o r k is o f s u c h p o o r q u a l i t y t h a t it is i m p o s s i b l e t o
a s s i g n it a p l a c e i n a n y o f t h e p e r i o d s o f N i l u s ' a c t i v i t y a s a w r i t e r . H e
f u r t h e r r e m a r k s t h a t t h e f e w a d d i t i o n s w h i c h o c c u r i n Nil a r e n o t i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h N i l u s ' style, m e n t i o n i n g as a n i n s t a n c e t h e p h r a s e
, o c c u r r i n g in M i 21. Finally, h e states that
47
(=
Ench 3 3
10
and 33
11
), which deals with attending
Nil
theatrical
T h e same goes f o r t h e lost MS A t h o u s 2016 (= E s p h i g m e n o u 3), a c c o r d i n g to

L a m b r o s ' catalogue.
2
O n fol. 274 we find "Nili m o n a c h i o p u s c u l u m d e e o d e m [sc. d e octo vitiosis
c o g i t a t i o n i b u s ] " ; t h e r e follow s o m e small works by Anastasius, N i c e p h o r u s a n d
Maximus plus t h e Christus Patiens, t h e n o n fol. 309 Nil begins.
3
M a n d t h e lost A t h o u s have t h e title (sic); has n o title
at all, b u t a d d s at t h e t o p of t h e page
(which, as Prof. C.J. Ruijgh p o i n t s o u t to m e , is i n t e n d e d as a dactylic h e x a m e t e r ) ,
a d d i n g t h e title
(taken f r o m Par) in red ink. Cf. Schweighuser ad loc.
4
PC 79, 52-54; Allacci is followed by Le Nain d e T i l l e m o n t , Mmoires pour servir
l'Histoire ecclsiastique des premiers six Sicles, XIV (Paris 1709), 210.
5
See Piscopo, Nilo 593, n. 1; Piscopo herself accepts Nilus' a u t h o r s h i p of Nil.
Vat, too, preserves t h e original title (see p. 257).
p e r f o r m a n c e s , is i n f l a t c o n t r a d i c t i o n w i t h N i l u s ' a t t i t u d e t o
this
q u e s t i o n as e x p r e s s e d in his g e n u i n e works .
D e g e n h a r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n h a s b e e n a c c e p t e d by m o s t
scholars,
although
some
still
uphold
the
subsequent
authenticity
of
the
a d a p t a t i o n 7 . I d o n o t feel qualified to argue against the u p s h o t o f

D e g e n h a r t ' s a r g u m e n t a t i o n , a n d t h e r e f o r e a c c e p t his rejection
of
N i l u s ' a u t h o r s h i p . B u t w h e t h e r o r n o t N i l u s ' a u t h e n t i c i t y is a c c e p t e d ,
o n e c a n n o t b u t a g r e e w i t h D e g e n h a r t t h a t Nil is a v e r y s l o p p y p i e c e o f
w o r k , a s will b e i l l u s t r a t e d b e l o w .
D e g e n h a r t b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e a u t h o r o f Nil can p o s s i b l y b e i d e n t i f i e d
as t h e m o n k C o m a s i u s , b e c a u s e o f a r e m a r k by N i l u s a d d r e s s e d
to
this m o n k 8 . Later scholars have n o t a c c e p t e d this i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a n d

the
prevailing
opinion
among
those
scholars w h o
deny
Nilus'
a u t h o r s h i p is t h a t it is i m p o s s i b l e t o a s s i g n t h e w o r k t o a d e f i n i t e
p e r i o d , a l t h o u g h it is u s u a l l y a s s u m e d t h a t it is s e v e r a l c e n t u r i e s l a t e r
t h a n N i l u s ( s e e S p a n n e u t , D 5 8 3 6 ad
fen.)9.
2. The Christian character of [Nilus]' adaptation

The
p o o r q u a l i t y o f Nil
has already b e e n
f o l l o w i n g I will m e n t i o n t h e ways in w h i c h
6
noted
above10. In
[Nilus] has sought
the
to
H e r e D e g e n h a r t seems to overstate his case: in fact Nil 47,1 r u n s

, without any restrictions. T h e r e m a r k s in Nil 47,4-6 r e f e r to an
, n o t to theatrical p e r f o r m a n c e s .
7
See S p a n n e u t , DS 835-836; , RAC 664-665. A m o n g t h o s e scholars w h o
vindicate Nilus' a u t h o r s h i p are C h a p p u i s 145, P o h l e n z (see S p a n n e u t , RAC 665),
Liguori a n d Piscopo (see above, a n d n o t e 5).
8
D e g e n h a r t 20: "Nilus w e n d e t sich nmlich 232 D 233 A mit schrfsten W o r t e n
b e r die h e i d n i s c h e n B c h e r an e i n e n M n c h Komasius, f r h e r e n R h e t o r , d e r
selbst im Kloster n o c h sich von d e n h e i d n i s c h e n A u t o r e n n i c h t zu t r e n n e n
vermochte."
9
S p a n n e u t , Moines 50, states t h a t t h e work has b e e n c o m p o s e d "vers le VI e
sicle sans doute".
10
S o m e opinions: D e g e n h a r t 19: "(...) ein so plattes, j m m e r l i c h e s , d e m Genius
u n d d e r Arbeitsweise eines Nilus so ganz u n d gar w i d e r s t r e b e n d e s Machwerk(...) ";
S p a n n e u t , DS 835: "Le travail d e l ' i n t e r p o l a t e u r est malhabile, mais r e m a r q u a b l e
p o u r le r e s p e c t q u ' i l t m o i g n e au texte."; , RAC 664: "Der I n t e r p o l a t o r ist
u n g e s c h i c k t , r e s p e k t i e r t a b e r g e w i s s e n h a f t das O r i g i n a l . " O n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
C h a p p u i s 145 praises Nilus f o r t h e i n g e n i o u s idea of using Epictetus' Encheiridion
f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e monks, a n d regards his a d a p t a t i o n as m o r e interesting t h a n
Par, " n o n s e u l e m e n t p a r c e q u e c'est le p r e m i e r essai, mais e n c o r e p a r c e q u e
r e s p e c t a n t p e u d e dtails prs la p e n s e stocienne, elle la t r a n s m e t avec m o i n s
d ' a t t n u a t i o n s et d e surcharges c h r t i e n n e s . " For Piscopo, Nilo 593, too, t h e work
"suscita un particolare interesse, se la si considra nel q u a d r o di tutta la p r o d u z i o n e
di questo autore."
transform the authentic

monks
11
Encheiridion i n t o a s u i t a b l e h a n d b o o k f o r
; t h e n u m b e r a n d c h a r a c t e r o f d o c t r i n a r i a n a l t e r a t i o n s is n o t
very impressive.
a. Omissions
T h e m o s t c o n s p i c u o u s way in w h i c h [Nilus] h a s c h a n g e d t h e original
Ench is c o n s t i t u t e d b y o m i s s i o n s o f w o r d s , p h r a s e s a n d w h o l e p a s sages. T h e s e are t h e following12:
Ench 1 5 , 8 - 9 = Nil 2 1 ad fin.
(the
instances of Diogenes
and
H e r a c l i t u s as )
Ench 3 2 ( d e a l i n g w i t h )
Ench 3 3 8 ( d e a l i n g w i t h )
Ench 3 3 1 0 , 2 5 - 3 1 ( d e a l i n g w i t h b e h a v i o u r i n t h e t h e a t r e )
Ench 4 1 , 3 (= / 6 0 , 3 )
Ench 5 2 ( d e a l i n g w i t h t h e t r i p a r t i t i o n o f E p i c t e t u s ' p h i l o s o p h y )
Ench 53 1 " 3 ( q u o t a t i o n s f r o m C l e a n t h e s , E u r i p i d e s a n d P l a t o )
T h e o m i s s i o n s i n t h e final c h a p t e r ( 7 2 ) s h o w [ N i l u s ] ' c l u m s i n e s s
in preparing his adaptation: in the original text the f o u r m a x i m s are
explicitly p r e s e n t e d as s u c h by t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y p h r a s e
; i n Nil t h i s p h r a s e is o m i t t e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e
f i r s t t h r e e m a x i m s q u o t e d i n Ench,
s o t h a t it b e c o m e s u n c l e a r w h o is
the I () o f the m a x i m .
b. Adaptations of passages
In o n e case [Nilus] r e p l a c e s a p h r a s e in
invention:
Ench b y s o m e t h i n g o f h i s o w n
Ench 3 1 , c o n t a i n i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s o n m a k i n g o b l a t i o n s , is
r e p l a c e d by the stop-gap M i 3 8 c 9 , 5
11
C h a p p u i s 146-152 gives a c o m p a r i s o n of Nil a n d Ench. A drawback of his

t r e a t m e n t is that h e a p p e a r s to use Migne's edition, which r e p r o d u c e s R; f u r t h e r h e
takes this text f o r g r a n t e d , a s s u m i n g t h a t all t h e d i f f e r e n c e s f r o m Ench a r e
deliberate alterations by Nilus. For instance, at p. 146 C h a p p u i s states that in Nil 1
t h e p h r a s e 1,3-4 - is o m i t t e d ; in fact, it is f o u n d in a n d (and Schweigh u s e r ' s edition). T h e omissions in Nil9, 13, 68-69 ( C h a p p u i s 146-147) in comparison with Ench are probably d u e to clerical e r r o r s (in t h e first two cases le saut du
mme au mme).
For a brief description of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n Nil a n d Ench see S p a n n e u t ,
DS 835-836; , Moines 49-50.
12
T h e omission of Ench 48 3 , 49, 50,1-2 ( M i 69-70) is probably d u e to t h e loss of
a folium o r t h e skipping of a page: t h e r e is n o reason why Nilus should have left o u t
Ench 49 deliberately, b e c a u s e its c o n t e n t s a r e perfectly c o m p a t i b l e with Christian
doctrine: "it is deeds, not words, that count".
; h e r e [Nilus] d o e s n o t e v e n take the trouble to indicate w h i c h

k i n d o f is i n t e n d e d , s o t h a t t h e w h o l e p h r a s e is i n f a c t d e v o i d o f
sense. At
Nil 4 7 , 4 (= Ench 3 3 1 0 , 2 4 - 2 5 ) t h e o r i g i n a l
is r e p l a c e d b y
: apparently was n o t strong e n o u g h for [Nilus].
c. Proper names and specific denominations

N a m e s of Greek p h i l o s o p h e r s or mythological figures are
substituted
or omitted,
although
S o c r a t e s is r e t a i n e d , n a m e l y a t
on
one
occasion
usually
the n a m e
of
Nil 1 0 a , 2 ( = Ench 5 a , 3 ) . I n o n e c a s e
(Nil 7 1 ad fin. = Ench 5 1 ) . T h e
Socrates has b e e n substituted by Paul
phrase containing the n a m e s of D i o g e n e s and Heraclitus has b e e n

suppressed altogether
(Ench 1 5 , 8 - 9 ) . A t Nil 3 8 b 6 , 7 ( = Ench 3 1 4 , 1 7 )
E t e o c l e s a n d P o l y n e i c e s a r e r e p l a c e d b y 1 3 . A t Nil
4 8 , 2 (=
Ench 3 3 1 2 , 3 4 - 3 5 ) S o c r a t e s a n d Z e n o a r e r e p l a c e d b y
.
T w o other places show the carelessness with which [Nilus] adapted
the text of
Ench: a t M Z 3 5 b 6 , 1 5 ( = Ench 2 9 4 , 2 0 ) S o c r a t e s 1 4 is s u b s t i -
t u t e d b y ; t h i s p h r a s e is m e a n i n g l e s s a s a n i l l u s t r a t i o n o f
the
immediately
preceding
and
the
sentence
i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g h a s l o s t its s e n s e as w e l l , b e c a u s e t h e w o r d
, w h i c h in
Ench r e f e r s t o S o c r a t e s , is n o w m a d e t o r e f e r t o t h e
Nil 6 5 , 8 ( = Ench 4 6 ^ 4 ) is
indefinite . T h e case of
a n a l o g o u s : h e r e S o c r a t e s is r e p l a c e d b y , w i t h o u t f u r t h e r
a d a p t a t i o n s i n t h e s e q u e l , s o t h a t t h e r e a d e r o f Nil is m a d e t o b e l i e v e
t h a t the p h i l o s o p h e r s i n g e n e r a l s e n t a w a y t h o s e w h o a p p l i e d t o t h e m
f o r b e i n g i n s t i t u t e d as p h i l o s o p h e r s 1 5 .
At M / 2 1
(=
Ench 1 5 ) t h e p h r a s e is r e p l a c e d b y
, while has taken the place of .

F i n a l l y , is c o n s t a n t l y r e p l a c e d b y .
T h e s e are t h e o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t c h a n g e s i n t r o d u c e d in o r d e r to b r i n g
the original
Ench i n t o a c c o r d a n c e w i t h C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e . B u t i n
o t h e r places [Nilus] leaves passages w h i c h are quite indigestible to an

orthodox
13
Christian. Chappuis
1 5 1 a n d S p a n n e u t , DS
836,
draw
N o t by les tyrans, as C h a p p u i s 149 wrongly states.

T h a t [Nilus] read f o r (with t h e MSS of Ench) a p p e a r s
f r o m the fact that Nil has .
15
Nil has f o r , a r e a d i n g which I believe s h o u l d b e
m a i n t a i n e d , because it is also f o u n d in EACWvrSii a n d Vat.
14
Nil 1 6 , 4 - 5 (= Ench 1 2 ^ 4 - 5 )
Nil 1 9 , 3 - 4 ( = Ench 1 4 a 1 , 3 - 4 )
, ; S p a n n e u t , ibid., a d d s t h a t
[ N i l u s ] o m i t s Ench 3 2 , d e a l i n g w i t h p r o p h e c i e s , b u t l e a v e s Nil 2 4 ( =
Ench 1 8 ) , w h e r e t h e c r y o f a c r o w is d e a l t w i t h a s a p r o p h e c y . A n d
attention to
, and
t h e r e a r e m o r e s u c h i n s t a n c e s . A l l i n all w e m a y c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e
attempt
to
adapt
Ench t o o r t h o d o x C h r i s t i a n p u r p o s e s c a n b e
r e g a r d e d as a failure.
3.
Other deviations from the authentic E n c h e i r i d i o n
Besides the c h a n g e s m a d e in order to give the text a
Christian
character, there are a large n u m b e r o f major a n d m i n o r deviations

f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l Encheiridion.
S o m e o f these are certainly deliberate.
I will m e n t i o n t h e d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s o f d e v i a t i o n s , a n d q u o t e s o m e
instances.
a. Simplifications
I n a f e w c a s e s Nil r e p l a c e s a r e l a t i v e l y o b s c u r e w o r d o r p h r a s e b y a
better-known o n e ; these are the following:
Ench 8,2 = Nil 13,2

Ench 18,6 = Nil 24,6
]
' ]
Ench 2 4 , 1 5 = M / 3 1 b , 5
Ench 3 1 5 , 2 5 = Nil 38c6,6
]
]
b. Additions
A d d i t i o n s w h i c h affect the m e a n i n g of the text are few; I have n o t e d
the following:
Ench 2 2 , 1 1 = Nil 7 , 6
Ench 1 8 , 2 = M 7 2 4 , 2
Ench 2 9 7 , 3 4 = Nil 3 6 c 5 , 4
16
+
+
+ 16
T h u s Nil has , with for

of those MSS of Ench which have ch. 29. While t h e Ench r e a d i n g should b e taken as
"you m u s t b e o n e p e r s o n , e i t h e r g o o d o r b a d " ( O l d f a t h e r ) , [Nilus] p r o b a b l y
i n t e n d e d "being o n e m a n , you must be g o o d o r bad". But Schweighuser suspects
that [Nilus] wrote f o r .
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
31l,4 = Nil 3 8 a 1 , 4
3 3 7 , 1 8 = MY 4 5 , 3
ante add.
33
14
,44 = MY50,4
48b2,1 = MY69',1
ante add.
+
In o t h e r p l a c e s t h e r e are a d d i t i o n s o f particles a n d p r o n o u n s ; s o m e
instances:
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
5a,5 = Nil 10a,5
ante add.
10,4 = M / 1 4 , 4
24l,4 = MY 3 1 a 3 , 4
ante add.
25',4 = M Y 3 2 a 3 , 1 4
ante add.
Nil 4 0 , 6
37,2 = MY 56,5
41,2 = Nil 60,2
5 1 3 , 1 4 = MY 7 1 b 6 , 1
ante add.
33 ,6 =
ante add.
a n t e a d d . (ter)
c. Omissions
Besides the o m i s s i o n s already r e c o r d e d above, there are a n u m b e r o f
places w h e r e particles, p r o n o u n s a n d o t h e r w o r d s are omitted; s o m e
instances:
Ench 1 5 ,20 = MY 5,3

Ench 7,1.3 = Nil 12a, 1.3
ante o m .
p o s t 1. o m . e t p o s t 3.
o m .
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
d.
22,2 = MY 29,2
post om.
26,3 = MY332,3
post o m .
33
12
,34 = MY48,2
42,6 = MY 6 1 4 , 1 0
post o m .
ante om.
Transpositions
I n s o m e t h i r t y p l a c e s t h e w o r d o r d e r is c h a n g e d ; s o m e i n s t a n c e s :
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
2 ^ 5 - 6 = MY 6 , 5
-] -
3316,47 = /52,4
43,2 = MY62,2
51 ,16 = Nil 71 b ,2
e. Changes of words and short phrases

Fairly o f t e n MY h a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e ( f o r m o f a) w o r d , o r v a r i e s a p h r a s e ;
this h a p p e n s with p r o n o u n s , particles, substantives, verbs etc.; s o m e
instances:
Ench 1 3 ,11 = Nil 3,5

Ench 21,2 = Nil 6,2
Ench 6,4 = Nil 11,4
Ench 12^2 = Nil 16,2
Ench 1 4 a 1 , 3 = Nil 1 9 , 3
Ench 1 9 b 2 , 4 = M / 2 6 , 4
Ench 2 5 4 , 1 3 = M 7 3 2 b 8 , 4
Ench 2 5 4 , 1 6 = Nil 3 2 b 9 , 7
Ench 3 0 , 7 - 8 = M 7 3 7 3 , 1 4
Ench 3 3 n , 3 1 = M / 4 7 , 4
Ench 4 6 2 , 8 = Nil 6 6 a 1 , 1 2
Ench 4 8 a 1 , 1 = Nil 68,6
Ench 512,9 = MZ7la4,10
]
]
']
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
f . Conjectures
In s o m e cases M / h a s a r e a d i n g w h i c h s e e m s to have b e e n i n t r o d u c e d
i n o r d e r t o e m e n d a t e x t w h i c h w a s j u d g e d c o r r u p t ; o f c o u r s e , it is
n o t b e y o n d d o u b t that s u c h c o n j e c t u r e s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d by [ N i l u s ] ,
b u t it is a r e a s o n a b l e g u e s s t h a t t h i s h a s b e e n t h e c a s e . I w i l l q u o t e
s o m e instances:
Nil 3 , 6 ( = Ench 1 3 , 1 1 ) Nil h a s ,

, w h i l e Ench r e a d s , . B y t h i s
At
transposition
the
two
phrases
and
a r e j u x t a p o s e d .
At
Nil 1 1 , 5 (= Ench 6 , 5 ) Nil a d d s b e f o r e ; -
is a c o r r u p t i o n o f , w h i c h i n all p r o b a b i l i t y o c c u r r e d
a l r e a d y i n [ N i l u s ] ' t e x t o f Ench,
b e c a u s e t h e r e a d i n g is f o u n d
in
A C S 6 a s w e l l ( i t is a n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f i n t h e s a m e l i n e ) ; t h e
addition
o f is a g o o d
a t t e m p t at r e s t o r i n g s e n s e
to
the
corrupt passage.
T h e r e a d i n g s w h i c h h a v e b e e n m e n t i o n e d s o f a r w e r e i n all p r o b a bility e i t h e r i n t r o d u c e d d e l i b e r a t e l y by [ N i l u s ] or, i n t h e c a s e o f t h e

lesser alterations, originated s p o n t a n e o u s l y
currente calamo. T h e l a t t e r
e x p l a n a t i o n g o e s e s p e c i a l l y f o r s u c h trivial c h a n g e s a s i n s t e a d o f
a n d t h e like.
It is a l s o p o s s i b l e
that in a n u m b e r o f cases
[Nilus]
copied
Ench. F o r i n s t a n c e , a t Ench 1 8 , 3 (=
Nil 2 4 , 4 ) w e find i n s t e a d o f ; ( w r i t t e n per compendium) a n d
c o r r u p t i o n h e f o u n d in his M S o f
are easily c o n f u s e d . As a rule s u c h c o r r u p t i o n s d o n o t destroy the

sense of a passage completely, and therefore [Nilus] may not even
have noticed them. But things b e c o m e different w h e n the MSS of
Nil
p r e s e n t us with r e a d i n g s w h i c h are ostensible c o r r u p t i o n s destroying

t h e g r a m m a r a n d / o r s e n s e o f a p a s s a g e ; h e r e w e h a v e t o ask o u r s e l v e s
w h e t h e r t h e c o r r u p t i o n was already in
[Nilus']
t e x t o f Ench,
or
o r i g i n a t e d i n t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f Nil. T h i s will b e d i s c u s s e d i n c h a p t e r
e l e v e n , d e a l i n g with the c o n s t i t u t i o n o f the text.
S t e m m a c o d i c u m et editionis principis
[Nili]
Encheiridii
T H E AFFILIATION OF T H E MANUSCRIPTS A N D T H E
EDITIO
PRINCEPS O F [ N I L U S ] ' A D A P T A T I O N
I n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n ( p p . 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 ) it h a s a l r e a d y b e e n e x p l a i n e d h o w
the
five witnesses
used
by W o t k e
and
Piscopo
d e p e r d i t u s ] , [Par. gr. 1 2 2 0 ] , R [ t h e R o m a n
gr. 1 4 3 4 ] , W [Vat. gr. 6 5 3 ] )
(H
[Hafniensis
editio pnnceps], V [Vat.
are a r r a n g e d s t e m m a t i c a l l y by
these
scholars. T h e y d i v i d e t h e M S S i n t o two g r o u p s : t h e first c o n s i s t s o f

a n d P, the s e c o n d o f RVW; in the latter g r o u p , V a n d W
belong
t o g e t h e r a g a i n s t R . O n t h e b a s i s o f m y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f all t h e M S S
k n o w n a n d available to m e , I a g r e e that V W b e l o n g t o g e t h e r , b u t o n
m o s t o t h e r p o i n t s I h a v e a r r i v e d at d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s .
T h e s t e m m a t i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e M S S o f Nil is r a t h e r c o m p l i c a t e d f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . is o n l y k n o w n f r o m M e i b o m ' s c o l l a t i o n ,
o f w h i c h it c a n b e s a f e l y a s s u m e d t h a t it is i n c o m p l e t e . S u a r e z ' t e x t o f
the
editio princeps is c o n t a m i n a t e d w i t h W o l f s t e x t o f Ench1. O t h e r
MSS too
(notably Q
[Vat. Pal. gr. 3 6 1 ] )
s h o w traces of
intensive
c o n t a m i n a t i o n . B u t m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f all, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e t w o
m o s t i m p o r t a n t MSS, M
[ V e n . Marc. gr.
131] and P, cannot
be
established with certainty. T h e r e f o r e , m y discussion d o e s n o t claim to

give the ultimate a n d definitive truth, but only presents what I believe
t o b e t h e least u n l i k e l y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e state o f affairs.
The relationship of M and

I will s t a r t m y d i s c u s s i o n at t h e t o p o f t h e s t e m m a , t h a t is, w i t h t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p o f M a n d P ; all t h e o t h e r M S S a p p e a r t o d e p e n d o n M ,
a s w i l l b e s h o w n b e l o w . M , b e i n g t h e o l d e s t e x t a n t M S o f Nil
a s s i g n e d t o t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y b y M i o n i ) , is
( M is
qualitate qua a p r i m a r y
w i t n e s s . is a s s i g n e d t o t h e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y b y O m o n t ,
and
t h e r e f o r e m u c h y o u n g e r t h a n M . T h u s it is i m p o s s i b l e t h a t M s h o u l d
1
This already a p p e a r s f r o m t h e fact that R's division of the chapters is based on
W o l f s edition; cf. Schweighuser's n o t e ( E P h M V 98).
b e d e p e n d e n t o n P: e i t h e r t h e t w o M S S g o b a c k to a c o m m o n s o u r c e
( a n d are t h e r e f o r e g e m e l l i ) , o r d e p e n d s o n M.
has n u m e r o u s separative errors against M (and the other MSS2) ;
s o m e instances:
5,2
15,4
21,1
29,1
35b3,6
38a2,8
53a,5
693,4
71a1,3
]
' o m .
o m .
]
]
]
]
]
]
O n the o t h e r hand, there are a few places w h e r e certainly has the

c o r r e c t r e a d i n g a g a i n s t M ( a n d m o s t o r all o t h e r M S S ) :
9,7
30,1
34c3,3
35a1,!
38c7,2
49,4
: M cett.
P (et H ? R ) : M cett.
P recte: M cett. ( S c h w e i g h u s e r )
: M cett.
: M cett.
: M cett.
N o w if w e w i s h t o d e r i v e
f r o m M , t h e s e six p l a c e s s h o u l d
be
e x p l a i n e d by a s s u m i n g that they c a m e i n t o by c o n j e c t u r e o r by
c o n t a m i n a t i o n . T h e cases o f 9,7 a n d 4 9 , 4 are very easy corrections;
the cases o f 30,1, 3 4 c 3 , 3 a n d 3 5 a 1 , ! are less obvious, but n o t very
d i f f i c u l t ; b u t i n t h e c a s e o f 3 8 c 7 , 2 it is h a r d t o i m a g i n e t h a t a s c r i b e
introduced the reading
suo Marte, a l t h o u g h , o f c o u r s e ,
this possibility c a n n o t b e r u l e d o u t a l t o g e t h e r . T h e r e are s o m e o t h e r

places which can only be explained
as t h e r e s u l t o f
conjectural
e m e n d a t i o n : at 3 1 c 1 3 , 8 a d d s after , w h i c h l o o k s like a n
attempt to e m e n d the corrupt for
; at 3 8 b 4 , 1 h a s f o r (with O R S W ) , w h i l e
o m i t s b o t h w o r d s ( w i t h N V Q ) . F u r t h e r , t h e r e is t h e r e a d i n g a t 4 0 , 7 :
h a s ( w h i c h is a c c e p t e d b y S c h w e i g h u s e r ) , w h i l e t h e o t h e r
M S S r e a d ; o b v i o u s l y is a c o r r u p t i o n o f
; , t h e n , has s o u g h t to e m e n d t h e text by o m i t t i n g
. F i n a l l y , t h e r e is t h e c a s e o f 6 2 , 2 : h e r e S c h w e i g h u s e r p r i n t s
, w h i c h is t h e r e a d i n g o f H O R V W ; r e a d s , w h i l e M Q h a v e
( w h i c h is a l s o f o u n d i n
Ench a n d Par): t o m y m i n d , M Q h a v e t h e
2
In my discussion of t h e relationship of a n d M I d o n o t r e p o r t t h e readings
of BCLN, because these MSS are codices desaripti.
c o r r e c t r e a d i n g , w h i l e b o t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f in a n d o f in t h e
o t h e r M S S s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as e i t h e r clerical e r r o r s o r d e l i b e r a t e
a t t e m p t s at i m p r o v i n g t h e text. T h e s e c a s e s s h o w that t h e scribe o f
was capable to e m e n d a text w h i c h h e j u d g e d corrupt.
In a few o t h e r places w h e r e S c h w e i g h u s e r follows against M 3 the
reading o f should probably be rejected:
4,7
40,7
53a,2
l2,?
M cett.:
M cett.: (cf. supra)
M cett.: (et Q )
M cett.:
S o far, o n e m i g h t b e i n c l i n e d t o c o n c l u d e that a n d M are g e m e l l i ,

a l t h o u g h t h e n u m b e r o f s e p a r a t i v e e r r o r s o f M a g a i n s t is v e r y l o w .
Y e t t h e r e is a l s o a n a r g u m e n t f o r t h e d e p e n d e n c e o f o n M . I n a
n u m b e r o f p l a c e s M h a s b e e n c o r r e c t e d by a later h a n d 4 .
T h e p a s s a g e 1 , 3 - 4 - is o m i t t e d b y t h e s c r i b e o f M , b u t it is
a d d e d by a later h a n d writing in a quite d i f f e r e n t script with
much
darker ink; t h e h a n d l o o k s rather r e c e n t .

In chs. 10-18 t h e r e are a n u m b e r o f c o r r e c t i o n s written in dark ink.
At 10b,3 M originally read for , a n d
for ; both
r e a d i n g s h a v e b e e n c o r r e c t e d b y w r i t i n g a n d c in rasura.
At 17,4 M
originally h a d , to w h i c h a was a d d e d a b o v e the line. At 17,5 M

has , to w h i c h the later h a n d a d d e d a s i g m a a b o v e the line. At
1 8 , 1 M h a d w i t h a l i n e d r a w n a b o v e (= ) :
corrector a d d e d an
the
acutus a b o v e t h e a n d d e l e t e d t h e l i n e a b o v e .
A t 3 1 b 7 , 2 t h i s s a m e h a n d a d d e d a q u e s t i o n m a r k (;) a f t e r . B e c a u s e the corrections in chs. 10-18 consist o f a few letters

o n l y , it is i m p o s s i b l e t o say w i t h c e r t a i n t y w h e t h e r t h e a d d i t i o n at 1,34 a n d the c o r r e c t i o n s in chs. 10-18 w e r e a d d e d by t h e s a m e scribe,
b u t i n t u i t i v e l y I t h i n k t h a t t h i s is n o t so: t h e l e t t e r s o f t h e c o r r e c t i o n s
i n c h s . 1 0 - 1 8 a r e m o r e r o b u s t t h a n t h e s c r i p t o f t h e a d d i t i o n at 1,3-4.
At 6 1 ^ 4 the original r e a d i n g in M was
; t h e first w a s c h a n g e d i n t o , p r o b a b l y by t h e first
hand5.
Of course, Schweighuser h a d n o knowledge of M.

I have s t u d i e d M in situ in O c t o b e r , 1997. B e f o r e that time I h a d received
i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e c o r r e c t i o n s a n d additions in M f r o m Dott. Susy M a r c o n of
t h e Biblioteca Marciana; I wish to express my g r a d t u d e to h e r .
5
In a letter of 1 3 / 3 / 9 7 Dott. Marcon writes m e that t h e ink of t h e at 61 1 is
b r i g h t e r t h a n that of t h e at 17,4. She f u r t h e r adds: "la f o r m a del diverge d a
q u e l l a della stessa l e t t e r a nella g r a f i a d l i a n o t a a f. 311r [1,3-4]." For t h e
inspection of M this time I am i n d e b t e d to Dott. E. Lugato. After inspecting M in
4
N o w i n t h e p a s s a g e 1 , 3 - 4 M 2 h a s , w h i c h is a l s o f o u n d i n a n d
fi
H ; t h e o t h e r M S S o m i t t h e p a s s a g e w i t h M a c ; is a l s o f o u n d i n
o n e o f t h e t w o f a m i l i e s o f Par,
the other witnesses have . At 17,4
t h e s i t u a t i o n is s i m i l a r : M a c h a s , w h i c h is a l s o t h e r e a d i n g
2
of
O R S V ; , t h e r e a d i n g o f M , is a l s o f o u n d i n H P Q W ; at 1 7 , 5 t h e
o t h e r M S S h a v e w i t h M a c , w h e r e a s a g r e e s w i t h MP C i n r e a d i n g
; at 18,1 t h e r e a d i n g w i t h a s t r o k e a b o v e t h e l i n e
is
r e p r o d u c e d in O S V W (R has ), while has . At 611

a g r e e s w i t h t h e r e a d i n g o f MPC, t h e o t h e r M S S o m i t 8. In
t h e s e c a s e s w e may
h a v e t h e f o l l o w i n g state o f affairs: t h e
common
s o u r c e o f the o t h e r MSS was c o p i e d f r o m M w h e n the c o r r e c t i o n s by

M 2 h a d n o t yet b e e n m a d e ; P, o n the o t h e r h a n d , was c o p i e d f r o m M
after M 2 h a d b e e n active.
Finally, t h e r e are two s u p r a l i n e a r s i g m a s in chs. 10-11. A t 1 0 b , l t h e
scribe originally wrote for ; a sigma was a d d e d above the
line. At 11,2 M has ; h e r e t o o a supralinear of exactly the s a m e
s h a p e w a s a d d e d . T h e c o l o u r o f t h e is t h e s a m e a s t h a t o f t h e t e x t i n k , b u t its s h a p e is s o m e w h a t t h i n n e r t h a n t h e s i g m a s i n t h e t e x t ; y e t
this m i g h t b e d u e to the fact that the letter was a d d e d a b o v e the line.
It is i m p o s s i b l e t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e s i g m a s a r e d u e t o t h e s c r i b e o r
to a later h a n d , but o n intuition I think the latter h y p o t h e s i s
the
m o r e l i k e l y . A t 1 0 b , 1 all M S S h a v e ; a t 1 1 , 2 h a s , w h i l e
t h e o t h e r s h a v e . Yet this d o e s n o t p r o v e that d e p e n d s o n M ,
b e c a u s e it a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t a c o m m o n a n c e s t o r o f M
and
had
e x a c t l y t h e s a m e r e a d i n g a s M , t h a t is, w i t h a b o v e t h e l i n e
( t h a t is, if t h e is d u e t o t h e f i r s t h a n d ) 9 .
In t h e o r y t h e r e are o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n s t o o . T h u s o n e c o u l d supp o s e that M 2 drew o n P , a l t h o u g h in that case o n e w o u l d e x p e c t to
situ I believe that t h e is probably d u e to t h e first h a n d , because it resembles t h e

in t h e text very closely.
6
As will b e shown below, has b e e n c o n t a m i n a t e d f r o m in a few places; this
is o n e of t h e passages in question.
7
H e r e we have to assume that Q a n d W arrived at i n d e p e n d e n t l y .
8
T h e omission of is in all probability i n t e n t i o n a l , b u t it c a n n o t b e
d e c i d e d w h e t h e r t h e scribe w h o omitted t h e words read either (with
M a c ) or (with MP C ): b o t h r e a d i n g s are equally nonsensical. Q has
, which may b e either a conjectural e m e n d a t i o n of (=
M a c ) or a transposition of (=MP C ).
9
In g e n e r a l , M 1 has only very few variant r e a d i n g s written supra linearrv, in t h e
places w h e r e I have f o u n d letters above the line that are certainly d u e to t h e scribe
(in o t h e r texts t h a n Nil), these letters a r e written in t h e same way as t h e letters in
t h e text (see, e.g., f. 328 r , left c o l u m n , a ; f. 335 r , right c o l u m n , a v).
find more corrections by M 2 taken from P. Alternatively, at 1,3-4 it is

possible that M and received the variant reading independently; in the case of 61 1 too it is imaginable that two scribes arrived
at the same (worthless) conjecture.
If it could be shown that the corrections in M were due to several
later hands, this would constitute certain proof in favour of the
hypothesis that derives from MPC. Now there are some slight
indications that the corrections are due to different hands, but Dott.
Marcon rightly notes: "Gli elementi a disposizione per un confronto
non sono sufficienti, tuttavia, ad individuare con certezza le diverse
mani."
I find it very difficult to make a choice. If M and are gemelli, the
number of separative errors of M is rather low 10 , and the cases of 1,3
and 11,2 remain puzzling. If, on the other hand, we
assume that derives from M, there are a few places where the
correct reading of against M must be explained by conjectural
emendation. In dubio pro reo: although I think it much more likely
that does derive from M than that the two MSS are gemelli, I
believe that it is worse to unjustly eliminate a primary MS than to
unduly assign a primary status to a descriptus. I have decided to treat
as a primary witness, and its readings are quoted in the apparatus. In
any case, there is hardly any reading in P, apart from the ones
mentioned above, which deserves serious consideration on the part
of an editor. However, I would rather give too much than too little
information.
The text of Nil in was copied by two scribes; the second of these is
only responsible for f. 312'. The corrections and variant readings
appear to have been added by the scribe himself, but some of them
may have been made after the text was copied. It has already been
noted that has many corrections and variant readings deriving from
Par. Some of these additions are written in red ink; most of them
were probably added by the scribe himself (I have inspected in
situ), but the marginal additions at the end of the work are probably
due to another scribe, who must have been contemporary with the
scribe of the text, because he drew from the same source. The source
of these additions is to be sought in the group /TJKQU, as appears
from the case of 71b 6 : here adds in the margin
10
If the hypothesis that derives from M2 is rejected, the cases of 1,3-4 and
17,4 should be regarded as separative errors of M against P.

; all MSS of Par except PIJKQU have
before . The conclusion that drew on a MS of this group
is confirmed by other readings where PPC is in agreement with Para.
See for instance the title which is added in ,
:
reads with , while has (the
latter reading is accepted by Schweighuser, and rightly so); and at
12b,3 there is an addition
, which is the reading of , while PM
adds after .
A number of P's errors have already been quoted above. also has
rather frequent orthographical errors, of which I will give some
instances:
5,3
14.5
18,2
38a2,8
68.6
]
]
]
] (apparently, the scribe did not attempt to understand what he was copying here)
]
The most important places where M has an error against have

already been mentioned above. In addition, M has some slighter
errors, including a few orthographical ones; some instances:
17,1
35b 2 ,3
49,1
49,4
]
] (sic)
]
]
G [Par. gr. 1054]
Before starting the discussion of the other MSS I will pay attention to
G, which contains only a restricted number of chapters (see p. 152).
G appears to go back to three different sources. It starts with the title
, which closely resembles
the title in EA [Neap. II.C.37], [Vat. gr. 952], [Vat. gr. 1858] and
[Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11]: ( ) ; further G adds the distichon which is
also found in Eb. And indeed G closely agrees with in chapters
3, 5a and 5b of Ench (see pp. 30-31). But already in chapter 5a of Ench
the influence of 7VP can be seen at work:
5a,2
5a,5
] GPsl (ex Par)

] G Nil
After Ench 5b G has the text of Nil, agreeing with in the chapters
11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 24; but in a few cases a reading from
is introduced. G also reproduces a number of supralinear
readings found in P, written in red ink (as is also the case in P).
Some instances:
11.2
11,4
13.4
15.5
21,1
] , supra lineam minio PG

] supra lineam minio PG
post add. '
,
. Here the reading shows that G drew on a MS
related to , which have this same variant reading.
] G
om. GP
At 21,3 G has for ; this absurd reading may well be the result
of misreading P's script, because leaves some space after the , and
writes in such a way that it could be mistaken for .
In the rest of its text (chapters 25-30 and 31a) G is related to Q
[Vat. Pal. gr. 361], but not dependent on it; some cases of agreement
between G and Q:
25,1
26.1
26.3
29.2
29.3
om. GQ
om. GQ
om. GQ
] GQ
] GQ
That G cannot depend on Q is proved by the distinctive readings of

Q, of which I will give some instances:
29.2
29.6
] Q
] Q
G has many errors of its own, including countless orthographical

errors; some instances:
11.3
.
11,5
] (sic)
14,3
]
16.3
]
16.4
]
21.7
om.
29,3
]
Thus G and Q should be considered gemelli; in the stemma their
common ancestor is indicated with the siglum a.
The stemmatical position of the MSS other than MP

The other MSS all appear to go back ultimately to M, although the
picture is obscured by the fact that some of these MSS have
undergone serious contamination.
That H [Hafniensis deperditus], [Vat. Ott. gr. 25], Q [Vat. Pal.
gr. 361], R [editio pnnceps], S [Par. Suppl. gr. 684], V [Vat. gr. 1434]
and W [Vat. gr. 653] 1 1 derive from M is shown by the fact that they
usually share M's errors against P; moreover, they mostly agree with
M a c in those places where there is a correction by a later hand in M
(see above, pp. 167-168), notably in the omission of 1,3-4 -.
There are a very few places where HOQRSVW agree in error:
20,7
53a,4
66b 2 ,4
] OS:
QRVW (Meibom silet de )
] MP: Q:
HORS (desunt VW)
] OQVW ( habet R; de H silet
Meibom)
These places can hardly be judged sufficient to postulate a common

ancestor of Q and the others. The error at 66b 2 ,4 is very trivial
indeed; the omission of at 20,7 may also be due to
h o m o i o t e l e u t o n in Q; and at 53a,4 the readings and
could both be based on . Therefore I think it
most likely that Q and HORSVW go back to M independently, but
the possibility that they go back to a c o m m o n ancestor cannot be
excluded with certainty.
Q
Q 1 2 has a lot of errors of its own; some instances:
4,3
9,7
12a,5
24,6
35b 2 ,3
38a 2 ,6
44,5
49,5
58,4
11
om.
]
]
om.
om.
]
]
]
]
Again, I will leave BCLN out of account for the moment.

Q g e s back to a, which is also the source of G in chs. 25-30 and 31a; but
because can be reconstructed only in such a small part of the text, I will not give a
separate discussion of a, but deal with Q only.
12
Besides, Q has countless orthographical errors; some instances:

5.3
7.4
10b,l
37 3 ,13
614,10
]
]
]
]
]
Q has a number of marginal glosses and scholia; thus at 18,4

there is a note ; at 20,8 we find the gloss
for . Scholia are found e.g. at 20,7 '
and at 55b. In one place a gloss has intruded into the text:
29,6 ] .
In a number of places Q shows unmistakable traces of contamination. In the first place there are some cases of agreement with SC
[Vat. gr. 327] and its derivative EU [Par. gr. 2124]:
4,4
53,2
55a,4
71a 1 ,3
]
] (et )
lacunam supplevit his verbis:
(ita et alii S)
] (et Vat)
In one place Q agrees with EU alone, namely 49,5 ] . Therefore we can conclude that Q has been contaminated
from (a lost congener of) U .
Secondly, there are two places where Q agrees with the editions of
Ench, namely 25,1 om. (with /HaTrScBr only) and 66b 2 ,4 ]
. These two cases may also be coincidental.
Thirdly, Q agrees in a few places with Par, this goes for the addition of after at 17,3; at 65,5 the reading for is also found in FV [Ven. Marc. gr. 127] and its
congeners; at 66a 1 ,11 the reading for
could be inspired by Par's reading .
Because contamination of Q is certain, some attractive readings of
Q against the other MSS of Nil may also be explained by contamination; some instances:
9,7
12a,7
332,5
49,4
51.2
54.3
habet (et )
habet (et RW)
] (et R)
habet (et )
habet (et HR)
post add. , (et
HOR)
Within the group of the extant MSS of M / Q shows some remarkable

cases of agreement with R. Some instances:
7.5
31a 4 ,6
46,2
'] ' QR
MSVW: HOP: QR
om. QR
Of course, some of such cases could well be coincidental, or may be

explained by assuming i n d e p e n d e n t contamination of Q and R. But
at 31a 3 ,5 R has for , while Q has in the text and in the
margin: clearly, this is n o coincidence. Either R (that is, Suarez) has
consulted Q, or the scribe of Q has consulted an ancestor of R.
(= HORSVW)
is the source of the following witnesses: H [Hafniensis deperditus],
[Vat. Ott. gr. 25], R [editio Romana], S [Par. Suppl. gr. 684], V
[Vat. gr. 1434], W [Vat. gr. 653]. has the following significant
readings:
3.6
6,4
17,4
18,2
33 2 ,2
53a,4
61 *,4-5
62,2
om. (deest W, de H silet Meibom)

om. HORSW (habet V)
]
] (de silet Meibom)
] S: RVW ( habent OQ, et sec.
Meibom)
] MP: Q:
HORS (desunt VW)
] M ac:
M2PCP: HOVW (deest S, R habet
)
] oovHORVW (deest S):
T h e case of 42,1 might also g o back to : SVW omit the words

, while H O R have before '
( has transposition signs above the line, omits ' before ): it
is probable that the words were also missing in an ancestor of H O R ,
but were borrowed from another source and inserted in the wrong
place in the text.
The number of these readings is not impressive, and in some cases
does not join the group (if Meibom's report can be trusted, which
I doubt), but even so I think that we are entitled to c o n c l u d e that
these MSS ultimately g o back to a c o m m o n source.
T h e group can be divided into two subgroups; the first of these
consists of (the c o m m o n source of W and V (and its derivative
[Vat. Ott. gr. 142])), the other of (= the ancestor of S and , which
is the c o m m o n ancestor of H O R , plus R's derivatives [Buch. gr.

655], C [Athen. Kolyva 58] and L [Athous 4263]). First I will discuss
, then .
(=VW(N))
The characteristic readings of are the following 13 :
14,2
332,2
36c 5 ,4
36c 5 ,6
44,5
53a,4-5
54,2
70 1 ,!
] V: W
] (et R)
] W: V
]
]
-' v om.
.
]
V and W both have separative errors of their own, which shows that
they are gemelli. First I will report some errors of V (I will only
mention a very few instances of the innumerable orthographical
errors in V) :
11.2
22,5
32a 3 ,14
32b 7 ,3
38a 1 ,4
52,4
54,4
58.3
67,3
] (sic)
bis deinceps
]
]
]
om.
]
]
]
At 6,4 V does have , which is omitted in its congeners HORSW;

this should be regarded as coincidence.
I have found only o n e correction by a later hand in V, namely
36c 5 ,4 ante add. . This reading is also found in R, which
took it from Wolf s edition of Ench, in W o l f s text, however, the word
is inserted after . This shows that in all probability V 2
borrowed the word from R.
13
The relationship of V and W is also discussed by Wotke 70 and Piscopo 600601, but in many cases their report is wrong. This goes for almost all the readings
mentioned by Wotke (32b,6 is omitted in all the MSS, and only
found in R; 42,1 om. see above; 59,4 V has , and W
has the correct ; 67,1 ] ). Piscopo's list contains the following
errors (I only quote the MSS used by Piscopo): 18,1 et ; 21,6 et
; 31a,6 ; 31c,4 et (sed p.c.); 32b,4 ] et ; 32b,6
om. et HP; 51,2 et ; 58,2 et ; 67,1 .
V is the source of [Vat. Ott. gr. 142], as is shown by the fact that
follows V almost everywhere, also in the addition of before
at 36c 5 ,4, which is due to a later hand in V. The only places where
has the correct reading against V are the following:
10a,5
10b,8
21.6
34b2,1
40.7
] V
] V
] V (et MPW)
] V
] V
Further, at 19,4-5 V has ' for ; "corrects" this to '

.
At 18,1 V has / for (i.e. the rubricated , which
should stand at the beginning of the first new line in the new chapter,
was never written); reads . At 36c 5 ,7 V has for ,
with the written per compendium, the scribe of did not notice this
compendium and accordingly wrote . At 59,1 V has for ,
i.e. the capital Y was never rubricated; tries to e m e n d this by
reading .
has many errors of its own: some instances:
3,6
6,4
12b,2
23,4
31c 12 ,6
36c 4 ,2
46,2
614,10
71a2,6
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
There are only eleven errors of W against V (and the other MSS),
some of which are trivial; these are the following:
3,5-6
12a,l
14.2
19.3
20,6
24.4
28.2
28.3
32b 9 ,5
51,2
53a,4
- om.
]
] ( V)
] (et R: Q)
]
]
om. (et )
] (et OR)
]
] MPSV : W
bis deinceps
Remarkably enough, W contains chapter 73, which is missing in all

the other sources except R; the text in W has been borrowed from PJ
[Vat. gr. 740], because this MS has the same doxology. The opening
of the text in R (and Schweighuser) is clearly an adaptation of the
version in Par, R's text of ch. 73 could be based on either W or PJ;
the only error of W against R is for in
line 2, but this is a very trivial error.
Further, W has the correct reading at 12a,7 (with RQ)
against of the other MSS.
(= HORS(BCL))
The number of errors common to (= the source of H O R ) and S
(which breaks off after ch. 53) is small 14 :
4,5
6,4
23,4
32b s ,6
37 s , 12
40,7
53a,4
]
om. (et W)
] HO: S ( habet R)
] : S
]
] HOS ( habet R)
] MP: : Q
(desuntVW)
Although the number of these errors is very restricted, I think that

they are sufficient to show that and S go back to a common source,
which I designate . The places where R does not agree with the
others (23,4 and 40,7) should be explained by contamination of R.
That and S are gemelli is proved by the fact that they both have
separative errors of their own.
First I will discuss S. S has very many unique readings, for the greater
part orthographical errors. Some instances:
3,3
7,3-4
9,7
13,3-4
29,4
31a4,6
333,6
36b3 ,2
53b,1
]
- om.
]
- om.
]
]
]
]
]
The margins of S are almost completely filled with scholia and

paraphrases, which appear to be due to a later hand. This same hand
14
of R.
BCL are not taken into account here, because they derive from an apograph
also added a few readings in the text, e.g. 37^7 ]

s.l.
The relationship of H O R , the derivatives of , is obscured by two
circumstances: first, is only known through Meibom's report,
which can hardly be regarded as trustworthy; second, R has clearly
been contaminated with Wolf s edition of Ench.
Here are a few readings peculiar to :
15,4
22,6
32b9,6
51.2
53b,3
54.3
habet (et Q): cett.

]
]
]
.
post add. , - (et
55a,5
55b,2
58,2
63.4
]
]
om.
post add.
( R)
] MNPVW: HR:
67,1
The readings at 55a,5 and 55b,2 may very well be conjectural,

because of the lacuna at the beginning of this chapter in Nil (cf.
Piscopo 603).
That was contaminated appears with certainty from the case of
42,1, which has already been discussed above (p. 174). Therefore
other readings too may be explained by assuming contamination; this
goes for 53b,3, and especially for the suppletion of the omissions at
54,3 and 63,4.
It is difficult to give a further indication of the relationship of
HOR, because on the one hand there are a number of agreements
between and O, and on the other some agreements between
and R15 .
Some readings common to and O:
12a,5
17.3
22.4
36c4,1
15
]
om.
]
]
There are only two cases of agreement between and R against O: 6,2
habent HR (et Q): : cett.: here may have relapsed into the wrong reading, or Meibom may have failed to note an error in H; 10a,2 ante add. HR:
again, Meibom may have failed to note that was missing in H.
46.1
51.2
71b 6 ,2
]
]
Kaom.
Some agreements of and R:

14,5
23.3
28,3
36a 2 ,6
66b 2 ,4
]
] R:
] (et W)
prius]
]
With regard to the agreements of H O it may be noted that in some

cases the source of R may have shared these readings, but that they
were changed in R through contamination; this appears to be the
case at 23,4, where S virtually agrees with H O ( HO:
S). Thus readings of H O may g o back to , and d o not necessarily
prove the existence of a c o m m o n source of these two MSS distinct
from the source of R.
O n the other hand, in those places where O R agree against H,
Meibom's report may be incomplete, although at 36a 2 ,6 the reading
is positively reported for H.
Thus we are left with a non liquet in this case.
That , and R go back to their c o m m o n source independently is
proved by the fact that each of them has separative readings of its
own.
First, I will list some separative errors of H:
6,4
11,5-6
3la 3 ,5
31c 11 ,4
36c 4 ,2
40,4
50,2
]
- om.
]
]
]
]
]
In a number of cases appears to be contaminated with P, which is

seen most clearly in those places where agrees with ppcie o r where
the reading of H P is not f o u n d anywhere else in the tradition,
including Ench, Par and Vat. There are the following cases:
1,3-4
4,6
10a,2
- habent (et M 2 ) : om. cett.

]
] HP sl (et Ench Par Vat)
16
It has already been noted that the corrections and variant readings in are
borrowed from /TJKQU (see above, pp. 169-170).
11,1
12a,2
12b,3
] HP m S (et Ench Par Vat)

post add. :
P m 8 (et Par)
post add.
HPmS (et Par)
It is remarkable that these cases all occur in the opening chapters of

the text.
In some other cases there may be contamination with other
branches of the tradition; but often this inference is based upon
Meibom's silence (indicated by H ? ), so that it is likely that in reality H
agreed with the other MSS of Nil. Some instances:
15,1.2
23,4
29,2
35b 3 ,6
38a1,2
68,7.9
et ] et (et Ench
Par Vat)
om. (et )
] (et Ench Par
Vat)
] (et Eb)
alterum] (here Meibom reports that has
for
; could it be that he inadvertently reported
instead of ?)
] (et Eb)
In two places Meibom reports a variant reading in H, but he does not

add whether the addition is due to the scribe or to a later hand:
42,1
58,1
]
, add. signa transpositionis
] in margine, i.e. (= EPV) (cf.
Schweighuser ad loc.)
H is not reported explicitly to have been corrected by later hands,

and has no extant derivatives.
has a number of separative errors, of which I will quote some
instances:
3,1
10a, 1
13.2
17,5
35b 3 ,5
36c4,1
374,17
614,10
64.3
.
]
.
]
om.
]
]
]
om.
R has many characteristic readings; some of these are to be regarded

as separative errors, others are due to contamination. First I will list
some separative errors:
5,3
16,3-4
33 2 ,3
35b 6 ,15
38b 4 ,2
38c 8 ,4
41,8
71a2,5
]
] ?,
]
]
]
]
]
mom.
It has already been noted that R has undergone contamination with

Wolf s edition of Ench (or one of the countless editions depending
on Wolf). This appears from the chapter division, as was already
noted by Schweighuser 1 7 ; there are no readings upon which R
agrees with Wolf against other editions of Ench. I will mention some
places where R agrees with Ench, and esp. with the editions (and
sometimes with one or both of the other Christian adaptations):
8,3
31a5,8
31b7,1
31b 7 ,2
3lb 7 ,2
36c 4 ,4
59,6
612,7
] (et EHa etc. Par)

(et T): R:
EACbSib Vat
] (etHaetc.)
] (etEnch Vat, aliter Par)
] (et EMa etc.)
] . R: Ha etc.
] (etAC.S')
] (etHa etc.)
Finally, it has already been noted that R adds chapter 73 from either
W [Vat. gr. 653] or PJ [Vat. gr. 740], R has made an adaptation of the
opening line of the chapter: Par has
, which was changed into
, . Lines 3-4 - are only
found in PIJKQU; together with the fact that PJ is the only one of
these five MSS to have the doxology in the same form as R, this shows
that PJ is the source of ch. 73 in R, possibly via W.
17
In the introductory note of the critical apparatus Schweighuser remarks:
"Capitum distinguendorum rationem eamdem tenui, qua Suaresius in ed. Rom.
usus est: quam quidem ille rationem non e cod. Msto accepisse videtur, sed ad
Wolfiani exempli rationem (qua Wolfium suo judicio usum esse constat) consulto
adaptasse. (...)"
Three eighteenth century MSS depend on R: [Bucharest, gr. 655],

C [Athen. Kolyva 58] and L [Athous 4263 = Iviron 143]. C and L go
back to a c o m m o n source (), which was a gemellus of . and CL
go back to a c o m m o n ancestor () which derives from R, as appears
from their conjunctive errors; each of the two has separative errors of
its own. First I will list a few errors of :
9,9
21,6
31a 3 ,4
52,5
67,4
om.
, om.
]
prius]
]
In a few places corrects a trivial error in R:

11,2
31c 14 ,10
38a 1 ,4
38a2,8
: R
BLPC: R: CLac
: (sic) R
: : R
follows R very closely, and has a number of errors of its own; some
instances:
7,1
26.2
37 3 ,14
60.3
]
]
om.
om.
, the c o m m o n source of CL, has a number of separative errors;

some instances:
7,6
13,4
26,1
59,4
67,2-3
om.
]
om.
]
- om.
Unlike , has been heavily contaminated, in all probability with an

edition of Simplicius' commentary. Thus has 1,3-4 - (which
is missing in R and most other MSS of Nit), but omits in line 4 with
SH [Bonon. 2359] and SSa [ed. princ. 1528]. In some other places
agrees with SSa and other sources as well; some instances:
6,1
17.5
38b 6 ,7
40.6
68,7.9
] S
] SGHJSa EG Vat
] S Sa Eq Tr etc.
] SSa Ench
] SSa
There are two places which suggest that has not been contaminated
from SSa, but from Heinsius' edition of Simplicius' commentary
[SHe], which in its turn derives from the editio princeps: at 31c 1 1 ,4
has the words and in the order in which they stand in
Schweighuser's edition of Nil (-) with SHe, but not
with SSa; and at 65,10 (where SSa is absent) has with
SHe.
Finally, in a few places has had recourse to conjectural
emendation:
10b,3
41.8
61 4 ,11
65.9
]
] R:
]
post add.
C and L have numerous interlinear notes and glosses in Modern

Greek. The script of the two MSS is very similar, but they have not
been copied by the same scribe; for instance, C writes the circumflex
accent in the shape of an apostrophe, while L has it in the usual
shape.
That C and L are gemelli is proved by the fact that each of them
has separative errors against the other; first I will list some readings
peculiar to C:
3,6
31a4,6
32a2,13
40,6
om.
raiom.
]
alterum om.
Some separative errors of L:

12a,l
35b5,10
38a3,9
53a, 1
]
]
]
]
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE TEXT OF [NILUS]'ADAPTATION
The text of Nil as it is transmitted to us by M and is, of course, not

free from corruptions. Schweighuser, who used only , and R for
his edition, has had recourse to conjectural emendation in a number
of passages; in other places he suggests emendations in his apparatus,
while printing the MSS reading in his text 1 . Sometimes Schweighuser explicitly refers to the text of Ench for his emendations 2 .
In many cases it is quite obvious that the transmitted text should
be emended, and the text of Ench (and, to a lesser degree, Par and
Vat) can be helpful here. But, although nothing is easier than bringing the text of Nil into full accordance with the text of Ench just by
changing the reading of Nil into that of Ench, this is methodically
wrong: in many cases it is impossible to establish whether a
corruption has arisen in the tradition of Nil or already occurred in
the MS of Ench which was used by [Nilus] for his adaptation 3 . For
instance, at 31c 1 1 ,4 Schweighuser prints -, which he
also prints in his text of Ench; but Nil has -, which is
also found in one of the branches of Ench, namely EACb, now it is
certainly correct to print - in Ench, but it is not to be
excluded that [Nilus]' copy of Ench had the words in the wrong
order, which was left intact by [Nilus] 4 . At 65,10 the MSS have
1
Some instances: ad 5,4-5 &c: "Percommodum foret f)

etc. sed encliticae hc non erat locus; quare non dubito, quin &
librariorum culp ex corrupta sint"; ad 33 2 ,4 : "Equidem aut
aut potius vel scripsisse Nilum putem."
2
See for instance his note ad 4,2 : "Ego fere non dubito,
scripsisse Nilum, quemadmodum est in aliis Enchiridii libris, idque a posterioribus
librariis esse corruptum."
3
Schweighuser mentions both possibilities in his note ad 38b ,7-8, where
[Nilus] has :
"Sed dubitari potest, satis-ne intgra Nili scriptura ad nos pervenerit; aut satis-ne
emendato hac parte exemplo ipsius Enchiridii usus sit Nilus."
4
In general [Nilus] follows Ench very closely; see Schweighuser, Ench LXIILXIII: "Quo consilio nonnulla quidem passim omissa sunt, & alia leviter immutata;
sed parcissime (...) earn licentiam sibi sumsisse Nilum, ex collatione illius exempli
cum aliis, nullam ejusmodi alterationem passis, satis adparet." Spanneut, RAC 664:
, which is corrected to by Schweighuser; the

reading is also found in EACSib; (the reading
of ET) can be confidently read in Ench, on the basis of the parallel
passage III 23,22 in the Diatribes (and because it is clearly what
Epictetus intended), but it is quite possible that [Nilus] read
in his copy of Ench and saw no reason to change this.
A similar argument can be applied in the case of the numerous
omissions in Nil; many of these are the result of le saut du mme au
mme, but it is wrong to take for granted that these omissions arose in
the Nil tradition, and that the missing passages should be restored in
Nil5. There are some omissions which must be explained by assuming
corruption of the Nil tradition. Thus it is virtually impossible that
[Nilus] wrote the beginning of ch. 55 as we have it, because the text
as it has been transmitted does not convey any meaning. And
between chapters 69 and 70 (= Ench 48 and 50 respectively; Nil has
nothing corresponding to Ench 49) we may assume that the lacuna is
due to the loss of a folium (either in [Nilus] ' copy of Ench or in the
archetype of Nil), or some similar circumstance, because ch. 70 as it
stands hardly makes sense.
There are many places where Nil agrees with other branches of the
tradition (Ench, Par, Vat, Simp), but there are no certain traces of
contamination of the Nil tradition in the form of double readings
etc.; therefore it is more likely that such agreements already occurred
in the text of Ench used by [Nilus] than that they were introduced
into the tradition of Nil, although the latter possibility cannot be
discarded with certainty.
"Der Interpolator ist ungeschickt, respektiert aber gewissenhaft das Original." See
also Spanneut DS 835-836. Cf. above, pp. 156-163.
5
Schweighuser and Piscopo tend to assume that an omission is either due to
negligence on the part of scribes of Nil, or to a deliberate choice on [Nilus] ' part;
thus they do not contemplate the possibility that [Nilus] ' exemplar already had the
omission. See, for instance, Schweighuser's note ad 69 3 ,5 : "non consulto
omnia a Nilo praetermissa videntur." Piscopo, Nilo 597, ad Nil 9,11: "Non credo vi
sia alcun motivo valido per attribuire a Nilo questa omissione, che a me sembra,
invece, dovuta al copista dell'archetipo, il quale facilmente confuse il primo
con il secondo, omettendo cos tutta la parte intermedia." See also
Piscopo's notes ad Nil 13,4 (p. 597) and 69 2 (p. 599). But in his note ad 9,11
Schweighuser remarks: "Nec tamen videntur ilia Nili consilio, sed veteris
alicujus librarii neglegenti, intercidisse." Here Schweighuser seems to suggest
that the omission may have arisen in (a predecessor of) [Nilus]' copy of Ench.
With regard to the constitution of the text it is impossible to find a

fool-proof criterion for distinguishing corruptions occurring in
[Nilus] ' text of Ench and corruptions generated in the tradition of Nil
(except those places where a particular reading is also found in other
witnesses: these were in all probability already in [Nilus]' text of
Ench). Therefore an editor might content himself with printing the
text of the , while taking full notice of the fact that many
readings do not make good sense or even good or understandable
grammar. The opposite alternative is to emend all those places where
a corruption is detectable, so that it is possible that even corruptions
which were read and reproduced by [Nilus] are smoothed away.
I have preferred to pursue a middle course. Corruptions which are
quite unintelligible have been emended. For instance, at 4,2 MP have
, which had already occurred in the same sentence; the
word is probably a corruption of , which is the reading of
EA.C. On the other hand, corruptions which permit extraction of
some sense from a passage are left; for instance, at 36b 3 ,2 Nil has
for , as the result of haplography: in itself, this
reading is possible and need not have disturbed [Nilus], so that I
have printed it in my text. If a corruption in Nil is also found in one
or more of the branches of the Ench tradition, Par, Vat or Simp, I have
left it in the text, because such a reading is demonstrably old, and
may well have been in [Nilus] ' MS of Ench,6.
To this method it might be objected that it contains a subjective
element on the part of the editor, which would only be too true. But
in fact it is true for every edition, and in the case of Nil, although I do
not hesitate to print a text which is nonsensical as regards content (as
at 31c 1 1 ,4 -), I cannot bring myself to printing a text
which makes no grammatical sense (as at 4,2 ). In general,
adaptators and translators more readily detect and emend grammatical anomalies than errors which regard the content of a text 7 .
It goes without saying that I do not believe for a moment that in
this way the original text of Nil can be recovered. The only thing I do
is remove those ostensible corruptions of which I find it impossible to
believe that [Nilus] left them uncorrected; of the corruptions which I
6
Of course, even in such cases it is possible that a particular reading came into
the tradition of Nil through contamination.
7
In the case of 31c 1 ^4 - it is telling that even Politian, one of the
most distinguished scholars of the second half of the the fifteenth century,
translated these words in the wrong order in which he found them in his MS
("Neque enim calceos habet per cerdonem neque arma per fabrum").
have not removed it is impossible to tell whether they originated in

the tradition of Nil or were already present in [Nilus]' MS of Ench
(although in many cases I intuitively think the former hypothesis by
far the more likely). I have not deemed it necessary to mention such
cases in the apparatus.
Here follows a selection of readings in Nil that certainly result
from errors in the transmission; I only mention readings which are
found in Nil exclusively. Readings marked with t are unacceptable, to
my mind, and have been corrected in the text.
ttit.
4,1
,2
5,4-5
7,4
22,7
26,1
t31c 1 3 ,8
35b 3 ,5
38a 1 ,2
38a 3 ,9
47,5
t53a.4
53b,3
R: M: titulus deest in
( : caused by the immediately
preceding
8 ( (repetition of in line 1);
is the reading of EAC, so that it is quite possible
that this is what [Nilus] read in his text of Ench; I print
.
' ( '
(itacism)
' ( ' (perseveration of ' in
the preceding line)
( ' (inner dictation)
) (the classic confusion of
majuscule A and )
9 ( (possibly under the influence of the in
the preceding )
( (inner dictation, or misreading of the
ligature of )
( (repeats three words earlier)
( (perseveration of the immediately
preceding )
( (inner dictation)
( (anticipation of
further on)
( (anticipation of the immediately following
)
Schweighuser prints , wrongly stating that it is the reading of P.

The reading adopted by Schweighuser, is found in R only; it is
obviously a conjecture. The reading adopted by me, , is a conjecture by O.J.
Schrier.
9
53b,3
55a,7
66b 3 ,5
t67,l
71a 1 ,3
71a4"5,12
< (dittography)
( (caused by , which precedes
in the same line)
( (anticipation of )
f] ( (possibly dissimiliation of the after )
( (a classic error)
' ( (inner dictation)
To end, I will give a brief discussion of some selected passages.

Title: M has ; has no title, but at the top of
the page where Nil starts we read
10 . Schweighuser suggests that should be
understood with , but this seems too far-fetched to me.
The title is so wide-spread 11 that I find it hard to imagine
that [Nilus] should have written , even if he read it in his
copy of Ench.
12a,2-3
, ,
,
, , , .
Ench Vat Par have and , while Nil
omits and 1 2 . If the corruption of into
already was in his MS of Ench, [Nilus] may have sought to repair the
text by omitting the particles. Schweighuser, following Suarez,
assumes an asyndeton between and , and
quotes Suarez' rendering with approval: "Quemadmodum (...) si
exeas aquatum, 8c ad bulbulum cochleasque colligendas, quod est
praeter susceptum viae opus, mens oportet ut sit intensa etc." Prof.
S.R. Slings suggests to me to put a comma after , omitting
the comma after , so that and
are linked by the before , while the predicate
belongs to both verbs; this explanation sounds more
attractive to me than the solution proposed by Suarez, and I think
that the transmitted text should be accepted; moreover, the omission
of both and can hardly be coincidental.
10
Prof. C.J. Ruijgh points out to me that this is a dactylic hexameter, in which
the of the word remains short in spite of the following .
11
See LSJ s.v. 3; cf. Broccia, passim.
12
The omission of these particles occurs also at Nil 6,1-2, whence it is even
taken over by Schweighuser in the text of Ench.
15,1-2 , '
.
Nil has - for Ench's - 13 . If this is a
clerical error, it may be due to anticipation of the word ,
which follows twice. If it was introduced deliberately by [Nilus], he
may have taken as masculine, although in that case the word
has lost its reference in the text; moreover, the instances
following the general rule would apply to the anonymous ,
and not to the addressee, which is awkward; on the other hand, the
omission of in line 4 ( for
of Ench), which may be intentional, suggests that the text
should indeed be interpreted this way. Thus it is safest to accept the
transmitted text.
18,2 ,
,
Nil has , that is, after is
omitted. The text as it stands in Nil is nonsensical from the Epictetean point of view, but I do not exclude the possibility that [Nilus]
found it in his text of Ench, and saw no reason to change it.
20,6 '
.
Nil reads , while Ench has
; here we have two problems: first for , second
the insertion of . I believe that ' is a corruption of ,
resulting from perseveration of the immediately preceding 14 .
The insertion of , then, was caused by the wish to make it clear that
is independent 1 5 , and should not be taken directly with
(for the collocation see KG I 663, who quote X.,
Oy. 6,1,42). If the reading is accepted, must be
taken absolutely (LSJ s.v. I 5): "Absolute power belongs to everyone
who etc." This is not very elegant, but seems just acceptable to me.
Schweighuser restores and interprets: "
; See. Dominus cujusque quisnam est? Is qui 8cc." In itself this
is attractive, but if we accept Schweighuser's solution, there is no
obvious reason why should have been inserted.
13
Schweighuser accepts R's reading -, which is definitely a

conjectural emendation of the transmitted reading; Meibom is silent on H.
14
This type of clerical error occurs elsewhere in Nil too; see for instance 4,1
for .
15
MP accentuate , but this does not exclude the possibility that
should be taken as indefinite rather than interrogadve.
22,7 ,
, , .
The MSS have for . It goes without saying that
is the correct reading in Ench, and that is a corruption, but is
it one which could have been left unchanged by [Nilus]? The error
does not affect the syntax in any way, and we have already seen that
there are other places where [Nilus] takes over a reading which gives
smooth syntax, but exactly the opposite of the sense required, e.g.
31c 1 1 ,4 -. Therefore it is possible that either he did not
even give a thought to the erroneous , or that he interpreted it
as "take care that you do not weep to the eyes of the outer world".
With much uneasiness I have left in the text.
23,1 , ^
.
Nil inserts ' after ', which at first sight is awkward in the clause
dependent on ; but Prof. S.R. Slings points out to me that '
can be retained if we interpret "Remember that you are an actor in a
play, namely a play as wished by the producer". Alternatively, we might
consider the possibility of reading (cf. Ench 32 2 ,7, with the note
on pp. 129-131).
24,4 , '
.
M7has for , which is the reading of Ench16; the lonely stands
awkwardly amidst four occurrences of . If it is maintained, [Nilus]
may have reasoned that by the words and are
linked together more closely.
30,3 , .
MP read ; Schweighuser adopts Upton's conjecture for Ench
(= ) ; Wotke suggests . The words () are
found in EACbSib, Vat and Nil, but not in PTSz'C, Par and Simplicius;
therefore I believe that Schweighuser is right in bracketing the
words in the text of Ench. But in this passage I wonder whether we
had not better leave the text as it stands in MP; the words
, then, may be taken as "but if you wish that your being
<a philosopher> becomes apparent".
31a 4 ,6 ,
, ;
16
The confusion of these words is found in other places too, see Nil 7,5 (= Ench
2
2 ,10).
M has for (the reading of Ench), while reads

(Schweighuser wrongly believes that has ).
Although is of course inferior to , I believe that it should be
maintained; [Nilus] may have interpreted the phrase as "... you, who
have to be someone only in those of the things which are within your
power in which you are able to be very valuable".
31c 12 " 14 ,6-10 "
; ,
.
, ,
;
The end of ch. 31c shows three major difficulties; it is striking that
these should occur so closely together.
31c 12 ,6-7: Nil has for
' . Schweighuser asks the
rhetorical question "Quae monstra quis quaeso ad Nilum referret
auctorem?", and reads ,
suggesting or ' for . But are matters really that simple?
If the reading of Nil is a corruption, very much has gone wrong: the
of has been attached to the preceding word, resulting in ;
the remaining was subsequently changed into ; has become . Of course this is not impossible,
but errors resulting from wrong word division a n d / o r confusion of
individual letters are not strikingly frequent in Nil. Is it possible that
the monstra do represent [Nilus]' words, and are even intentional? As
the text stands, it admittedly hardly makes sense; but if we assume
that there is a corruption, it may be possible to extract some meaning
from the sentence. I submit that has got lost after : the text
then means: "So no one would advantage himself more than the city
(sc. by being a good citizen oneself)"; I do not claim that this phrase
makes excellent sense, but is imaginable that [Nilus] concocted it on
the basis of one of the corruptions mentioned above, aiming at
emending the text he read. But a final solution for this difficult
phrase cannot be found, and therefore I have had recourse to the
cruces desperationis1"7.
31c 13 ,8-9: Nil has ,
reading instead of ; is quite impossible, and cannot be accepted. R's reading , accepted by Schweighuser, is
17
Nil's reading is also found in Vat, probably as the result of contamination; Vat
does not have .
definitely a conjecture, albeit an intelligent one. Mr O.J. Schrier

suggests to me to read (in the sense of ); the intrusion
of the , then, may have been caused by the in the preceding word
. I have accepted this suggestion.
31c 14 ,9-10: Nil reads ,
; It seems impossible to take with
, but Prof. S.R. Slings points out to me that in Byzantine
Greek this might be acceptable. Therefore I have not changed the
transmitted text, although it almost certainly results from corruption:
first was corrupted into the more common , then was
added before ; but the corruption may well have been in
[Nilus] ' text of Ench.
33 2 ,5 ' , , ,
.
Here we find for , which is definitely a clerical
error; I suppose that first became , whereafter
turned into . But is it impossible that [Nilus] found
in his MS, and did not bother to change it? I do not think
so.
33 4 ,8-9 .
.
Here Nil has , adding
after . Schweighuser remarks "nescio an e Nili idiotismo", and
suggests or . If the insertion of is explained as a
clerical error, it is probably a conjectural emendation of an earlier
corruption , i.e. dittography. Schweighuser's
would rather be a correction of an original than the other
way round; and the corruption of into is not very likely in itself.
Therefore it seems best to leave in the text.
35b 5 ,12-13 , ,
.
for is a simple error resulting from inner
dictation, but in itself it is possible (though unelegant), corresponding to .
38a 1 ,5 (...)

.
for is the result of anticipation of , but in itself
the phrase is not quite impossible, given such
parallels as Ev.Marc. 12,14 ' (LSJ s.v. A.III.3).
38a 3 ,9 ,
.
for is an obvious scribal error. If we construe
with participle, the transmitted text can be retained; the participle
may be taken with , which involves a slight anacoluthon.
38b 4 ,1 ,
.
has , while reads ,
for in Ench. Clearly the omission of
is an error; the reading which results, as found in M, is at first
sight nonsensical, while P's omission of is a conjecture. But I
wonder if M's reading could not be retained if we take the words
as the subject of , so that we may
interpret it as "it is a natural quality in every being to ..."; I readily
admit that this is somewhat far-fetched, and that after we would
rather have expected the dative than the accusative, but even so I
hesitatingly accept the text as given by M.
39,1
.
Nil has for (this reading is also found in T); Heyne,
quoted with approval by Schweighuser, suggests for . If
we accept , this refers to our behaviour among other people
( ); if Heyne's is preferred, this tells
us how to behave when we are on our own ( ).
Because is closer to than (and because it is the
transmitted reading), I accept .
40,7
.
has (also found in Stobaeus), while has
(without ), probably as a conjecture; is a corruption of
, caused by inner dictation and possibly by the following
three participles , , . Of course "speak
about" should be expressed by with the genitive, but this
slight irregularity may have escaped [Nilus], so I have left it unchanged.
53a,6 , '
' ,
,
MP have , which is corrected to by Schweighuser;
but I think that should be retained and taken in line with
in line 4: "think of both times .... and taunt yourself (sc. for
having considered the possibility of yielding to the temptation)".
55a,7 (...)
, ,
.
for results from perseveration of ; in itself
it is acceptable, but , which should refer directly to ,
has not been changed accordingly into . Perhaps both
and can be saved if we take otov adverbially (the same goes,
incidentally, for in 55b,3).
61 4-5 " () ,
.
has , instead of
, that is, is omitted. This is so nonsensical that
the transmitted text cannot be accepted; therefore I have supplemented (). In , was conjecturally replaced by
by the scribe or by a later hand; this is also the reading of P.
61 2 ,7 , , .
MP have , which is changed into by Schweighuser. The
change of to (and vice versa) is of course easily made;
but it is not unimaginable that was introduced intentionally,
giving the meaning "he is harmed in the same way as he is deceived".
63,1 MP's reading for is not quite impossible; LSJ
s.v. 2 quote the phrase (Nicostr.
Com. 19,5), giving the meaning "undisciplined, disorderly".
66b 3 ,5 ,
' .
Nil reads ' instead of ' '
: first was corrupted into ,
under the influence of the immediately following ; the transposition of is probably an attempt to emend the phrase.
71a 1 ,3
, ;
The MSS have , while Schweighuser follows R in reading
. The corruption of into is very common in
the phrase (see Schenkl's Index s.v. D 18 ); therefore
18
Schenkl is wrong in stating that the MSS have for in all the passages
where the phrase occurs: according to Schenkl's apparatus S has aip- at I 29,28 and
Prof. S.R. Slings suggests to me that in the course of time the phrase
may have been used in its own right 19 , so that it seems
wisest to accept the reading , an explanation which sounds
attractive to me.
71 a 2 ,6 ,
;
The omission of after is probably nothing but a
clerical error, but the resulting text is unobjectionable if we make
depend directly on .
71a 4 * 5 ,12
, . ,
.
MP have , instead of
. N o doubt this is an error resulting from inner dictation, and
being pronounced in almost the same way (although itacism of
is admittedly a rather late p h e n o m e n o n ) . But the punctuation and
the omission of before show that an attempt was made to
emend the phrase, although after we would expect the indicative
20 (such minor irregularities, however, need not bother us
too much in a Byzantine text) ; further, MP have no punctuation at all
after , so that the clause is linked to the
preceding -; The clause
, on the other hand, is the protasis of the following
( has no punctuation before , M has a low dot,
which is used regularly between subordinate clause and main clause).
Now it is clear that this passage as it stands in MP is extremely
awkward; but, with the exception of the subjunctive , it is
grammatically possible, and perhaps we need not even bother too
much about with the subjunctive mood. Schweighuser in his
note suggests , ' ; but in itself this
reading is not much better than the transmitted text, and it is hard to
see how it should have originated.
II 2,20.
19
Compare the Dutch expression "er valt geen peil op te trekken" (= the
situation is quite unpredictable), which is often quoted as "er valt geen pijl op te
trekken"; "peil" means "level", "pijl" is "arrow"; the two words are pronounced the
same way. The original image "it is impossible to establish the level" is replaced by a
new image "you cannot aim your arrow at it".
20
In fact, H and Q do have .

A final word should be said about the chapter division of Nil. It has
already been noted (p. 181) that Suarez based the chapter division of
R on Wolf s edition of Ench. The division in MP 21 differs a lot from
this division, but cannot possibly be correct in all places.
It is clear that in many cases the division of MP is authentic against
the division of R; for instance, the division of ch. 10 into two separate
chapters is also found in the primary MSS of Ench. But in other places
the division in MP is quite gratuitous, and can hardly be considered
to represent the original division. For instance, the splitting of ch. 12
into two chapters is nonsensical; on the other hand, it is surprising to
see the e n d of ch. 31 form o n e continuous chapter with the
beginning of ch. 32.
I have printed the text with the chapter division as it is found in
MP. I have retained the chapter numbers as they are found in Suarez'
edition. In those places where Suarez splits a chapter in MP, the text
is printed continuously, with Suarez' chapter number in square
brackets; see for instance chs. 1-2. When MP split a chapter in Suarez'
edition, the new chapter in MP starts on a new line, while Suarez'
chapter number is retained, with the addition of a, b etc.; see for
instance chs. 31a, 31b, 31c.
21
The chapter division is exactly the same in M and P; in a few places initially
made a mistake, which was corrected by adding signs in the margin. Neither MS
has chapter numbers.
PART THREE
THE PARAPHRASIS
CHRISTIANA
CHAPTER TWELVE
INTRODUCTION
The Enchiridii Paraphrasis Christiana} was first edited by M. Casaubon,

in his edition of the authentic Encheiridion, published in London,
1659; Casaubon added a Latin translation to the Greek text. The text
was republished in two editions by A. Berkel (Delft 1670 and 1683),
by A. Blancard (Amsterdam 1683) and byJ.C. Schroder (Delft 1723).
The second Berkel edition and the edition by Schrder also contain a
collation of Florentinus Laur. 55,4 (PM), made by J. Gronovius.
Schweighuser used five MSS for his edition of Par (found in
EPhMV 10-94, accompanied by Casaubon's Latin translation): for
PM he used Gronovius' collation, for P N O P Q [Par. gr. 858, 362,
1053, 1302 respectively] collations made by his son Gottfried (see
Schweighuser, Ench CIV-CV; , EPhMV, 6-9). It goes without saying
that the collations of these five MSS are far from perfect.
After Schweighuser's edition, only one study concerned with the
text of Par has been published: Piscopo's 1987 article. Unfortunately,
this study has the same defects as her article on Nil. In the first place,
Piscopo states (Par 501) that the five MSS used by Schweighuser are
"i soli manoscritti noti di quest'opera", thus showing that she does
not know of the MSS list by Friedrich-Faye, where some more MSS
are mentioned 2 . Further, in her discussion of the archetype of Par,
she assumes that those places where Par differs from Ench are cases of
This is the title given to the work by Schweighuser, which is a conflation of

the titles of Casaubon (Enchiridii Paraphrasis) and Gronovius (Enchiridion Christianorum). See Schweighuser EPhMV, 5-6.
2
Many MSS containing Par are wrongly catalogued; Piscopo cannot of course
be blamed for not detecting these MSS.
corruption of the archetype of Par, without taking into account the

possibility that the MS of Ench which was the source of Par already
had these corruptions; for instance, the reading for at
10X,1 (Piscopo, Par 502) is also found in the lemma in SAB, and thus
may well be ancient. With regard to the affiliation of the MSS she
assumes that MP belong together against N O Q , whereas I believe
that M stands alone against the others; thus Piscopo is compelled to
explain the correct readings in M as the result of conjectural
emendation or contamination (see Piscopo, Par504-505).
As I have already stated in the acknowledgements, I have greatly
benefited from the cooperation with Dott. Francesco de Nicola of
Pavia, who has written his tesi di laurea on Par, under the guidance of
Prof. Antonio Carlini (Universit degli Studi di Pisa). Dott. De Nicola
and myself have exchanged a number of letters, discussing matters of
every kind. In the winter of 1997 I received an abridged version of De
Nicola's thesis, which will be the basis of two articles; the first of these
is to appear in the Bollettino dei Classici 19 (1998); the second one in
Studi Classid e Orientait; references to the second article are indicated
as "De Nicola [in prep.]". I thank Dott. De Nicola warmly for giving
me the opportunity to consult his work before publication.
Prof. M. Spanneut writes to tell me (letter of 2 7 / 7 / 9 8 ) that he is on
the track of a Slavonic tradition of Par, in which the text is attributed
to Maximus Confessor. However, by the time this book went to the
publisher (August 1998), he was not yet able to give me substantial
information.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
CATALOGUE OF MANUSCRIPTS OF
THE PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA
This catalogue offers a brief description of the MSS containing the

text of Par, I shall indicate the date, scribe, material, size, number of
folia, folia on which Paris found, number of lines, siglum, and give
some bibliographical references. I will also briefly mention the
stemmatical position of the MS.
1. Atheniensis National Library 521
13th century; oriental paper; 240 140 mm.; ff. 143; Par ff. 2r-8v; 34
lines; siglum A; wrongly catalogued as containing Ench. The text of
Par breaks off suddenly after fol. 8V, so that it is probable that the
folia containing the rest of the text have got lost (when inspecting
the MS in situ I have not found the missing folia elsewhere in the
MS). A is heavily damaged by moisture, and is therefore practically
illegible in a number of places. See Sakkelion-Sakkelion 103.
A derives from , which is a gemellus of V [Ven. Marc. gr. 127] ; the
common source of and V i s a gemellus of [Par.gr. 1053]; thus A is a
primary witness of restricted independent value. See pp. 217, 219-221.
2. Athous 1820 (= Philotheou 56)
13th century; oriental paper; in quarto; number of folia unknown to
me; Par ff. 211 v -212 v ; 28-31 lines; siglum R. R contains a selection
from Par: chs. 1, 13, 15, 16, 19-21, 23, 26, 28-30, 33c 7 , 34, 35, 37-42, 45
(init.). See Lambros, Athos I 155.
R is a gemellus of [Par. gr. 362] and Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23]. See
pp. 221-222, 225-227.
3. Bern, Brgerbibliothek, Bernensis 97
15th-16th century, according to Hgen; written in Florence in the
first half of the 16th century, according to A. Dain, Arrien, 162-166;
Collection 17, 36-42, 57-64 (cf. De Nicola [in prep.]); paper; 345-350
245 cm.; ff. 219 (pp. 438); Par pp. 224-245; 33 lines; siglum . was
owned by J. Bongars. See Hgen 147-149; Omont, Suisse nr. 96.
is a derivative of M [Laur. 55,4]; it is the source of C [Bern. 150]

and [Par. gr. 2446]. See pp. 215-216.
4. Bern, Brgerbibliothek, Bernensis 150 (miscellaneus)
16th-l7th century; paper; 3 1 0 / 3 1 5 2 0 5 / 2 1 0 mm. (the part containing Par); no folio-numbers; 38-40 lines; siglum C. C was owned by J.
Bongars. See Hgen 228-229.
C derives from [Bern. 97]. See pp. 215-216.
5. Escorialensis gr. 272 (Y.III.2)
early 13th century; paper; 233 165 mm.; ff. V, 381 (- 182.311); Par
ff. 49 r -56 r ; 35 lines; siglum D. Wrongly catalogued as containing Nil.
See De Andrs II 142-147.
D derives from , and thus goes back indirectly to 6, which is the
source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 221-224.
6. Escorialensis gr. 289 (Y.III. 19)
A.D. 1359-1360 (note on fol. 248 r ); paper; 210 146 mm.; ff. Ill, 260
(+ 144 a .148 a ); Par ff. 132v-138r; 27 lines; siglum E. Wrongly catalogued as containing Nil. See De Andrs II 169-172.
derives from L [Oxon. Laud. gr. 21]. See pp. 221-222, 225.
ca. 960 A.D., according to Dain, Elien 185; Irigoin, tude 178-181 (cf.
De Nicola [in prep.] for further references; a brief account of the
history of M is f o u n d in Asclpiodote, Trait de Tactique, ed. L.
Poznanski, Paris 1992, XV-XVIII); parchment; 331 264 mm.; ff. 405;
Par ff. 244 r -251 v (folio-numbers at the top of the page = 246 r -253 v at
the bottom of the page); 32 lines; siglum M. In many places M is
difficult to read, as a result of damage by moisture. See Bandini II
218-238; Schweighuser, EPhMV 7.
M is a primary witness; it is the only independent representative of
the second family. It is the source of [Bern. 97]. See pp. 213-216.
8. Leidensis Vossianus gr. Q54 (miscellaneus)
15th-16th century; paper; 210 140 mm.; ff. 463; Parff. 138 r -145 v ; 2021 lines; siglum H. The text breaks off after 31 2 4 ,42 ; a second
hand [Patr. Junius] added - with the note Desunt capita
39. On f. I1 there are owner's notes Christiani Ravij Berlinatis, <Patr.
Junius>\ Is. Vossius, Ger. Vossius; Bibl. Leid. See De Meyier, Voss. 163-172.
H derives from the same lost MS as J [Vat. gr. 740] and [Vat. gr.
1142]; thus derives indirectly from , which is the source of a large
number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 231-233.
9. Munich, Monacensis gr. 25
16th century; Hardt states that the codex is "exaratus a Nicolo";
paper; 355 240 mm.; ff. 358; Par i f . 17^22', pp. 34-43; 30 lines;
siglum F. F contains a selection from Par, consisting of the following
chapters: 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 15-17, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 33c 7 , 35, 36, 39-41,
43-51, 55, 59-61, 65-71; the same selection is found in W [Vat. Pal. gr.
91], the source of F. F was part of the library of Hans Jacob Fugger in
Augsburg. See Hardt I, 121-133.
F derives from W [Vat. Pal. gr. 91]. See pp. 221-222, 226.
10. Moscow, State Historical Museum, Mosquensis Bibliotheca Synodalis
438 Vladimir ( = 325 Sawwa = 312 Matthaei) (miscellaneus)
Vladimir, in his catalogue, states that this MS belongs to the 16th
century; I believe that the part containing Par is much older and
should be assigned rather to the 14th century (cf. De Nicola [in
prep.]); paper; 228 150 mm.; ff. 226; Par ff. 214 v -226 v ; 25 lines;
siglum S. S breaks off after ch. 58, which is at the end of fol. 226 v (the
last folio of the MS in its actual state), so that it is probable that the
folia which contained the rest of Par have got lost. S once belonged
to the Iviron monastery on Mt. Athos. See Vladimir 666-667.
S derives from , and thus indirectly depends on , which is the
source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-229.
11. Oxford, Oxoniensis Laudianus gr. 21
14th century, before 1359-1360 (cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 85, nr.
133); Theodoros (cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger, I.e.); paper; 192
1 2 6 / 1 3 7 mm.; ff. 301; Par ff. 149 v -159 v ; 25-26 lines; siglum L. See
Coxe, Bodl. 503-505.
L derives from [Par. gr. 1858]; it is the source of [Escor, gr.
289]. See pp. 221-222, 224-225.
12. Parisinus gr. 39 (Reg. 3441)
13th century, except ff. 178-233, which may be 14th century; oriental
paper; 196 132 mm.; ff. Ill, 250, IV (+ 177bis); the text of Par 1-10 is
added as lemmata in the Commentary on Par on ff. 179 r -202 v (some
folia containing the beginning of Comm have got lost); the rest of Par
follows (after a blank of a few lines) on ff. 202 v -214 r ; 20 lines. Siglum
I. See Omont, Inventaire I 7; Spanneut, Commentaire 130.
I derives from , and thus indirectly depends on , which is the
source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 231-232.
14th century; paper; f. 249 has a filigrane Latin cross, similar to
Briquet 5623 and 5624 (both from the first quarter of the 14th
century); 207 135 mm.; ff. Ill, 317, III; Parff. 245 r -251 v ; 33-36 lines;
siglum O . Wrongly catalogued as containing Ench. See Omont,
Inventaire I 37; Schweighuser, Ench CIV; , EPhMV 8.
is a gemellus of Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23] and R [Athous 1820], and
thus derives indirectly from , which is the source of a large number
of MSS. See pp. 221-222, 225-227.
14th century; <Theophanes> (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 83, nr.
181 (= I 137)); parchment; 292 220 mm.; ff. II, 306, II; Parff. 216 r 227 r ; 31 lines; siglum N; wrongly catalogued as containing Nil. See
Omont, Inventaire I 161; Schweighuser, Ench CIV; , EPhMV 8.
derives from , and thus indirectly from , which is the source of
a large number of MSS. is the source of L [Oxon. Laud. gr. 21].
See pp. 221-224.
early 11th century, according to Gamillscheg-Harlfinger; late 10th
century, according to S. Luc, who attributes this MS to the "scuola
niliana", adding that it was probably e x e c u t e d in Campania 1 ;
Gregorios ("Selbstbezeichnung Naziraios", see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 60-61, nr. 109); parchment; 192 133 mm.; ff. 255; Parff.
167 v -174 v ; 39-40 lines; siglum P. Wrongly catalogued as containing
Ench. See Omont, Inventaire I 211-212; Spanneut, Commentaire 130;
Schweighuser, EnchCTV; , EPhMW 8.
derives from a, and is therefore a primary witness with high
independent value. See pp. 213-217.
13th century (ca. 1300 A.D., according to S. Luc (in a note addressed to Prof. A. Carlini)); oriental paper; 204 ca. 130 mm.; ff. IX,
1
See Luc, Saritture, 330 with note 41; , Rossano, 25-73, esp. 28, n.12 with plate
3. I owe these references to Prof. A. Carlini.
295, II (+ 39bis, 264bis, 272bis; minus 201); Par ff. 192 r -198 v ; 25-28
lines; siglum Q. See Omont, Inventaire I 293; Spanneut, Commentaire
130; Schweighuser, Ench CIV; , EPhMV 8.
Q is a gemellus of [Vat. gr. 1950], and thus derives indirectly
from , which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222,
227-228, 230-231.
17. Parisinus gr. 2446 (Delamare.-Reg. 2173,2)
17th century; Henri de Valois (Dain, Collection 164-166; cf. De Nicola
[in prep.]); paper; 344 219 mm.; ff. 206; Par ff. 100 r -108 v ; 37-39
lines; siglum T; see Omont, Inventaire II 263; Spanneut, Commentaire
132.
derives from [Bern. 97]. See pp. 215-216.
18. Sinaiticus Catharina 385
13th century; paper; 175 130 mm.; ff. 169; Par ff. 132 r -139 r (there is
no fol. 137, as a result of an error in the numbering of the folia); 25
lines; siglum U. See Kamil 79; Spanneut, Commentaire 130.
U derives from , and thus derives indirectly from , which is the
source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 230.
14th century; parchment; 175 145 mm.; ff. IV, 148; Par ff. 84 v -117 r ;
26 lines; siglum J; wrongly catalogued as containing Nil by FriedrichFaye, and by Devreesse ("cum his quae sub Nili nomine vulgata sunt
(...) saepe convenientia"). Chs. 57-67 are missing, probably as a result
of the loss of a folio in a predecessor: the last words before ch. 68 are
, a nonsensical phrase composed of the end
of ch. 56 and the end of ch. 67. See Devreesse 254-255; Spanneut,
Commentaire 130.
J derives from the same lost MS as H [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 54] and
[Vat. gr. 1142] ; thus J derives indirectly from , which is the source of
a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 231-234.
12th-13th century, according to Prof. P. Canart; oriental paper; 356
254 mm.; ff. 125; Par ff. 81r-90v; 39-42 lines; siglum K.
derives from the same lost MS as J [Vat. gr. 740] and [Leid.
Voss. gr. Q 54] ; thus derives indirectly from , which is the source
of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 231-234.

first half of the 14th century; oriental paper (ff. 394-396a occidental
paper); 243 165 mm.; ff. Ill, 548; Ench and Parff. 392 v -399 r ; 27-29
lines; siglum Z. On ff. 392 v -393 v has the first three chapters of Ench;
after the last line of ch. 3 there is a series of crosses; the rest of the
text is Par from ch. 6 on (= Ench 4; the catalogue wrongly states that
the whole text is Par); the text breaks off after ch. 59. The MS is
nowadays bound in two volumes. See Canart 762-766.
is a gemellus of Q [Par. gr. 1302], and thus derives indirectly
from , which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222,
227-228, 230-231.
second half of the 13th century or first half of the 14th century
(according to Prof. P. Canart); oriental paper; 236 164 mm.; ff. 324;
siglum W. As a result of the displacement of some folia, the text of
Par is not continuous in this MS: the first part is found on ff. 323 v324 v (chs. 1-21 5 ,6 ), the rest is on ff. 151r-153v; on f. 324 v , after the
last word on the folio (21 5 ,6 ) there is a note "
, Haec et quae deinceps, habes s a , post dimidiam partem
huius libri, vel paulo minus quam dimidiam.", to which a later hand
has added ": 151"; on fol. 151" there is a note written in the same
hand "Praecedentia sunt in fine huius libri,
, (sic) nam sequi haec debent
(sic)"; the displacement of the folia took place
after F [Mon. gr. 25] was copied from W, because F has the text in
the correct order. 32-33 lines; wrongly catalogued as containing Ench.
W contains only a selection from Par; for the contents see the
description of F [Mon. gr. 25], See Stevenson, Pal. 44-46.
W derives from , and thus derives indirectly from , which is the
source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 221-222, 225-226.
23. Vaticanus Reginensis gr. 23
between 1330 and 1380, according to Prof. P. Canart2; paper; 295 x
2
Prof. Canart writes me the following (letter of 8 / 5 / 9 6 ) : "Ce manuscrit est
l'oeuvre de deux copistes, me semble-t-il, mais a t copi entirement sur un
papier grosses vergeures caractristiques des annes 1330-1380 et l'criture confirme cette datation. Le f. I est un folio de garde plus rcent, fait d'un papier qui ne
porte pas de filigrane, mais a les caractristiques des papiers du XVe ou du XVIe
sicle. Il porte une note d'un certain moine (il se qualifie lui-mme d')
Callistos, adresse son suprieur et ses confrres, et date de janvier 7031 (A.D.
205 mm.; ff. 269; Par ff. 263 v -264 v ; 30-32 lines; siglum Y. Y contains
only the opening chapters of Par; the text breaks off suddenly after
16 4 ,7 , which is the last word on fol. 264 v ; therefore Y must
originally have contained more of Par. Wrongly catalogued as
containing Nil. See Stevenson, Reg. 17-19.
Y is a gemellus of [Par. gr. 362] and R [Athous 1820], and thus
derives indirectly from , which is the source of a large number of
MSS. See pp. 221-222, 225-227.
24. Venetus Mardanus gr. 127 (coll. 390)
13th century; parchment; 285 210 mm.; ff. 245; Parff. 233 v -242 r ; 30
lines; siglum V. V once belonged to Bessarion; on fol. 1 there is an
owner's note Locus II. Climacus et Isaac, liber b(essarionis) car. Tusculani.
Wrongly catalogued as containing Nil. See Mioni, Ven. 175-177.
V is a gemellus of , which is the source of A [Athen. 521] and
[the source of a large number of MSS] ; the common source of V and
is a gemellus of [Par. gr. 1053]; thus V is a primary witness with
high independent value. See pp. 214-215, 217-219.
Lost manuscript
Casaubon 142-144 describes the problems with the MS on which his
edition is based. First he received a copy of a MS preserved in the
Sionense Collegium Londinense; this copy got lost. Then Casaubon
received a second copy, which was full of errors 3 ; when some of his
friends wanted to consult the MS itself, it proved not to be present in
the library any more; Casaubon ascribes this to the incuria, velperfidia
of the librarians.
Editio princeps
Par was first edited by M. Casaubon (London 1659); for his MS
source see the preceding item. It appears that this lost MS was related
to V [Ven. Marc. gr. 127], See pp. 234-236.
1523). Le sens n'est pas parfaitement clair (il faut que je l'tudi encore), mais, en
tout cas, il ne s'agit pas d'une souscription, comme l'a cru Stevenson, et rien ne
prouve que le folio se soit trouv primitivement la fin du manuscrit, comme il l'a
suppos; de plus, l'criture, grande et plutt malhabile, n'a rien voir avec celle du
manuscrit lui-mme et cadre bien avec la date de 1523."
3
Dott. De Nicola draws my attention to Schweighuser, EPhMV 6, . *), where
Schweighuser refers to Casaubon's preface to his text of Ench (which, in his
edition, precedes Par); Schweighuser writes: "(...) exemplum istud, quo usus est
Casaubonus in hoc libello edendo, non e veteri Codice manuscripto, quem olim in
Bibliotheca Collegii Sionensis fuisse ait, sed ex apographo, quod ex illo codice
confectum erat, ab alia manu fuerit descriptum."
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
THE CHARACTER OF THE PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA
The author of Par1 shows much more intellectual independence,

theological acumen and philosophical insight than his two Christian
colleagues. He follows the text of Ench closely, but does not hesitate
to omit or add phrases, to change words, to abridge or expand a
passage, to add passages of his own invention etc. Accordingly, in my
discussion, instead of aiming at completeness, I will only give some
representative instances of each type of alteration. First I will illustrate how the text is adapted to suit Christians and especially monks,
then I will mention the other types of interventions in the text. My
account is chiefly based on Spanneut's discussion 2 .
1. The Christian character of Par
Spanneut, DS 838, mentions a number of passages where Par and Nil
have a similar modification of the original text. Both omit Ench 335
on the oath, Ench 32 on divination (for which Par 38 gives a brief
exposition on the nature of prayer), Ench 52 on the parts of Epictetean philosophy, Ench 15,8 on Diogenes and Heraclitus, Ench 31 4 ,1718 on Eteocles and Polyneices 3 . While M/leaves the name of Socrates
in one place (Nil 10a,3), Par changes it constantly (Par 7 2 ,2-3
, Par603,3 ); Ench 31 5 on making
sacrifices is replaced by instructions on charity. And of course
are constantly substituted by .
But Par does much more than that. The crow of Ench 18, left
unimpaired by Nil, is changed into a dream (Par 24); the
1
As in the case of Mil, nothing certain can be said about the date of composition of Par. We only have the terminus ante quern of ca. 960, when M [Laur. 55,4] was
written; this same MS is the oldest witness to the text of the commentary on Par, for
which no certain date can be given either (cf. p. 237). See Spanneut, DS 840, 843;
, AC667; Santerini Citi 57-59; Carlini 221, n. 19.
2
The fullest discussion in DS 837-839; see also RAC 665-667, and Moines 51. I
only refer to the DS article; the other two articles do not contain new material.
3
Spanneut, DS 838, states that both Nil and Par omit Ench 531"3, adding that Par
gives a prayer to the Holy Ghost instead; but this prayer is clearly based on the
passage in Ench.
of Ench 1 4 ,17 has become (Par 2 4 ,6); the quality

of being (Ench 243,12) is considered unbecoming for a
Christian and therefore replaced by (Par 31 8 ,13) and so
on 4 .
Spanneut, DS 839, points out that in many places the author does
not content himself with removing pagan thought, but gives Christian doctrine instead. Thus Ench 11 on endurance is turned into a
brief commentary on LXX Jb. 1,21 (Par 14); Ench 12 2 ,10-11 on the
education of the becomes a discussion of Ev. Matt. 7,3 (Par 16) 5 .
Spanneut, DS 839, gives many instances of how the text has been
made suitable for monks. Thus 6 is replaced by the
(Par 29',3) or (Par 60',1), becomes (Par 29,1). And there are many practical
instructions which are in full accordance with monastic life (see
Spanneut).
In order to give an impression of the ability of the author of Par I
will discuss at some length the final chapter of Ench, corresponding
to chs. 70-71 of Par6. Arrian gives four quotations which we should
always carry in mind; the first from Cleanthes, the second from Euripides, the third and fourth from Plato's Cto and Apology respectively.
In contrast to [Nilus], who only gives a clumsy adaptation of the
last quotation, Par gives adapted versions of all four quotations; what
is more, he turns the four texts into two coherent chapters.
In the first quotation Zeus and Fate are replaced by Saviour and
Holy Spirit; the second verse is reproduced in a simplified form:
instead of ' ; the
third and fourth lines remain unchanged, but for the change of the
first person singular into the first person plural, as in the preceding
lines.
The first line of the second quotation, ' , is rendered in Par as : in
the first place Fate has been replaced by God; in the second place, by
means of the word the author creates a fluent transition from
the first to the second quotation: "we will follow nonetheless" is
picked up by "whoever follows God voluntarily and obediently". The
Spanneut regards the omission of Ench 29 as the doing of the author of Par, I
rather believe that the chapter was absent from Par's copy of Ench.
5
This passage aptly reflects the versatility and learning of the author of Par. at
the end of Par 16 we find an anecdote which is told about Socrates and others.
6
See also Carlini 223-225.
second quotation in Ench ends with the words ' ,

which of course is unacceptable for an orthodox Christian; accordingly, we find instead. This phrase gives a
smooth transition to the third quotation, which starts with
; in addition the particle , too, marks the connection
between the two sentences.
The fourth quotation in Ench, " , , is developed at length by the author
of Par, the connection with the preceding sentence is marked
(again) by the particle , and by the word , which refers to
the whole of the preceding quotations; in fact, ch. 71 appears to be
intended as a comment by the author on the dicta of ch. 70. The
content of the Platonic quotation is preserved essentially, but (as
usual) Paris far more explicit than the original text: in the first place,
there is the conditional "if we live in this way", whereas
the statement in Plato is unconditional; in order to bring out clearly
the difference between and , the author first
expands the notion of , by adding and ;
then the true meaning of is aptly illustrated by the quotation
from Ev. Matt. 10,28, in which the difference between harm done to
the body and to the soul is stated explicitly. The quotation from the
Gospel also serves to illustrate the essentially Christian character of a
concept which is originally Socratic/Platonic, and gives a very apt
conclusion to the work as a whole.
2. Other changes in Par
Spanneut, DS 837, gives a number of instances of alterations in Par
which do not primarily aim at giving the text a Christian character.
He remarks that Par often substitutes a relatively unknown word by a
more common one; in general, Spanneut argues, Par aims at enhancing the clarity of the text. I will give a more elaborate discussion than
the one offered by Spanneut.
a. Substitutions of words
In quite a lot of places Par chooses to use a word different from the
one in Ench; as already noted, this often gives greater clarity, but in
some cases the author of Par appears to dislike a specific word; for
instance, the word , which is found in a number of places in
Ench, is often avoided: at Par IS 1 ,!; 21 1 ,!; 23 1 ,! and 69 4 ,7 the word is
omitted without substitute, at 2,\ and 32 2 ,3 we find instead,

and at 56 J ,1 Par has . The word , another frequently
used term in Ench, is provided with the addition of some form of
in four of the five places where it occurs in Par7. I will give a
number of other instances:
Ench 2 1 ,6 = Par 4 1 , 3
Ench 8,2 = Par 11,2
Ench 11,5 = Par 14 7 ,10
Ench 17,5 = Par 23 3 ,5

Ench 17,5 = Par 23 3 ,5
Ench 30,2 = Par 34 2 ,2
Ench 31:2,10 = Par 365,9
Ench 33 10 ,30 = Par 454,7
Ench 48b 2 ,5 = Par 65 4 ,6
]
]
]
]
]
]
] et ]
]
]
There are also cases where Par uses a different conjunction or preposition; some instances:
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
Ench
15,21 = Par3 ,4
3
5a,5 = Par7 ,4
3
15,4 = Par21 ,4
3 1 U = Par 3 6 U
5
31 2 ,9 = Par 36 ,7
2
34,6 =: Par 49 ,4
]
'] '
]
]
]
]
b. Changes of tense, word order, number

Not unfrequently, Par chooses a different word order, tense or number; of course, it is not impossible that such readings were already in
Par s copy of Ench. Some instances:
Ench l3,8-9 = Par l6,8-9
Ench 11,2 = Par 14U

Ench 14a,3 = Par 18 3 ,4
Ench 38,1 = Par 5 3 U
Ench 51 2 ,9 = Par69 4 ,6
,
( ) ]
,

]
]
]

]

3,6 ; 6,13 ; 22,4

; 70,2 ' . Therefore it is all the more remarkable to
find at 33a 2 ,3, while Ench has .
c. Omissions
The omissions in Par that cannot be explained by an attempt to give
the text a Christian character vary from one word to complete lines.
Some instances (the Greek words quoted are to be found in Ench):
Ench 13,9 = Pari6,'9
Ench 7,9 = Par 10 6 ,9
Ench 11,1 =Parl4 1 ,l

Ench 12 1 ,4 = Par 1 5 2 , 4
Ench 19b 2 ,2 = Par 26^2

Ench 21,2-3 = Par 28,2
Ench 254,17 = Par 328,16

Ench 313,11-13 = Par 36 6 ,10
Ench 336,15-16 = Par 41 3 ,4
Ench 48b2,6 = Par 65 4 ,7
om.
om.
om.
om.
om.
om.
om.
- om.
om.
, om.
d. Shortened passages
In a number of cases Par gives a condensed version of the text of
Ench\ sometimes this is due to the specifically Stoic character of Ench.
Some instances:
Ench 10,1-2 = Par I S M
Ench 42,4-5 = Par 564,6

Ench 47,1 =Par62 1 ,l

]
"
]
e. Additions
There are two types of additions in Par: the first type consists of
substantial additions, often affecting the philosophical or theological
impact of a passage (cf. the section on the Christian character of Par,
pp. 206-208) ; the second consists of additions that aim at clarifying
the text, be it grammatically or with regard to the contents. I will give
some instances of either type.
Ench 1 4 ,14 = Par 2 2 , 3
Ench 7,10 = Par 106"7,10-11

Ench 122,5 = Par 165"8,8-13
Ench 19b2,3 = Par 262"3,3-6

in this long passage there is a most remarkable combination of Christian material (Ev.
Matt. 7,3) and an anecdote told about
(among others) Socrates and Plato
this addition might be a reminiscence of
Ench 25.2-6
Ench 30,4 = Par 345"7,4-9

Ench 48b2,4 = Par 653,4-6
Ench 3,5 = Par 53,5-6

Ench 3,5 = Par 5 3 ,6
Ench 8,1 = Par 11,1-2
Ench 10,1 = Par I S M
Ench 143^2 = Par 18 1 ,2
Ench 15,1 = Par2\^,\
Ench 19b2,2 = Par 2 6 2
20,2 = Par 271,2-3
Ench 25*,5 = Par322,4-5
PncA 39,5 = Par 543,5-6
PncA 46 ] ,3 = Par60 2 ,3
reverence for God has priority over reverence for one's father
someone who is praised does not only
laugh at the error of the one who praises
him, but he also deems himself unhappy
for having misled someone else
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
add.
]
add.
add.
As Prof. . Carlini points out to me, there are a few places where Par
uses typically Stoic terms. Thus the addition at Par 10 7 ,10-11
reminds us of Seneca's
famous fifth verse in his version of Cleanthes' prayer (Ep. 107,11)
ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt. And at Par 49 ! ,1 we find the
terminus technicus instead of Ench s 8 .
The general picture is clear: the author of Par considers every single
phrase of the original text, and never copies something mindlessly.
This attitude is important for our assessment of the value of Par for
the text of Ench, and for the constitution of the text of Par itself.
De Nicola, Osservazioni, suggests that may represent the original

reading of Ench\ at the same time he submits that Par's reading for is the authendc reading of Ench.
Stemma codicum et editionis principis

Paraphrasis christianae
K U
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
THE AFFILIATION OF THE MANUSCRIPTS AND

THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF THE PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA
In the introduction (pp. 197-198) it has already been pointed out

that Piscopo, in her article on Par, divides the five MSS used by
Schweighuser into two groups, the first formed by M [Laur. 55,4]
and [Par. gr. 1053], the second by [Par. gr. 858], [Par. gr.
362] and Q [Par. gr. 1302]; in the latter group, N O belong together
against Q . In fact there are 24 MSS containing Par, so that the
construction of a stemma becomes rather more complicated; but
through some stroke of luck or by sheer intuition Schweighuser has
managed to pick out representatives of all the major groups of MSS
of Par, so that the stemma of his five MSS looks like a skeleton of the
stemma of all known MSS. Now I disagree with Piscopo's stemma on
o n e important point: whereas she regards as a gemellus of M,
deriving from a lost source which is a gemellus of the lost source of
N O Q , I believe that belongs to N O Q , so that M stands alone
against the other four MSS. If we take account of all the new MSS as
well, this means that M (with its three derivatives [Bern. 97], C
[Bern. 150] and [Par. gr. 2446]) is a gemellus of the lost common
source of the other twenty MSS.
The first part of my discussion will be devoted to the demonstration that M (with its derivatives) does stand alone against the other
MSS, which I designate with the collective siglum a. Then I will show
the dependence of BCT on M; the rest of the chapter will be about
the relationship of the remaining MSS, plus Casaubon's editio princeps.
The relationship of M and a

In order to show that M and are gemelli, I will quote some separative errors of each of the two. Let me first list some errors of M:
1 3 ,3
3U
8,2-3
om.
]
- om.
10^3
132.3
151.1
167,12
23 1 ,!
318,12
31 23 ,41
33a4 ,5
35 2 .4
382.2
48 1 ,!
52,2
565,7
654,6
69 2 ,2
69 7 ,12
]
]
] (sic)
]
] '
om.
]
]
om.
-]
]
]
]
]
om.
]
The existence of is proved by the conjunctive errors of its derivatives. Besides, there are a number of places where and V [Ven.
Marc. gr. 127] agree in error, while the other MSS of the group have
the correct reading: such places must be explained by assuming that
the c o m m o n source of these MSS was corrected or contaminated.
Here follow some errors of a 1 :
73,3-4
7 3 ,4
122,3
13^1-2
223,6
25,1
27 3 ,5
om.
M (et Ench Nil Vat) : a
om.
]
]
]

318,12
]
] ( : JK)
32 7 ,14
40,1
42^2-43M . ] .
68^,2
] : V:
KQU: J:
DEFLNOW
713,5
:
Piscopo argues that and belong together because there are some
places where N O Q have a correct reading against MP. The correct
1
Of course there are places where a few members of the group have a different
reading, but I have not thought it worth while to mark this; in the places mentioned it can be regarded as certain that the reading which is quoted is the reading
of the common ancestor of all the MSS of the group.
readings in M are to be regarded as the result of conjecture or

contamination, if I understand her correctly. I cannot accept this
affiliation for the following reasons. As will appear from my discussion (see pp. 217-221) the common source of N O Q (and their congeners) is a gemellus of V, as appears from a considerable number of
conjunctive errors in these MSS; this lost source of V N O Q was a
gemellus of P. Now in most places where N O Q have a correct
reading, the wrong reading is found not only in MP, but also in V: if
such correct readings in N O Q were the result of vertical transmission, V could not agree in error with PM. Therefore we must
assume that the source of N O Q was corrected and contaminated.
Moreover, in the stemma of the MSS of the Commentary on Par M is
regarded as a gemellus of the source of the other MSS (which
include and IJQ) by both Spanneut, Commentaire 134, and Santerini
Citi 55-56 (with note 3 on p. 56). Hence it can be safely concluded
that M (with its derivatives) stands alone against the other MSS.
The apographa of M
As has already been stated, M has three extant apographa, all of them
very recent, [Bern. 97], C [Bern. 150] and [Par. gr. 2446], That
these MSS derive from M becomes clear from the fact that they follow
M everywhere; further, there are some places where the reading of
BCT appears to be the result of misreading M, which in some places
is indeed very difficult to read; and finally BCT agree with M in the
few places where M has been corrected by a later hand, for instance
26 4 ,6 ] M 2 . And at 33a 2 ,3 M has the word per
compendium at the end of the line: it is omitted in BCT.
BCT have a lot of conjunctive errors; some instances:
4 1 ,1
105_6,8-9
212.2
30 2 .3
33a5,7
48^1-2
492,5
565,7
56 ,19
67,7-8
704,5
713.4
om.
- om.
] (sic)
] (sic)
]
- om.
om.
]
]
- bis deinceps
- om.
]
Within the group BCT, appears to be the source of the other two
MSS: has no errors against C, while its only error against (5 3 ,6
] ) can be very easily corrected. C and
have no conjunctive errors, while each of them has separative errors
of its own. First I will quote some errors of C:
10U
]
]
215,8
23U
]
31 ,17
]
344,5
]
6 5 ]
Some errors of :
4 2 ,3
5 1 ,1
31 21 ,36
44 1 ,!
56 2 ,3
693,5
]
]
- om.
om.
om.
]
The relationship of the other manuscripts

The existence of a lost MS (a) which was the source of [Par. gr.
1053] and of (the lost source of all the other MSS of the group) has
already been proved above. In order to illustrate that and are
gemelli I will quote some separative errors of both and . Here are
some readings peculiar to P:
3 3 ,4
144,4
168,13
215,7
265,8
312,4
327,13
352,3
395,6
492,5
642,2
66 3 ,3
alterum]
alterum om.
]
]
]
om.
]
]
]
alterum om.
om.
om.
Besides, has countless errors resulting from inner dictation; some

instances:
3 2 ,3
92,3
]
]
142.2
153,6
20,2
352,4
56 2 .3
568,12
63,1
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
shows no traces of contamination or conjectural emendation.

: the common source of V [Ven. Marc. gr. 127] and (the lost source of the
other MSS)
The existence of is proved by a number of conjunctive errors of V
and (the source of A [Athen. 521] and , which is the source of the
other MSS); some instances 2 :
3 4 ,5
9 2 .1
9 2 .2
141.1
15^3
213,4
33a2,2
33a 6,9
33c 7 ,1
382.2
442,4-5
49 2 ,4
568,12
]
]
]
]
]
]
] (om. )
om.
]
om.
]
]
]
In two places has an interesting reading against MP:

11,1
145,6
MP:
habet : MP
These two readings may very well be explained by conjectural emendation; the reading at 14 5 ,6 must be accepted as correct.
There are some slight indications that had double readings,
which points at contamination. At 6',2 V has in the text (this
is also the reading of M); is added above the line in Q, and is also
found in the text of the lemmata in JK. At 31 1 ,1 V reads
for with ; has : both readings may have
been in .
That V and are gemelli is proved by the fact that they both have
separative errors; first I will quote some readings peculiar to V (the
2
See note 1 to this chapter (p. 214).
number of V's separative errors is enormous; many of them result

from inner dictation) :
2 2 .3
6 3 .4
107,11
165,8
265,8-9
29J,1
3119,31
412.1
475,8
614,5
68 2 .3
71
]
]
]
]
' ] '
]
]
]
om.
]
om.
]
Here are some separative errors of 3 :

106,10
122.4
144.5
17^2
232.2
31 23 ,40
324,7
327,14
32 12 ,22
33a5,8
35^2
443.6
484.7
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]!
]
]
In a number of places has a correct or probable reading against PV,

sometimes against PVM. These places are the following:
1 3 ,3
5 3 .5
7 2 ,3
22*,2
233,5
31 12 ,19
31 22 ,37
33a6,8
habet : PV
habet : PVM
habet y: om. PV
M: V : :

habet (et VP C ) : P V a c
habet : PV: om.
habet : PV
habet : PV
It has already been noted that these readings (and a number of

readings of , see p. 198) induced Piscopo to assume t h a t N O Q form
one independent branch of the tradition, while and M together
represent the other branch. I believe that this is not so, because of
3
A breaks off after 56, 10 .
the many places where agrees in manifest error with PV and with V
(cf. above, pp. 214-215, 217). The places just mentioned may in many
cases be explained by conjectural emendation. In a few cases
contamination may have been at work: we shall see that the -family
presents many stemmatical anomalies, some of which may be
explained by assuming the existence of double readings (and
therefore possibly contamination) in itself.
The -group
It has already been indicated above that is the source of A [Athen.
521] and , the common ancestor of the other MSS. This is shown by
the fact that each has separative errors of its own. First I will mention
a number of readings peculiar to A:
43,6
6 4 ,8
11,1
183,5
242,2
30 2 ,3
324,7
33a1,1
38U
483,6
53U
56 6 ,9
- om.
]
om.
om.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
om.
In a number of cases A agrees with , in other cases with (some

descendants of) . First I will list the places where A and share a
distinctive reading:
titulus
51,2
8,2
104,6
5 ,?
168,13
33a 4 ,6
344,5
345,6
472,4
]
habent : om.
prius]
om.
] () () (et )
]
]
] (et J)
]
alterum om. (et J)
Some of these cases of agreement may be coincidental (e.g. 8,2); in

the case of other readings (e.g. the title; 16 8 ,13) it is imaginable that
they already figured as variant readings in , were taken over by A
and , found their way into , but were neglected by . It is also
possible that some errors of were corrected by .
Here are the places where A agrees with (derivatives of) :

145,6
162,2-3
16,11
30 2 ,3
325,10
382,2
461.1
54 2 .2
] AU
] AJM
] AJ
] AJ
alterum om. AJ
] AJx
]
] :
The fact that at 38 2 ,2 for is also found in makes it

likely that this reading occurred as a variant reading in , and was
neglected by and the other descendants of ; this may also be valid
for some other readings. At 4 6 1 , ! may have been corrected. And
some cases may be coincidental.
In some places A agrees with M against a; this must be explained
as the result of contamination, witness the double reading at 27 2 ,4.
Here they are:
73,3-4
243,5
243.5
27 2 ,4
318,12
31 22 ,39
329.17
51,2
( A) habent AM:
om.
AM:
'] AM
] : V:
AM:
: AM
AM: : V:
: :
In a few other places A does not share an error in V6:

3 4 .5
134.6
31 22 ,37
329.18
368,16
AUVMP: V
] V
om. V
] V
] V
These cases too may be explained by contamination of A from M. In

some other places, on the other hand, A agrees with V against :
3 4 .6
3 4 .7
8,2
143,3
163.3
27 2 .4
365,8
36, 12
]
]
]
]
]
] : V:
] VA lsl
] A ^ V
At 36 5 ,8 and may have had both readings; this is also probable for
the reading at 36 6 ,12. The agreement between A and V at 3 4 ,6; 3 4 ,7;
14 3 ,3 and 16 3 ,3 may very well be coincidental, because both MSS have
many errors of this type.
Here are some separative errors of :
4^2-3
13 2 ,2-3
16 4 ,7
26 3 ,6
31 8 ,12
3 1 1 7 29
3122,38
31 2 3 ,41
33a2,3
36 5 ,9
--] --
]
om.
]
]
] :
om.
]
]
]
Some readings in may be due to conjectural emendation; for

instance, at 31 17 ,29 V has ' for ' , A reads ; has ,
and reads for (A has ), thus offering
an intelligible text.
In a few places has a probable or correct reading against MPVA
or PVA:
23,4
24,6
lOU
31 9 ,15
65 3 ,5
662,2
MPVA: (et Ench Nil Vat)

MPVA
: . MPVA
MPVA:
(et M; d e e s t ): PV (fort,
recte)
: PV: (deest )
These readings may well result from conjectural emendation, or

otherwise from contamination (for instance 33a 2 ,3 ]
(the reading of Ench Nil Vat). Therefore we need not attach
too much weight to their occurrence in with regard to the constitution of the text, although the addition of at 10 1 ,! is absolutely
necessary.
The relationship of the members of the -group

As far as I have been able to establish, there are two reconstructible
descendants of : the first of these is , the lost common source of the
MSS D [Escor, gr. 272 (Y.III.2)], [Escor, gr. 289 (Y.III.19)], F
[Mon. gr. 25], L [Oxon. Laud. gr. 21], [Par. gr. 858], [Par. gr.
362], R [Athous 1820], W [Vat. Pal. gr. 91], Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23]; the
other one is , the lost ancestor of [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 5 4 ] , I [Par. gr.
39], J [Vat. gr. 740], [Vat. gr. 1142], Q [Par. gr. 1302], S [Mosq.
Syn. 438 Vladimir], U [Sin. Cath. 385] and [Vat. gr. 1950]. But
there remain many stemmatical problems which cannot be solved
with absolute certainty.
In the first place it is very odd that conjunctive errors of the group are only found from ch. 37 on; there are two possible explanations for this p h e n o m e n o n , neither of which is quite convincing.
Either it should be assumed that the scribe of corrected his copy
against its exemplar, so that all the separative errors he had initially
made disappeared; in that case he must have stopped doing so at ch.
37, for some unknown reason 4 . Alternatively, it is possible that the
scribe of did not make a single mistake in copying the first part of
Par, but became less diligent as the work proceeded. The first
explanation seems to be the least unlikely.
In the second place there are many places where one or more
members of the -group agree with one or more members of the group. In particular there are three places of agreement between J
and which cannot be fortuitous, to wit 69 6 ,10-11 ]
5 ; 70 2 ,2 ] and the doxology at the
end of the work ( (+ )
).
Finally, for many of the MSS of both the - and the -group
contamination can be proved with certainty.
All in all I state at the outset that there remain a number of
puzzling cases in the affiliation of the members of the -group, but
the stemma I will suggest is the best I can offer.
The -group
has a considerable number of separative errors, among which there
are many transpositions. I will mention some instances:
15,7
3^2
5 ,7-8
16 3 ,5
]
]
]

]
I have assumed intensive correction of a copy from its exemplar in the case of
the text of Plato's Republic in Laur. 80,19: see Boter, Plato's Republic, 184-185.
5
This reading must be the result of comparison with the New Testament; see
Nestle-Aland's apparatus ad 2Ep. Timoth. 4,7.
21 5 ,7-8
32 2 .4
36 3 .5
41 2 .2
452.3
45 2 ,3-4
45 4 .7
461,!
49 2 .4
56 6 ,9
613.4
693.3
69 4 .8
]

]
om.
] 6
]
-] '
, '
, ,
,

]
]
]
om.
]
]
]
Some readings of appear to be deliberate alterations; this is

especially clear at 41 2 ,2 and 45 2 ,3-4. Other cases include 46 1 ,! ]
; 59 6 ,7-9 -] -.
There are a few traces of contamination in . The most striking
case is 65 6 ,9, where adds the words after , and thus agrees with Ench Nil Vat. Less remarkable cases are 8,1
] with Nil ( Ench Vat), 8,2 prius]
with Ench Nil Vat (et A); 31
] with EAC. In a
few cases has the correct reading against and V(P) as well: 3^2
habet (et ): (sic) : ; 5 ! , 2 habet
(et A): om. ; 41 3 ,4 ] ( Nil Vat);
69 3 ,5 ] PV: : (probably a conjecture,
because Ench Nil Vat (and PM) have ).
There are three extant or reconstructible descendants of : D [Escor,
gr. 272 (Y.III.2)], [Par. gr. 858] and a lost MS () which served as
the source of W [Vat. Pal. gr. 91] and (the lost ancestor of [Par.
gr. 362], R [Athous 1820] and Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23]). This is shown by
the fact that D, and each have separative errors against the other
two. First I will quote the readings peculiar to D:
5*,2
15 3 .5
16 3 .4
27 2 ,4
312,3
36 5 ,8
]
] ( vel )
]
]
]
]
36 e ,11
42
43 2 .4
484,8
59 6 ,8
TO
]
prius]
]
]
]
There are two places where D agrees with against :

31 9 ,15
3212.22
]
]
To my mind these two places are not sufficient to serve as conjunctive

errors of D N against : probably they were already in , and were
removed in by means of conjecture.
The second derivative of is ; here are the separative errors of N:
65,12
11,1
18 2 ,3
30 2 .2
3120,33
3210,20
3212.23
33a4,5
432.3
56 3 .5
56 4 .5
564.6
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
is in all probability the source of L [Oxon. Laud. gr. 21], although

there are a few places where is wrong against L:
31 5 .7
3117,29
342,3
h a b e t L: (et DQP C S: :
HJKOV)
habet L:
habet L:
After the title D adds ; has ,

while L reads , without . At 31 5 ,7 the
reading of is also found in some of its congeners, which makes it
probable that in these places (and in the other two as well) L arrived
at the correct reading ope ingenii.
Here are some separative errors of L:
32,3
8,2
13 1 ,1
16 4 ,6
22^3
32 6 ,12
' ]
] (et M)
] (et JY)
om.
om.
o m .
364,6
564.5
585.6
63,2
]
] ( )
'- om.
om.
L is the source of [Escor, gr. 289 (Y.III. 19)], although L has two
slight errors against E, to wit 2 1 ,1 ] and 58 2 ,3-4
] . These readings may well have been corrected
in conjecturally.
has a number of separative errors of its own; some instances:
182,3
26U
315,6
412,2
596,7
61 4 5
663,3
702,3
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
The third descendant of is , the source of W [Vat. Pal. gr. 91] and
, the lost ancestor of [Par. gr. 362], R [Athous 1820] and Y [Vat.
Reg. gr. 23]. W has only a selection of Par, omitting chapters 7, 9, 10,
12, 14, 18-20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30-33a 6 , 34, 37, 38, 42, 52-54, 56, 57, 6264; R has chs. 1, 13, 15, 16, 19-21, 23, 26, 28-30, 33c 7 , 34, 35, 37-42, 45
(init.). There are only four conjunctive errors of W and (in all
these places Y is absent), to wit:
om. ( R)
165,8
] (et R)
33c 7 ,2
]
453,5
'] '
662,2
Few as these errors may be, they are sufficient to postulate a common
ancestor of W and .
W and have separative errors against each other; first I will quote
a number of readings peculiar to W, some of which are obviously
deliberate alterations of the text:
3 3 ,4
6 4 ,6
11,1
152,4
167,11
291,1
432
43 ] ,2
- om.
]
]
]
- om.
]
]

]
48 2 ,3
]
4
]
48 ,8
551,1
]
6 9 ]
69 3 ,6
om.
W is the source of F [Mon. gr. 25], which has the same selection as W,
and follows W everywhere, with the exception of 61 3 ,3, where W has
for . Some separative errors of F:
2 3 ,5
153,6
16, 13
172.3
35',2
40,1
48 1 ,!
51,1
55 1 ,!
65 3 .4
]
]
]
]
] : F
]
]
]
]
]
I will now quote the separative errors of . The readings of O can be

reconstructed from its three extant derivatives [Par. gr. 362], R
[Athous 1820] and Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23]; but Y breaks off after ch.
16 4 ,7 ; in chs. 1-16 R only has the text of chs. 1, 13, 15 and 16.
2 3 ,5
6
6 2 ,2
9 2 ,2
6,9
142,2
16^2
]
]
]
]
]
om.
] (et R)
has only one error of its own, namely 13 1 ,! ] (also

in ELJ); and at 2 4 ,6 Y has for , while
has .
has a large number of separative errors, many of which are
deliberate interventions. I will quote some instances:
l 4 ,4-5
9 2 ,2
166,10
167,11-12
om.
]
]
-]

24 2 .3
32 5 .10
361,!
454,6
622,2
69 5 .11
]
] '
]
]
om.
]
In four cases agrees with M:

22 1 .2
3210,20
34 3 .4
642.3
MO:
]
MO: ()/-
] *
Because of the small number of these cases of agreement and their

rather trivial character, I assume that they are coincidental.
The exact position of R is hard to assess, because R only has chs. 1,
13, 15 and 16 in common with Y. R nowhere agrees with Y against O,
or with against Y; at 16^2 all three MSS have for . In the chapters where Y is absent, R shares the following
characteristic readings with O:
29^3
35^2
452.2
452.3
om.
]
]
]
R has a few separative errors; some instances:

15 3 .5
20,2
41,2
]
om.
]
The -group
The second derivative of is . It has already been noted (p. 222)
that the derivatives of (HIJKQSUZ) have conjunctive errors (which
goes to prove the existence of ) only from ch. 37 onward. I will
quote some instances (U omits chs. 57-66 4 ,6; J omits chs. 57-67; S
breaks off after ch. 58):
37,2
]
4 2 ^ 2 - 4 3 1 , ! . ] PV : :
432.4
o m .
44 3 ,6-7
]
( IJK)
452,3
om.
484.6
habet (et M) : om.
56 1 ,!
573,4-5
693,5
696,11
] //
] (bis)
]
om.
post add.

The complete absence of conjunctive errors in the derivatives of

before ch. 37 is very puzzling; I repeat that the only acceptable
explanation I can think of is that was corrected from its exemplar in
chs. 1-36, but this explanation is far from satisfactory.
The only place where a reading in is also found elsewhere is
4
48 ,6 , which occurs in M as well; this is probably coincidental.
is the source of four MSS: S [Mosq. Syn. 438 Vladimir], U [Sin.
Cath. 385], (the lost ancestor of Q [Par. gr. 1302] and [Vat. gr.
1950]) and , which is the lost source of I [Par. gr. 39] and (the
source of [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 54], J [Vat. gr. 740] and [Vat. gr.
1142]). In some cases a reading is found in more than one of these
MSS; I suppose that such cases should be explained as the result of
double readings in , or as the result of contamination; some
instances:
168.13
293
314,6
31 12 ,21
31 22 ,40
363,5
] xS (glossema)
] J: S
] UZ
om. JUZ
] : xS
]
I will first discuss S [Mosq. Syn. 438]. Here are some of the numerous
readings peculiar to S:
1 5 .7
4 4 .8
9 2 ,2
23 ] ,1
327.14
344.5
345.6
43*,2
52,1
582,2
om.
prius]
om.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
S is heavily contaminated with o n e or more MSS of Ench, Nil, Vat.

Many readings are found in two or three of these branches, but in
some cases there is agreement with Nil alone. I will list some readings
to illustrate this:
1 6 ,10
8,1
1,2
142,2
164,7
293,7
34!,1
46M
552,2
] et Ench Nil Vat

] et Ench Nil Vat
] et Nil
ante habet ; :
only Nil has ; Ench Vat have .
] et Ench Nil Vat
] et
Ench Nil Vat
] et Ench Nil Vat
] : only Nil
has , Ench Vat have .
] et Ench Nil Vat
The source of the contamination from Nil is to be found in the group

of A/M and its derivatives, as appears from S's reading at 36 5 ,10; here
S adds (after ) Nil 38b 4 ,1-3 (= Ench 31 s ,11-13), reading
for at the beginning of this addition; now (without
) is also found in AM and most of its derivatives, while NP (and
ANQV) omit both words.
Although it is certain that S contains readings from Nil, there are
also a few places where S's reading appears to be derived from Ench
(or Vat) :
153,5
482,2
53 2 ,4
56 12 ,21
59 3 ,4
] et Ench Vat : Nil

] et Ench Vat
] et EAC Vat : Nil
post habet '
: sic et Vat, Ench et Nil habent pro .
] et Ench Vat : Nil
Moreover, there is one unmistakable case of contamination with ,

namely 41 2 ,2 ] S:
. Of course, it cannot be excluded that took this
reading from S; it may also have been present in a n d / o r .
At 5 2 ,5 S agrees with A in reading for ; this might well
be a conjecture or simplification made in both MSS independently.
In two places there is highly significant agreement with : 16 8 ,13
] 6 ; 31 2 2 ,40 ] :
8. Therefore it is possible that S is a gemellus of , although
a mere two conjunctive errors would not seem to justify a conclusion
to this effect. These two readings may well have been in as variant
readings.
6
This variant reading must have been borrowed from Photius (Ep. I, 1027-1028
Laourdas-Westerink), who quotes the famous dictum in the following words:
, . S also agrees with Photius in reading for
.
The second derivative of is U [Sin. Cath. 385]; I will quote a

number of separative errors of U:
63,4
121 ,1-2
21
22 ] ,2
324,9
3212,24-25
38 1 ,!
441.3
49 2 .4
694,8
]
- om.
]
- om.
]
- om.
]
]
]
]
There are a few cases of atypical agreement with other MSS, but their
character makes it probable that these are coincidental, although
contamination is not excluded; and again, some readings may have
been double readings in ; see for instance:
2^2
2 4 ,5
145,6
273,6
452,2
46 1 ,!
56 9 ,14
693,5
] UMPA
] UMPVA
] UA
] Ue
] U:
]
om.
om.
The third derivative of is , the lost source of Q [Par. gr. 1302] and
[Vat. gr. 1950]; instead of chs. 1-5 of Par, has Ench 1-3; I will quote
some separative errors of (which are at the same time conjunctive
errors of Q and Z) :
72,3
104.6
133,4
19,1
24^,1
291.2
317,9
32^2
328,15
35
38 2 .3
454.7
568,13
om.
]
]
]
]
]
om.
]
]
]
]
]
]
Q and have separative errors against each other. First I will quote
some readings of Q (I also mention some separative errors of Q in
chs. 1-5, w h e r e has t h e text of Ench, a n d in chs. 58-71, w h e r e is

absent):
1 6 ,11
13 4 ,6
312,4
317,10
42 1 ,1
5611,18
63,3
651,!
]
]
]
]
om.
]
]
]
At 32 7 ,14 Q has f o r t h e s e c o n d with , b u t this is

p r o b a b l y c o i n c i d e n t a l . T h e title in Q starts with ; t h e n t h e r e follow s o m e almost illegible letters, which De Nicola
d e c i p h e r s as ; subsequently we r e a d . Cf.
De Nicola [in p r e p . ] .
H e r e are s o m e separative e r r o r s of Z:
62,2
10 6 ,8
14 6 .8
16 5 .9
21 4 ,5
35 3 ,5
41 1 ,1
52,1
565,8
]
]
o m .
]
o m .
]
]
]
]
T h e f o u r t h d e s c e n d a n t of is , t h e lost source of I [Par. gr. 39] a n d

, which is t h e c o m m o n a n c e s t o r of [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 54], J [Vat.
gr. 740] a n d [Vat. gr. 1142]; breaks off a f t e r ch. 31. T h e t h r e e
d e s c e n d a n t s of that also have t h e c o m m e n t a r y o n Par (IJK), show a
very r e m a r k a b l e organization of t h e text in t h e first 10 chapters: t h e
full text of e a c h c h a p t e r is a d d e d b e f o r e t h e section of the c o m m e n tary c o n c e r n e d ; t h e n e a c h sub-section of t h e c o m m e n t a r y is p r e c e d e d
by t h e p a r t of t h e text which is dealt with as a lemma. H e r e are s o m e
separative e r r o r s of (= conjunctive e r r o r s of I a n d ) :
4],3
52,4
293,8
30 1 ,1
31 8 ,11
3113,22
36 1 ,1
443,6
572,3
] ( )
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
o m .
In two places t h e r e a r e traces of c o n t a m i n a t i o n in : at 1 2 ^ 2 has

f o r with Ench Nil Vat; has two versions of 27 2 - 3 ,
t h e first of which is basically identical with Ench 20,2-5 (= Nil 27,2-5 =
Vat 27,2-5): t h e fact that has shows that Nil c a n n o t have b e e n t h e
source of c o n t a m i n a t i o n , b e c a u s e M / h a s ; t h e r e a d i n g f o r
suggests that c o n s u l t e d a MS r e l a t e d to ETtSib SiC, or Vat,
which have as well; has t h r e e variant r e a d i n g s n o t f o u n d in
t h e tradition of Ench or in Vat, namely t h e a d d i t i o n of a f t e r , f o r a n d f o r .
F u r t h e r , at 3 4 ,8 has two s u p r a l i n e a r variant r e a d i n g s ( i n t r o d u c e d by
) a n d f o r a n d ; I s u p p o s e
that these also were already p r e s e n t in . This may also b e valid f o r J's
r e a d i n g f o r at 2 9 ^ 3 .
T h e r e are a few cases of atypical a g r e e m e n t :
24 2 .3
31 12 ,21
45 3 .4
] IJ
om. IJU
habet J: IK (deest )
T h e s e r e a d i n g s may well go back to d o u b l e r e a d i n g s in or .

I a n d have separative e r r o r s of their own; first I will q u o t e a n u m b e r
of r e a d i n g s peculiar to I:
3U
4 2 ,4
7*,2
15U
16 4 ,7
24 3 ,4
31 6 ,8
36 3 ,4
58 6 ,6
69 7 ,12
om.
]
]
]
]
- om.
om.
]
]
]
In a few p l a c e s I a g r e e s with , b u t t h e s e cases may well b e

coincidental, given t h e fact that b o t h I a n d have a large n u m b e r of
errors; h e r e they are:
17!,2
26 2 ,4
31 4 ,6
31 4 ,6
36, 12
43 2 ,3
]
]
'] '
]
] (etVAP c )
]
Let m e now quote the readings peculiar to , the source of [Leid.

Voss. gr. Q 5 4 ] , J [Vat. gr. 740] a n d [Vat. gr. 1142] (H breaks off
after ch. 31; J is absent in chs. 57-67):
6 4 ,6
31 3 ,5
32 7 ,13
327,14
33c 7 ,1
36 3 ,4
36 5 ,8
56 6 ,9
]
om.
]
] :
habet :
om.
]
om.
T h e reading at 33c 7 ,1 may be d u e to conjecture, but it may also result

f r o m contamination.
T h e three descendants of , HJK, all have separative errors of their
own; there are only a very few cases of a g r e e m e n t between two of the
t h r e e MSS, so that it is p r o b a b l e that they all go back to i n d e p e n dently; the cases of a g r e e m e n t between two MSS are the following:
HK
HJ
JK
301,1
31 17 ,29
1 5 ,8
4 3 ,7
29^2
5 2 ,5
22 2 ,4
]
habent HK (V): ceteri
] (et V)
] (et multi alii)
]
] (et AQ)
alterum om. (et U)
T h e s e cases are probably coincidental; they may also go back to

double readings in .
First I will list some readings peculiar to H :
1 6 ,8
5U
9 3 ,5
147,10
164,7
21 4 ,6
318,12
31 20 ,35
]
' om.
]
]
' ]
] ( 1 in margine)
]
]
T h e double reading at 21 4 ,6 may already have been in .

H e r e are some of the very many separative errors of J:
2 4 ,5
41 ,2-3
153,5
29 2 ,5
.]
om.
om.
] (sic)
368,15
40
471 ,1
693.3
703.4
]
totum caput o m .
]
]
]
For cases of a g r e e m e n t with A a n d , see above, p p . 220, 222. At 69 2 ,2

J omits with M, b u t this may well b e c o i n c i d e n t a l . J ' s r e a d i n g
f o r at 2 9 ] , 3 has a l r e a d y b e e n m e n t i o n e d
above (see p. 232).
H e r e are s o m e separative e r r o r s of (I will also q u o t e s o m e r e a d i n g s
in chs. 57-67, w h e r e J is absent):
33,4
64,7
263,6
329,17
39 3 ,3-4
49^2
596.6
61 3 ,3-4
652,2
alterum]
]
o m .
]
]
]
o m .
o m .
o m .
T h e variant r e a d i n g s a n d at 3 4 ,8 have already b e e n

m e n t i o n e d above (p. 232). In a few places agrees with o t h e r MSS:
14 5 .7
16 5 ,9
36 3 .5
483,5
595,5
596,7
] () ()
] : V
] K Q
h a b e n t KM: : :
V: Q : J:
U :
KM:
] KPV (desunt JU)
T h e a g r e e m e n t with M at 48 3 ,5 a n d 59 5 ,5 can hardly be coincidental,

a n d t h e r e f o r e probably results f r o m c o n t a m i n a t i o n .
T h e last witness to be discussed is t h e editio pnnceps by M. C a s a u b o n .
C a s a u b o n himself tells a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m s h e h a d with his MS source
(see p. 205). Stemmatically it a p p e a r s to b e related to V, b u t first of
all it s h o u l d b e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t C a s a u b o n ' s text shows a few
u n m i s t a k a b l e traces of c o n t a m i n a t i o n with o n e or m o r e e d i t i o n s of
Ench: 10 3 ,4 ] ; 3 2 M o m . T h e r e f o r e those places
w h e r e C a s a u b o n a g r e e s with Ench against t h e MSS of Par a r e in all
probability d u e to c o n t a m i n a t i o n . In a n u m b e r of places C a s a u b o n
explicitly states t h a t a r e a d i n g is f o u n d in Ench, e.g. at 34 3 ,4 ]

, (sic) in m a r g i n e .
Cas clearly goes back to , n o t to M; t h e following r e a d i n g s may
serve to illustrate this:
41 ,1
7 3 ,3-4
31 12 ,19
31 19 ,31
47 5 ,9
]
om.
om.
om.
om.
In a n u m b e r of places Cas agrees with PV against ; in such cases it is

p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e original r e a d i n g of was c o r r e c t e d in ; s o m e
instances:
7 2 ,3
10 4 .6
31 12 ,19
65 3 ,5
om. Cas PV
] Cas PV
] Cas PV
] Cas PV
In a few places Cas agrees with P alone; s o m e instances:

titulus
5 2 ,5
133,4
64 2 ,2
ante add. (-
)
]
]
But t h e r e are also a few places w h e r e t h e r e is a g r e e m e n t with V; s o m e

instances:
10 2 ,4
14,9
33c 7 ,1
33c 7 ,2
59 6 .7
68 1 ,!
]
] V: Cas
] (et )
om.
]
] Cas: V:
: :
H e n c e I c o n c l u d e that the MS c o n s u l t e d by C a s a u b o n lies s o m e w h e r e

between a n d ; the a g r e e m e n t with with r e g a r d to t h e title a n d at
64 2 ,2 m a k e s it i m p r o b a b l e t h a t Cas is situated b e t w e e n a n d V.
A l t h o u g h it is certain t h a t Cas has u n d e r g o n e intensive c o n t a m i n a tion a n d c o n t a i n s n u m e r o u s c o n j e c t u r e s (probably d u e to C a s a u b o n
himself), I have d e c i d e d to r e p o r t t h e r e a d i n g s of Cas in t h e a p p a r a tus; however, Cas s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as an u n r e l i a b l e witness to t h e
text.
Cas has a large n u m b e r of u n i q u e readings; s o m e of these may b e
d u e to c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n ; s o m e instances:
1 5 ,8
4 3 ,6
93,5
16,10
29*,2
29^3
31 16 ,27
33a 4 ,5
39 4 ,5
67!,8
713,6
]
om.
]
om.
om.
]
]
]
om.
om.
om.
Casaubon's text of P a r i s r e p r i n t e d in the two editions by A. Berkelius

of 1670 a n d 1683 7 ( O l d f a t h e r nrs. 232 a n d 233), a n d the editions by
Blancard (1683; O l d f a t h e r nr. 235) a n d S c h r d e r (1723; O l d f a t h e r
nr. 291).
The 1683 edition contains Gronovius' collation of M.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
T H E COMMENTARY O N T H E PARAPHRASIS
CHRISTIANA
Par has b e e n t h e s u b j e c t of a n a n o n y m o u s c o m m e n t a r y ( h e n c e f o r w a r d Comm.), which was c o m p o s e d in t h e t e n t h c e n t u r y at t h e

latest 1 . It is e x t a n t in t h r e e r e c e n s i o n s , of d i f f e r e n t l e n g t h ; in t h e
longest r e c e n s i o n t h e work breaks off a f t e r Par 10; t h e final s e n t e n c e
suggests t h a t t h e w o r k d i d n o t g o b e y o n d c h . 10:
,
. S c h w e i g h u s e r (Ench CV-CVI) m a k e s s o m e
r e m a r k s a b o u t t h e p r e s e n c e of Comm in P P [Par. gr. 1053] a n d P Q
[Par. gr. 1302], q u o t e s t h e first lines of t h e p r o e m , b u t adds: "Reliqua, tametsi p e r se h a u d a b s u r d a , t a m e n n e c ad Epicteti E n c h i r i d i o n
vel e m e n d a n d u m vel i l l u s t r a n d u m m a g n o p e r e valere, n e c alioqui
tanti esse videntur, ut in l u c e m e m i t t e r e o p e r a e p r e t i u m sit."
In o u r century, Comm has received t h e a t t e n t i o n it was d e n i e d by
Schweighuser. After t h e a p p e a r a n c e of two s h o r t articles 2 an edition
of t h e s h o r t e s t version was p u b l i s h e d in 1956 by A. Dain, based o n
P M [Laur. 55,4], In 1964, S p a n n e u t p u b l i s h e d a p i o n e e r article o n
Comm ( S p a n n e u t , Commentaire), specifying t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t versions, a n d m e n t i o n i n g 15 MSS; h e gives s o m e r o u g h indications o n
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of the MSS. A n o t h e r article o n Comm was p u b l i s h e d
in 1980 by Santerini Citi; in n o t e 3 to p. 56 she gives a s t e m m a of t h e
p r i n c i p a l MSS 3 . S p a n n e u t ' s 1981 article ( Techne) is c o n c e r n e d with
t h e c o n t e n t s of Comm, n o t with t h e history or the constitution of t h e
text.
At this m o m e n t we d o n o t yet have an e d i t i o n of Comm at o u r
disposal, b u t Prof. S p a n n e u t tells m e that h e will publish a text in t h e
series Sources Chrtiennes, t h e d a t e of a p p e a r a n c e is n o t c e r t a i n .
Accordingly, I can only give a provisional a c c o u n t of Comm, a n d of its
i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e constitution of t h e text of Par.
1
Two
The
(840-842)
3
This
Par.
2
MSS containing the commentary are tenth century: .PM and PP.
articles by Lindstam and Dane; see also the articles by Spanneut in DS
and RAC (667-670).
stemma is in concordance with my conclusions with regard to the text of
I have c h e c k e d t h e lemmata a n d v e r b a t i m q u o t a t i o n s f r o m Par in

f o u r MSS: P M [Laur. 55,4], PP [Par. gr. 1053], PI [Par. gr. 39] a n d
PJ [Vat. gr. 740] ( P M has Comm in t h e shortest version (which breaks
off a f t e r t h e c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e very first lines of t h e first c h a p t e r ) ,
t h e o t h e r t h r e e have t h e longest version). I have n o t e d t h e following
r e m a r k a b l e readings:
1 1 ,1
1 6 ,9
*1 6 ,10
1 7 ,11
*2 3 ,4
2 4 ,5
2 4 ,5
3 2 ,3
*3 2 ,3
*5 1 ,2
5^2
MP: IJ (et Par )

habet altero loco: priore loco (et Par ;
etiam tertio loco)
]
om.
post habet
'
om.
om.
om.
]
]
om.
In t h e f o u r places m a r k e d with a n asterisk Comm a g r e e s with Ench.

T h e fact t h a t at 2 3 ,4 t h e w o r d s a r e c o p i e d f r o m Ench (with '
a d d e d ) b u t p u t in t h e w r o n g place 4 suggests c o n t a m i n a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e I t h i n k that in t h e o t h e r t h r e e places w h e r e t h e r e
is a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n Comm a n d Ench too, we n e e d n o t assume that
Comm s r e a d i n g r e p r e s e n t s t h e original r e a d i n g of Par.
They should have come after the phrase ,

which coincides with Ench's ' .
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE TEXT OF THE

PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA
T h e transmission of Par is m u c h b e t t e r t h a n that of Nil. For instance,

t h e n u m e r o u s omissions we e n c o u n t e r in Nil are almost a b s e n t f r o m
Par, g r o t e s q u e e r r o r s such as Nil 22,7 f o r a r e n o t
f o u n d ; i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e phrases as Nil 31c 1 2 ,7
d o n o t o c c u r in Par 1 .
B u t it is clear t h a t t h e text of Par as t r a n s m i t t e d to us is n o t
c o m p l e t e l y f r e e f r o m c o r r u p t i o n . For instance, t h e r e a d i n g of at
5 3 ,5 is clearly impossible; t h e same goes f o r ' , ,
w h e r e o m i t . I n s o m e of these cases t h e c o r r e c t i o n is o f f e r e d by
MSS which occupy a lower position in the s t e m m a (, , ), elsewhere
editors have r e m o v e d an e r r o r .
In g e n e r a l , t h e editorial principles f o r Par are t h e s a m e as t h o s e
f o r Nil (see p p . 184-187). T h u s r e a d i n g s which are grammatically impossible have b e e n c o r r e c t e d ; b u t w h e r e a s [Nilus] may b e s u p p o s e d
to have c o p i e d c o r r u p t o r even n o n s e n s i c a l passages, I t h i n k it
i m p r o b a b l e that t h e a u t h o r of Par c o n t e n t e d himself with d o i n g so,
b e c a u s e h e shows himself to be m u c h m o r e intelligent t h a n [Nilus].
If a n in itself unattractive r e a d i n g is also f o u n d in o t h e r b r a n c h e s of
t h e tradition I have almost always r e t a i n e d it, b e c a u s e in such cases
t h e r e a d i n g may have o c c u r r e d in t h e copy of Ench u s e d by t h e
a u t h o r of Par, f o r instance, P a r a n d Simplicius have f o r at
Par 61 4 ,5, which is n o t impossible. An e x c e p t i o n is m a d e for i m p r o b a b l e r e a d i n g s o c c u r r i n g in Par a n d Vat exclusively: b e c a u s e t h e
tradition of Vat shows traces of intensive c o n t a m i n a t i o n (see p p . 262263), t h e o c c u r r e n c e of such r e a d i n g s in Vat may be ascribed to cont a m i n a t i o n as well; see for instance 57 3 ,4, w h e r e t h e MSS of Par (with
t h e e x c e p t i o n of P) a n d Vat have instead of (omitting ).
It has already b e e n n o t e d that Par d o e s n o t follow t h e text of Ench
as slavishly as Nil. T h e r e f o r e a deviation f r o m Ench may well have
Of course, I am speaking about the archetype of Par, not about the individual
primary MSS.
b e e n i n t e n d e d by t h e a u t h o r of Par; f o r instance, at 2 6 ' , 2 P a r has

without the words , which are f o u n d
in Ench ( a n d Nil Vat), Piscopo, Par 503, wants to a d d t h e words in Par
c o n j e c t u r a l l y , b u t I t h i n k it possible t h a t t h e a u t h o r o m i t t e d t h e
w o r d s i n t e n t i o n a l l y 2 . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e a r e m a n y passages
w h e r e t h e a u t h o r of Par wrote s o m e t h i n g of his own i n v e n t i o n , so
t h a t t h e text c a n n o t b e c o m p a r e d to Ench (or to any o t h e r b r a n c h of
t h e tradition); in such cases each r e a d i n g has to be j u d g e d o n its own
merits, a n d if a r e a d i n g is obviously c o r r u p t , an e d i t o r is e n t i t l e d to
e m e n d it by m e a n s of c o n j e c t u r e . For instance, at 32 1 2 ,23 t h e MSS
give t h e word , which justifiably raised Schweighuser's
suspicion; I believe that it s h o u l d be c h a n g e d into .
T h e m a i n p r o b l e m in e d i t i n g Par lies in c h o o s i n g b e t w e e n t h e
r e a d i n g s of M a n d a . T h e r e a r e m a n y places w h e r e o n e of t h e s e
witnesses a g r e e s with Ench, while t h e o t h e r o n e has s o m e t h i n g else.
Now it is n o t inconceivable that in s o m e of such cases t h e a r c h e t y p e
h a d a r e a d i n g d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o n e in Ench, a n d that M o r c a m e
to s h a r e t h e r e a d i n g of Ench as a result of c o n t a m i n a t i o n . But t h e r e
a r e n o certain traces of c o n t a m i n a t i o n in e i t h e r of t h e two p r i m a r y
sources, in t h e f o r m of d o u b l e r e a d i n g s , o r significant a g r e e m e n t
with a specific b r a n c h of MSS of Ench?. Moreover, it is a prion m o r e
likely t h a t a r e a d i n g also f o u n d in Ench was c o r r u p t e d in o n e of t h e
primary sources, than that a c o r r u p t r e a d i n g (or r a t h e r , a r e a d i n g n o t
f o u n d in Ench) in t h e a r c h e t y p e was r e p l a c e d by t h e r e a d i n g of Ench
2
It is also possible that the words were absent from Par's copy of Ench, and in
that case the omission need not have disturbed the author. At 27 2 ,4 Par has
(sc. ), but there is no addition of (e.g.) '
.
3
There are two passages where M shares a number of readings with Ench
against a. T h e first of these is chs. 24-25: at 24 3 ,5 M has with Ench,
while has , which is clearly lectio difficilior (cf. Schweighuser ad loc.)\
ch. 25 in M runs ,
; here has three variant readings against M (and Ench): for
, for , for . The second passage is the end of
ch. 27: here M has (...) . "
, ; has (...) . "
, ( has for ,
lias ). In the first passage the word is in itself attractive;
but is certainly less attractive than , while the other two readings
are not very interesting in themselves; but if the four readings came into M through
contamination, why then did not the scribe rewrite the whole chapter? In the
second passage the readings of are so bad that one cannot assume that they stem
from the author of Par, and again, if M underwent contamination here, why was
not the text brought into full accordance with Ench, by adding the words
before ?
t h r o u g h c o n t a m i n a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e I have d e e m e d it m e t h o d i c a l l y
c o r r e c t to accept t h e r e a d i n g of Ench, w h e n it occurs in o n e of t h e
two p r i m a r y sources, b u t I stress that in this way we c a n n o t be fully
c o n f i d e n t a b o u t the original r e a d i n g of Par.
I n t h e following I will give a discussion of a selected n u m b e r of
passages.
3 a , 3 , '
' .
: Comm.. t h e r e a d i n g of
Comm is, I think, the result of c o n t a m i n a t i o n ; the r e a d i n g of looks
a bit clumsy: if is correct, it must refer to '
' as to two d i f f e r e n t
questions, whereas in fact we are dealing with o n e question with two
alternatives; b u t it is difficult to see how ' should have b e e n
c o r r u p t e d into , a n d t h e r e f o r e we have to accept it as having
b e e n i n t r o d u c e d intentionally.
3 4 .6-7 ,

give ( VA) , w h e r e we
would e x p e c t (the r e a d i n g of V a n d Cas, in all probability
a c o n j e c t u r e ) . Schweighuser devotes a l o n g discussion to this passage, c o n c l u d i n g that must be accepted; , h e argues, is to be exp l a i n e d by case attraction. I too believe that should be m a i n t a i n e d
( b e c a u s e it is possible), b u t I am almost sure that it results f r o m
c o r r u p t i o n of , u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e of t h e p r e c e d i n g . T h e
s a m e c o r r u p t i o n is f o u n d at 14 r \6, w h e r e MP r e a d instead of 4 .
4 4 ,7: the MSS have ; t h e editions
have f o r ; b u t in later Greek + acc. is n o t u n c o m m o n ,
a n d t h e r e f o r e the MSS r e a d i n g must be retained.
6 4 .7-8 ,
, ( )
.
has , while r e a d s ; at first sight, the latter
r e a d i n g looks like a clerical e r r o r , b u t the fact that t h e same r e a d i n g
is f o u n d in Ench makes o n e suspicious, because it is n o t immediately
4
At 14 n ,6 I have corrected into , because in that place case attraction cannot

serve to defend , as the relative pronoun does not refer to the immediately
preceding .
clear how t h e c o r r u p t i o n may have arisen. I think that originally Par

r e a d ;
w h e n d i s a p p e a r e d , t h e text b e c a m e u n g r a m m a t i c a l , w h i c h
i n d u c e d to c h a n g e into 5 . In itself, the r e a d i n g
- gives m o r e e m p h a s i s to this clause, which is attractive
b e c a u s e of line 11
.
9 3 , 6 ,
.
T h e MSS are divided between () a n d (M), a n d it
is difficult to m a k e a choice. In itself, gives a s m o o t h e r text,
a l t h o u g h it m i g h t be better to read (because of in
Ench)\ o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , recalls Ench's 6 . T h e
whole p h r a s e in Par is a c o n d e n s e d version of t h e original text, such
as we e n c o u n t e r regularly in Par, a n d t h e r e f o r e I think that
is to b e p r e f e r r e d 7 : ' T h e r e f o r e , whenever you use your impressions in
a c c o r d a n c e with Nature, exult only t h e n at your own g o o d . "
', "
,
,
, .
T h e MSS read , which is c h a n g e d into by
Schweighuser; b u t is also f o u n d in the l e m m a in SAB, a n d
t h e r e f o r e it must be retained h e r e too.
T h e leading MSS o m i t b e f o r e ; t h e word is supplied by
, in all probability as a conjecture; it is indispensable here.
T h e editions have , b u t
t h e MSS o m i t t h e words . Schweighuser wrongly believes that M has t h e words, b u t r e m a r k s that they "abesse u t c u m q u e
p o t e r a n t " . I n d e e d without is quite possible; see
f o r i n s t a n c e Epict. IV 12,19 (...) '
.
A comparable instance of conjectural emendation in is found at 13 1 ,1-2:

here was corrupted into , which destroyed the
syntax; accordingly the conjunction was added before .
6
This is the reading of SiC, Stobaeus and Vai; the other sources either have
(ACS>) or omit the word (T, which omits -, as a result
of le saut du mme au mme).
7
An additional argument might be that seems to be lectio diffidlior
compared to .
10 7 ,10 . has
, only ; Schweighuser a r g u e s that t h e w o r d
i n d u c e d a scribe to a d d , after which h e did n o t delete t h e
word "ne litur d e f o r m a r e t librum", a r a t h e r far-fetched e x p l a n a t i o n .
T o my m i n d , t h e a d d i t i o n of gives us two pairs of opposites:
vs. , a n d vs. ; moreover, I think t h e word is
m o r e readily omitted t h a n a d d e d . T h e m e a n i n g of , of course, is
"board t h e vessel", in a n e u t r a l way. For t h e pleonastic collocation
cf. 70 4 ,6 .
16',1 , () ( o m . ).
Schweighuser devotes a long discussion to this phrase, b u t d o e s n o t
arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. T h e first part presents n o difficulties, if is supplied f r o m 15',2-3: "but you want to buy a slave".
T h e p r o b l e m s lie in the r e m a i n i n g f o u r words; Schweighuser m e n tions t h e following solutions:
1. et patientinm, quanta opus est, superare tibi confidis ( C a s a u b o n ) :
Schweighuser q u o t e s Gronovius' criticism with approval: " Q u a r e ei,
cui s u p e r a t j a m patientia, d a t consilium ad se m u n i e n d u m ? Id p l a n e
tali j a m p r a e p a r a t o Sc c o n f i d e n t i supervacuum."
2. habes etiam facultatem (id est, memento etiam, te habere facultatem)
patienti atque dementia adversus eum utendi (Schweighuser): if t h e
a u t h o r of Par i n d e e d h a d wished to state what Schweighuser suggests, h e would certainly have chosen a less obscure way of expressing
himself. Besides, in that case it would be very s t r a n g e to f i n d two
phrases of a quite d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r (the first a question or declaration, t h e second an e x h o r t a t i o n ) linked by m e a n s of .
3. a d o p t i n g the p u n c t u a t i o n of :
; : At tu comparare (servum)
vis atque potes? Patienti uti indpe a minimis. This division of the text
seems very u n n a t u r a l to me.
4. At tu comparare (servum) vis! Potes-ne etiam iram tuam temperare, &
indulgenti adversus eum uti? ( S c h w e i g h u s e r ) : this implies a very
awkward use of .
5. Sed comparare tarnen (seil, servum Se opes) stat tibi sententia, &
poles (Gronovius, o m i t t i n g with M ) : t h e omission of
c a n n o t be c o r r e c t , b e c a u s e t h e rest of t h e c h a p t e r is
c o n c e r n e d with the question of how this quality can be acquired.
A n o t h e r possible i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is suggested to m e by Prof. I n e k e
Sluiter, w h o hesitantly submits that ()
m e a n s "and you want to be m a g n a n i m o u s , as you are already"; b u t in

this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , too, it is strange that the a d d r e s s e e is advised to
train himself in o r d e r to preserve a quality h e already possesses;
moreover, the phrasing would be rather obscure, and one would
have e x p e c t e d s o m e t h i n g like ... .
As I said, n o n e of t h e s e e x p l a n a t i o n s s e e m s a c c e p t a b l e to m e ;
accordingly, I submit that t h e text should be e m e n d e d : if we c h a n g e
into , we have an acceptable text: "but you w a n t to a c q u i r e a
slave, a n d to b e able to have patience." In this way we have a fitting
o p e n i n g - s e n t e n c e f o r this c h a p t e r , which gives advice to preserve
o n e ' s p e a c e of m i n d in d e a l i n g with o n e ' s slave. T h e c o r r u p t i o n of
into c o u l d be t h e result of perseveration of it is also
possible that a scribe failed to notice the c o m p e n d i u m for .
16 8 ,13 .
: : edd.: ci. De Nicola:
Sophocles m e n t i o n s t h e verb (aorist ) as an alternative
f o r m of ; t h e r e f o r e the r e a d i n g of is correct.
17',1 ,
.
: Heyne. In itself t h e preposition
l o o k s s u p e r f l u o u s in c o m b i n a t i o n with , b u t it p r o b a b l y
o r i g i n a t e d f r o m of Ench, a l t h o u g h in Ench
is n e u t e r , while in Par is masculine (as a p p e a r s also
f r o m t h e p h r a s e f u r t h e r o n ) . T h e similar p h r a s e
' , which follows i m m e diately 8 , i n d u c e d H e y n e to c h a n g e into . I n d e e d , with
t h e dative can be used for "according to s o m e o n e ' s j u d g m e n t " (LSJ
s.v. B.II.3). But it would be difficult to explain t h e c o r r u p t i o n of a n
original into in this place; a n d is closer to t h e text of
Ench t h a n . Possibly t h e a u t h o r i n t e n d e d t h e p h r a s e
to be j o i n e d with r a t h e r t h a n with : " f r o m
outsiders you have to bear that you make the impression" etc. LSJ s.v.
A.III r e m a r k that with the genitive is rarely used f o r with
the dative; b u t they only q u o t e instances for the m e a n i n g "by, near".
22',2 "
, .
: : V: :
t h e r e a d i n g is also f o u n d in Stobaeus a n d Sa; if it was
This is also noted by Schweighnser ad loc.
also t h e r e a d i n g of t h e a r c h e t y p e of Par (as I s u p p o s e it was), t h e

r e a d i n g of is a f u r t h e r c o r r u p t i o n , or ( m o r e probably) an u n f o r t u n a t e a t t e m p t at correction. T h e r e a d i n g of , (which is
t h e g e n u i n e r e a d i n g in Ench), is in all probability a c o n j e c t u r a l
e m e n d a t i o n of .
22 2 .4 ,
: : Schweighuser (who wrongly

believes that M has ) calls t h e r e a d i n g percommodum, b u t I
think that the transmitted text is quite acceptable: "that which has befallen him"; moreover, is r e d u n d a n t in c o m b i n a t i o n with .
24\4 , '
' .
e d d . : : h e r e we a r e
c o n f r o n t e d with two problems: first t h e r e is for , t h e n t h e r e is
f o r . It can hardly be d o u b t e d that is a c o r r u p t i o n of ,
b u t t h e n t h e text can only be u n d e r s t o o d if is taken as t h e
equivalent of with short a , which is n o t u n c o m m o n in later Greek,
b u t u n p a r a l l e l e d in Par, t h e r e f o r e it should be r e g a r d e d as a clerical
error.
24 3 .5 : ; 25,1-2 , ,
: , , : see . 240, n o t e 3.
26',1 "
.
: edd.: Schweighuser ad loc. r e m a r k s
that may b e an equivalent of , b u t t h e r e
is n o article here; even so, I think that we can d o without .
30 2 ,2
a n d 66 2 ,2 ' : in b o t h these places we
f i n d the imperative with an infinitive p r e c e d e d by t h e d e f i n i t e
article; in b o t h cases the editions have , but this is n o t the r e a d i n g
of the archetype. At 30 2 ,2 MVA have , has f o r
, a n d offers ; at 66 2 ,2 has ' , PV have
for , a n d gives . Now the c h a n g e of into a n d vice versa is a
very slight o n e i n d e e d , the two words being h o m o p h o n o u s . But t h e r e
a r e only a few places in Par w h e r e t h e a r c h e t y p e has t h e article (or
relative p r o n o u n ) in a case which raises suspicion, a n d in t h e majority of these cases t h e e r r o r (if it is o n e ) is easily e x p l a i n e d as t h e
result of perseveration: at 3 4 ,7 MPA have , which I
have r e t a i n e d ; at 4 4 ,7 r e a d ,
which is possible; at 14 5 ,6 MP read ,

which is certainly wrong; at 17',1 have for
(but this is n o t an e r r o r resulting f r o m isochrony). T h e
closest parallel for o u r two passages is f o u n d at 48 4 ,7, where MP have
, which is indefensible. T h e r e
are three places in Par where the MSS have + infinitive, p r e c e d e d
by a p r e p o s i t i o n ; (32 1 ,1-2 , 5 3 ' , 1
, 66 s ,4 :
a ) ; in these cases the dative is protected by the preposition,
a l t h o u g h at 66 3 ,4 the protection was n o t strong e n o u g h in (but
then can be construed with the accusative).
T h u s there are three cases of + inf. without a preposition, where
we would r a t h e r expect the dative. T h e main a r g u m e n t in favour of
e m e n d i n g into after is that there is o n e certain instance
of exactly the same c o r r u p t i o n in Par, namely 48 4 ,7 (in MP). T h e
main a r g u m e n t in favour of retaining is that the phrase +
inf. is f o u n d twice, although in o n e of the two cases of (66 2 ,2)
the MSS are divided. At 30 2 ,2 the reading is also f o u n d
in Nil, ET, and SiC (the text of 66 2 ,2 is an adaptation by Par). All of
which induces me to decide with much hesitation on the reading
in both places. It is not inconceivable that in Byzantine Greek the
f r e e dative of the substantivated infinitive b e c a m e obsolete, a n d in
o u r passages + inf. may have been influenced by instances of
with the accusative (as at 4 4 ,7) y . But the present state of o u r
knowledge of Byzantine Greek is insufficient to draw well-founded
conclusions in cases like the present one.
31 9 ,15 ,
MPVA : the reading of is in all probability
the result of conjectural e m e n d a t i o n . Schweighuser d o u b t s if the
word can be used to indicate a quality of persons, a n d
indeed the word is usually f o u n d as a predicate of things; to this De
Nicola [in prep.] rightly objects that refers to .
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , I w o n d e r w h e t h e r can be used
absolutely; in o u r passage o n e would e x p e c t to find
(cf. Par 6 7 ' , 8 ... ). In itself, is
attractive: it is illogical to lose o n e ' s own goods in o r d e r to provide
others with things that are not good 1 0 ; but this behaviour could also
9
At 66^,2TO may have been influenced by the followingTO.

Therefore it would have been more logical to find something like
; but it seems strange to indicate as someone
10
a p p r o p r i a t e l y be d e s i g n a t e d as u n p r o f i t a b l e . F u r t h e r , is
m o r e or less s y n o n y m o u s with , a n d t h e r e f o r e pleonastic,
while gives new i n f o r m a t i o n in c o m p a r i s o n with .
As b o t h r e a d i n g s have their difficulties I have c h o s e n ,
because this is clearly the r e a d i n g of the archetype; b u t I a d m i t that
t h e r e is a m p l e r o o m for d o u b t .
31 1 y , 19 ' oi
, .
: PV: o m . : the r e a d i n g could only be m a i n t a i n e d if we
p u n c t u a t e ; , b u t this is very
awkward. T h e r e f o r e the choice is between (which must be d u e to
c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n ) or n o t h i n g at all. In Par we find f o r m s of
followed by oratio recta b o t h with a n d without " , a n d theref o r e b o t h r e a d i n g s are in themselves equally possible. T h e p r o b l e m
lies in establishing the reading of the archetype: if the archetype read
, t h e omission of t h e word in M is d u e to carelessness ( a n d M
c o n t a i n s many such errors); if the a r c h e t y p e o m i t t e d the word, how
t h e n did find its way into a? T h e fact that the intrusion of is less
likely t h e n the omission of a word in M, t u r n s the scales in favour of
; the s u b s e q u e n t c o r r u p t i o n of this word into may have resulted
f r o m h a p l o g r a p h y , because the final (uncial) c or ( m i n u s c u l e ) of
t h e p r e c e d i n g word looked very m u c h like the initial of
. But again, t h e r e is r o o m for d o u b t .
31 1 3 ,22.24 ;
() , . ;
,
() the text as it occurs in the MSS is
clumsy: "they will n o t c h o o s e an ambassador"; what o n e expects is
"they will n o t c h o o s e you as an ambassador", a n d t h e r e f o r e I have
s u p p l i e d a f t e r . T h e omission of is easily exp l a i n e d by t h e fact that t h e p r e c e d i n g w o r d e n d s with two syllables
c o n t a i n i n g a sigma.
: ci. Schweighuser: Schweighuser argues that can only m e a n "old man"; b u t Sophocles simply
states that it can b e used as a synonym of ; L a m p e cautiously says that it can be used " p e r h a p s in sense of (sic),
of Manich. savour". It is safest to accept .
who cloes .
11
Some instances of without : 16\3; 2 4 ^ . 2 ; 31^,2; 31 8 ,12. Some
instances of with : 22^,3-4; 29',3; 56H,12.
: : in itself, t h e p r e s e n t is
certainly possible, b u t the fact that the aorist is also f o u n d
in two o t h e r places in this c h a p t e r (31 l 7 ,29; 1 9 32) i n d u c e s m e to
d e c i d e o n the r e a d i n g of M.
31 l 5 ,26-27 ,
;
: Schweighuser remarks: "Rectius, p u t o , erat f u t u r u m ." But if is taken as indicating p u r p o s e
(LSJ s.v. V.2), t h e r e is n o p r o b l e m at all: "living with that p u r p o s e (sc.
of being devoted to God)". Alternatively, may be an equivalent of (see Sophocles s.v. 6): "being o c c u p i e d with this".
31 2 2 ,39

.
: : of course, must be mentally
s u p p l i e d with , b u t its position
at t h e e n d of t h e p h r a s e is very clumsy: o n e w o u l d r a t h e r have
e x p e c t e d it a f t e r ; t h e r e f o r e I think that is right in o m i t t i n g
the word.
31 2 4 ,42 ,
;
: : it is almost certain that is
t h e r e a d i n g of t h e archetype; moreover, in Epictetus is an
i d i o m a t i c e x p r e s s i o n . For t h e s e r e a s o n s it s e e m s best to r e a d
.
32 2 ,3 ,
' .
C a s a u b o n believes that t h e r e is a lacuna a f t e r ; Schweighuser
too suspects that words with the same sense as t h e passage in Ench (
, ) must have got lost. But if t h e
omission of these or similar words in Par was u n i n t e n t i o n a l it is n o t
easy to explain how it originated, because (at least in Ench) t h e r e is
n o h o m o i o t e l e u t o n . So I believe that it is safest to accept the text as it
stands: t h e a u t h o r of Par may have i n t e n d e d to p o i n t o u t that t h e
privileges m e n t i o n e d in the o p e n i n g lines of the c h a p t e r d o n o t only
b e l o n g to the category of ' , but are in fact .
32 7 ,13 -
, , .
ci. Schweighuser: : the MSS r e a d i n g is clearly
a c o r r u p t i o n resulting f r o m anticipation of the almost immediately

following (sic : a ) ; Schweighuser states that "ferri
hoc nullo m a g n o i n c o m m o d o potest", b u t I believe that the a u t h o r of
Par was too intelligent to write it in his text, even if h e f o u n d it in his
copy of Ench. Accordingly I have a c c e p t e d Schweighuser's correction.
3 2 1 2 , 2 3 , , .
scripsi: : t h e r e a d i n g of is j u s t
t h e o p p o s i t e of what o n e would e x p e c t (cf. Schweighuser ad loc.)\
C a s a u b o n translates the word as "repugnare", but this is impossible 1 2 .
What we n e e d is a word which designates the opposite of ,
"protest". In Sophocles' lexicon I have f o u n d the r a r e word , which is translated by him as "to c o n t r a d i c t by asking": this
m i g h t qualify as the original r e a d i n g , b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t indicate
vigorous p r o t e s t (which would be o u t of the q u e s t i o n at a d i n n e r ) ,
b u t only slight disagreement. T h e c o r r u p t i o n of into
is of course very easy.
33a 6 ,8 ,
.
: : (vel ) Schw. N
Schweighuser takes o f f e n c e at the p h r a s e , a n d
would r a t h e r have or (sc. ): "praestet tibi".
I n d e e d the c o n t r a s t between t h e b e h a v i o u r of t h e c o m m o n p e o p l e
a n d the p h i l o s o p h e r / m o n k is b r o u g h t o u t m o r e neatly if
is o p p o s e d to . If is a c o r r u p t i o n
(as I t h i n k it is) it may be d u e to m e n t a l association of t h e v e r b
"be attentive" with " u n d e r s t a n d i n g " . But Schweigh u s e r did n o t know that M reads , which makes excellent
sense: "let your insight have b e f o r e that which time will d o to t h e
u n e d u c a t e d " . T h e c o n f u s i o n of t h e p r e v e r b s a n d is very
f r e q u e n t in the MSS.
35',2 (...) ,
.
C a s a u b o n a n d Schweighuser are n o t quite h a p p y with t h e f u t u r e
. C a s a u b o n translates "nec q u i d ille agat, c o n s i d r a " , a n d
p r o p o s e s r e a d i n g or ; Schweighuser p r e f e r s
12
The dictionaries give die following meanings for : "1. listen to in
turn 2. correspond, answer to" (LSJ); "correspond" (Sophocles); "be obedient in
reparation" (Lampe); "vicissim audio" (Thesaurus); "escuchar a su vez" (DGE).
, which seems p r e f e r a b l e to C a s a u b o n ' s e m e n d a t i o n s . But a l t h o u g h

I a d m i t that t h e c o r r u p t i o n of into is easy, it s h o u l d
be n o t e d that Ench d o e s n o t have , a l t h o u g h this is n o t conclusive.
W h a t is m o r e i m p o r t a n t , I think, is that the f u t u r e may well have
b e e n i n t r o d u c e d deliberately by Par. the addressee is advised n o t to
worry a b o u t t h e f u t u r e behaviour of his unjust b r o t h e r , b u t a b o u t the
line of c o n d u c t h e is to follow himself; this may have b e e n i n f l u e n c e d
by the following .
42 2 ,2
.
scripsi: : : Casaubon: Schweighuser explains
M's r e a d i n g as "justo m o d o a t q u e t e r m i n o circumscribe", b u t I d o not
see why o n e s h o u l d cancel everything that r e g a r d s f a m e or luxury
only u p to the right measure, instead of completely; moreover,
a l o n e d o e s n o t m e a n t h e right m e a s u r e , a ' s r e a d i n g , o n t h e o t h e r
h a n d , Schweighuser interprets as " ( q u i d q u i d a u t e m ) ad (ostentation e m aut) ad (delicias) spectat, (circumscribe)", but I d o u b t w h e t h e r
+ acc. can be used in this sense. Moreover, t h e r e is n o
obvious r e a s o n why Par m i g h t have wished to d e p a r t substantially
f r o m Ench1 s . T h e r e f o r e I think that C a s a u b o n is right in rejecting the t r a n s m i t t e d r e a d i n g , b u t I p r e s u m e that instead of t h e
original r e a d i n g must have b e e n : that is r e p l a c e d by is n o t
impossible, b u t I think it m o r e p r o b a b l e that a n d were c o n f u s e d
t h a n that was substituted by v. T h a t s h o u l d be r e p l a c e d by
is n o t s u r p r i s i n g in Par: in later ( a n d M o d e r n ) G r e e k is
gradually substituted by .
4 4 ' , 3
looks a bit flat: "to d o a job"; o n e would s o o n e r e x p e c t
or ; Schweighuser suggests that
m e a n s "operae p r e t i u m facere, m a g n u m aliquid facere",
while C a s a u b o n translates t h e p h r a s e as
" q u o d ille sibi f a c i e n d u m credidit". 1 have n o t c h a n g e d t h e transmitted text.
45 2 ,2 , ,

t h e aorist optative is r e m a r k a b l e in this c o n d i t i o n a l clause,
a n d t h e word may be a c o r r u p t i o n of or . But in a
Byzantine text such anomalies n e e d n o t b o t h e r us too m u c h .
47 2 ,3-4 -
.
' : : a c c o r d i n g to LSJ
with is somewhat stronger than without it ("jeer" and
"banter" respectively); therefore I have accepted a ' s reading.
: M: both readings are possible, but it is easier to explain that
was c h a n g e d into ot than the other way r o u n d , because may result
f r o m assimilition to the initial of the immediately following word
. Moreover, a client is m o r e likely to address himself to his
patron with o n e request than with a long list.
49',4 ' ov (sc. )

: A (nisi fallor): :
(nisi fallor) : : the reading of the archetype clearly
was or ; the infinitive is quite impossible, but
the imperative middle could at a pinch be d e f e n d e d if taken on the
same level as in line 1 l 3 . I think, however, that the a u t h o r of
Par could not have accepted such a clumsy reading, even if it was in
his source. T h e r e f o r e I have accepted ' reading, which is certainly
d u e to conjectural emendation.
51,2 " ,
, .
: : given the general tenor of Par the r e a d i n g
would seem preferable, because it is o n e ' s real character that
counts, a n d not the impression o n e makes on others; on the o t h e r
h a n d , the c h a p t e r deals with social intercourse. Besides, is
m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e to than to ; with it is
the o t h e r way r o u n d . But because comes first, I think that
a zeugma of with is more palatable than a zeugma of
with . Accordingly I have decided on .
56',2 (...) ,
.
scripsi: MP:
/ : Q: the main problem
lies in the word , which, as Schweighuser notes, indicates that a
new sentence starts with this phrase, which is impossible, because the
phrase contrasts with . This was realized by Q, who
c h a n g e d into ; but instead of o n e would p r e f e r
. T h e r e f o r e the most p r o b a b l e correction is
, with instead of the expected .
13
In Nil the reading of the primary MSS is , the present imperative.
56 ; | ,15 ' ,
: this is a puzzling phrase, at least to me; that the l e x e m e
is correct a p p e a r s f r o m f u r t h e r o n , b u t
w h o is the subject of ? C a s a u b o n translates "ut ille q u i d e m
credidit", ostensibly taking t h e u n j u s t b r o t h e r or n e i g h b o u r as t h e
subject, a n d i n d e e d this seems to be the only possibility. But t h e n the
p o i n t of t h e p h r a s e is r a t h e r o b s c u r e ; t h e only e x p l a n a t i o n I can
think of is that the a d d r e s s e e s h o u l d realize that it is in fact impossible to be w r o n g e d by a n y o n e else (cf. the final c h a p t e r ) , while t h e
u n j u s t b r o t h e r or n e i g h b o u r deliberately c o m m i t s an act of injustice.
It is r e m a r k a b l e that is part of a p h r a s e which expresses
what t h e a d d r e s s e e s h o u l d not think ( ), while in fact t h e
s t a t e m e n t is exactly what t h e addressee should think; t h e
whole p h r a s e , t h e r e f o r e , is a c o n d e n s e d version of "do n o t think I
have b e e n w r o n g e d by the o n e who should have b e e n t h e last p e r s o n
in t h e world to d o so, <but r a t h e r realize> that t h e injustice only
exists in the m i n d of the w r o n g d o e r " . Cf. ch. 7 l 2 , 2 , w h e r e we find
.
57' ,2-3 , ( ).
( ) add. Schweighuser ( l a c u n a m iam indicaverat
C a s a u b o n , qui vertit ego sum te eloquentior, ergo melior): o m . : given
t h e c h a r a c t e r of Par, I believe that t h e text given by c a n n o t
possibly r e p r e s e n t what t h e a u t h o r of Par wrote; t h e a d d i t i o n of
is t h e r e f o r e necessary.
57 2 ,3
: this m i g h t be a c o r r u p t i o n of (in e i t h e r the
tradition of Par or the copy of Ench used by the a u t h o r of Par), b u t it
is equally possible that was c h a n g e d i n t o
deliberately: "able to be h e l d t o g e t h e r " is s o m e w h a t s t r o n g e r than
"able to b e b r o u g h t together"; b o t h a n d are
f a v o u r i t e w o r d s in Stoic texts: see LSJ; SVE i n d e x s.v. F u r t h e r , it
s h o u l d be realized that in line 1 Par has for Ench's 1 4 : t h u s t h e r e was n o n e e d for Par to b r i n g the two words into
accordance.
57 : ,4 .
C a s a u b o n . in m a r g i n e , et h a b e t : : C a s a u b o n in
textu: t h e r e a d i n g is in fiat c o n t r a d i c t i o n with t h e g e n e r a l t e n o r
of t h e c h a p t e r , a n d t h e r e f o r e C a s a u b o n ' correction is necessary.
14
The reading is also found in ET and NiL
63,1 , .
: : t h e r e a d i n g s e e m s p r e f e r a b l e f o r two
reasons: in t h e first place it is easier to show off a dry m o u t h t h a n a
dry body; in t h e s e c o n d p l a c e Ench deals with a b s t a i n i n g f r o m
drinking.
64 2 ,3
.
: ' : in line 2 b o t h M a n d r e a d '; Ench has in b o t h
places; again, in 65 \7 r e a d ' f o r EncKs : because P a r n e e d
n o t have a i m e d at consistency in matters such as this, I think that a ' s
is t h e original r e a d i n g ; M ' s r e a d i n g probably is a c o n s c i o u s o r
u n c o n s c i o u s a t t e m p t at normalization.
6 7 ' , 7 ,
o m . : the omission of in is probably intentional, serving to
s e p a r a t e ch. 67 f r o m ch. 66; of course, t h e two c h a p t e r s s h o u l d n o t
have b e e n separated.
69 s ,3.4

,
: : : the plural is s u p p o r t e d by
Simplicius (who also has ) a n d by Ench's . T h e
s i n g u l a r in may b e e x p l a i n e d by t h e MSS r e a d i n g
w h i c h follows i m m e d i a t e l y ; b u t this s i n g u l a r is
surprising in itself, a n d is in all probability a c o r r u p t i o n , because t h e
clause d e p e n d s o n (which I r e a d
with I K Q ) r a t h e r than o n (the c o r r u p t i o n may be d u e to
t h e final of the following ); moreover, is the r e a d i n g
of t h e o t h e r witnesses, while t h e r e is n o obvious r e a s o n why Par
should have wished to c h a n g e the plural.
70 4 ,6 , .
: : it is difficult, if n o t impossible, to m a k e a
choice o n internal g r o u n d s , because both verbs are equally fitting in
this context. In ch. 38 b o t h verbs are used in c o m b i n a t i o n ( ... ) , b u t this d o e s n o t m e a n that is a full
equivalent of , which, of course, is the terminus technicus in
this context; t h e r e f o r e I have d e c i d e d for , a l t h o u g h it is n o t
inconceivable that an original was c h a n g e d into
precisely f o r this reason. T h e a u t h o r u n d o u b t e d l y h a d in m i n d t h e
Christian prayer par excellence, esp. Ev. Matt. 6,10
(in Par. 38 we even read ); the L o r d ' s
Prayer is introduced with the formula ;

on the other hand, this formula is preceded by
. With regard to the
construction it should be noted that is often followed by an
accusative with infinitive, while this construction is not mentioned in
the dictionaries for ; although this does not necessarily mean
that + a.c.i. is impossible in Byzantine Greek (esp. when
is used as a synonym for ), it is an additional argument in favour of the reading in our passage.
71 ',2 , , , .
: : V: Schweighuser
remarks "vide vero, ne quid aliud sub his verbis lateat", and indeed
the words are puzzling: what is the sense of the addition "as they will
think"? T h e passage is similar to 56 9 ,15, where we find
(see above, p. 252), and precisely the fact that the phrase is f o u n d in
two places in Par makes it hard to believe that the text is corrupt;
t h e r e f o r e I think we have to accept the transmitted text in both
places. As in 56 9 ,15 the words are said about someone who believes
that he is in a position to harm someone else; in both passages the
message is that nobody can be really h a r m e d by someone else, but
only by himself: therefore the addition of /
may serve to stress the fact that the injustice only exists in the mind of
the o n e who does wrong.
71 s ,5
.
:
: with regard to the addition of in I think that the
words are better omitted with M, because the double occurrence of
the words is rather clumsy; moreover, the emphasis is not on
, but on . As to the choice between
and ' 15 the addition in might provide us with a
clue, because is easily explained as a dittography of
(with in between); subsequently, was
changed into in in order to avoid repetition.
15
The leading MSS of the New Testament are divided too, as appears from
Nestle-Aland's apparatus ad Ev. Matt. 10,28: AlephC have , while BD read
.
CONSTITUTION OF T H E TEXT OF THE PARAPHRASIS
CHRISTIANA
255

T h e two b r a n c h e s of t h e tradition, r e p r e s e n t e d by M a n d a , show
only a few discrepancies with regard to the division of t h e chapters 1 6 .
At 32 \9 M starts a new c h a p t e r ; chs. 33a, 33b 1 7 a n d 33c c o n s t i t u t e
o n e c h a p t e r in a ; at 60 2 ,2 M b e g i n s a new c h a p t e r ; at 67 1 ,6
a new c h a p t e r starts in ( a n d in C a s a u b o n ' s e d i t i o n ) . I n
C a s a u b o n ' s edition t h e r e is the b e g i n n i n g of a new c h a p t e r at 5 9 \ 3
.
I have retained the c h a p t e r n u m b e r s of C a s a u b o n ' s edition. In t h e
only case w h e r e a c h a p t e r of C a s a u b o n is split u p (ch. 33), I indicate
t h e c h a p t e r s with 33a, 33b, 33c. In t h e cases w h e r e two c h a p t e r s of
C a s a u b o n are p u t t o g e t h e r (58-59 a n d 66-67), the c h a p t e r n u m b e r s
59 a n d 67 are p r i n t e d in the text between square brackets.
Orthography
With r e g a r d to o r t h o g r a p h i c a l m a t t e r s like , scriptio
plena, /, / etc. I have always followed the in
those cases w h e r e M a n d a are in a g r e e m e n t . W h e n M is s u p p o r t e d
by , V, , A or , I have usually accepted the r e a d i n g of M.
W h e n M a n d are divided, I have j u d g e d a c c o r d i n g to circumstances. For instance, Par s e e m s to have a t e n d e n c y to use scriptio
plena f o r ; t h e r e f o r e I have a c c e p t e d M's at 31 2(1 ,33 a n d 31 2 1 ,35
against a ' s \
But it is hardly necessary to p o i n t o u t that in such m a t t e r s we
c a n n o t even d r e a m of r e c u p e r a t i n g exactly with certainty w h a t t h e
a u t h o r wrote.
The reporting of variant readings
In o r d e r to avoid m a k i n g the critical a p p a r a t u s o v e r b u r d e n e d a n d
t h e r e f o r e difficult to consult, I have a d m i t t e d only a selection of
r e a d i n g s to t h e apparatus. In the first place o r t h o g r a p h i c a l variants
a r e n o t r e p o r t e d in the a p p a r a t u s . T h e a p p a r a t u s c o n t a i n s m o s t of
t h e r e a d i n g s of M, because this MS o n its own r e p r e s e n t s o n e of the
two b r a n c h e s of the tradition. It also contains most of the variants of
a. For a n d I have b e e n selective. T h o s e r e a d i n g s of , , that
16
17
For a full discussion see De Nicola [in prep.].

In M there is no chapter number for 33b.
are not r e p o r t e d in the apparatus, plus the variant readings of Cas, V,

A and , can be f o u n d in the two lists of readings on pp. 389-394.
It seems pointless to me to r e p o r t the readings of all the primary
MSS, because most of these (the descendants of ) occupy such a low
place in the stemma that it is highly unlikely that their characteristic
readings result f r o m direct vertical transmission. Accordingly my
r e p o r t is c o n f i n e d to the readings of MPVA; readings of 's derivatives are only noted occasionally, when they a p p e a r to be worth noting in themselves.
PART FOUR
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
T H E ADAPTATION O F VATICANUS GR. 2231
T h e t h i r d C h r i s t i a n a d a p t a t i o n of E p i c t e t u s ' Encheiridion was

discovered by M. S p a n n e u t in Vaticanus gr. 2231 ( S p a n n e u t , Moines
53-55). At t h e e n d of his brief discussion S p a n n e u t r e m a r k s (55): "II
serait t o n n a n t q u e le c o d e x Vatic, gr. 2231 soit le seul r e p r s e n t a n t
d e ce passage d u Manuela la spiritualit religieuse (...)", b u t in fact
Vaticanus gr. 2231 (V) d o e s prove to be the only MS to c o n t a i n t h e
a d a p t a t i o n , which I accordingly designate Vat. As in Nil (cf. p. 156,
with n. 3), t h e original title (written by t h e
l ubricator) is retained.
Description of Vaticanus graecus 2231

H e r e follows a brief description of V: written between 1317 a n d 1338;
p a p e r ; 2 0 6 / 7 x 140 mm.; ff. II, 281; Vat ff. 62'-74'; 30 lines; siglum V.
For a full description see H a d o t , Tradition 89-92; see also Lilla 328333.
T h e text of Vat in V is written in o n e h a n d . T h e title, the initials of
t h e c h a p t e r s a n d the c h a p t e r n u m b e r s are written in red ink; they are
probably d u e to a n o t h e r scribe. It is r e m a r k a b l e that the r u b r i c a t o r
did his work in a way d i f f e r e n t f r o m w h a t seems to have b e e n t h e
scribe's i n t e n t i o n . W h e n t h e b e g i n n i n g of a new c h a p t e r d o e s n o t
c o i n c i d e with the b e g i n n i n g of a new line, t h e scribe writes t h e first
letter of t h e new c h a p t e r in t h e text-ink, b u t lie o f t e n ( t h o u g h n o t
always) leaves o u t the first letter of the first word in t h e next full line:
the scribe obviously i n t e n d e d the rubricator to fill in this letter. W h a t
the r u b r i c a t o r in fact does is the following: h e erades the first letter of
t h e new c h a p t e r , a n d writes it in red ink in rasura, o f t e n leaving the

original spiritus ( a n d accent) u n i m p a i r e d ; t h e first letter of t h e next
line is e i t h e r a d d e d in brown ink or it is o m i t t e d a l t o g e t h e r . S o m e
instances: in ch. 6 (f. 62 v ) the scribe wrote /
; t h e r u b r i c a t o r erased t h e a n d the spiritus, writing it again in
red ink (the accent, written in brown ink, has survived); the of ,
o m i t t e d by t h e scribe, is written extra lineam in brown ink (slightly
d i f f e r e n t f r o m the text ink). In ch. 52 (f. 70 v ) t h e scribe wrote /
; the r u b r i c a t o r erased the original a n d r e p l a c e d it by a
red o n e , leaving b r e a t h i n g a n d accent u n i m p a i r e d ; but h e o m i t t e d to
a d d the initial of t h e first word of the next line, . T h e first
w o r d of c h . 4, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d (f. 62 v ), c o i n c i d e s with t h e
b e g i n n i n g of a new line; accordingly t h e scribe starts t h e line with
, to which a capital M is a d d e d in red ink by the rubricator.
T h e script of the r u b r i c a t o r resembles that of t h e c o r r e c t o r very
closely, a n d t h e r e f o r e it is quite possible that t h e r u b r i c a t o r a n d t h e
c o r r e c t o r are o n e a n d the same person.
A s t r o n g a r g u m e n t in favour of the hypothesis that the r u b r i c a t o r
a d d e d t h e c o r r e c t i o n s as well is f u r n i s h e d by t h e case of ch. 15 (f.
64 r ). H e r e the scribe p u t a colon after (the last word of
t h e line) to i n d i c a t e c h a p t e r e n d ; in t h e n e x t line, w h e r e a new
c h a p t e r s h o u l d start, h e d o e s n o t write the initial of . T h e
h i g h p o i n t a f t e r has b e e n erased, a n d t h e of
has b e e n a d d e d extra lineam in b r o w n ink. T h e r e is n o c h a p t e r
n u m b e r in t h e margin.
With regard to the corrections a n d variant readings in V Prof. Paul
C a n a r t writes to tell me: "Les corrections et les variae lectiones d u Vat.
gr. 2231 sont d u e s u n e seule main; elle ressemble f o r t celle d u
scribe, mais p o u r r a i t t r e d i f f r e n t e : p. ex. les d e u x points d u t r m a
sur le iota m e s e m b l e n t plus distants sur les corrections et additions."
Having inspected the MS in situ in O c t o b e r , 1997, I believe that Prof.
C a n a r t is right in s u p p o s i n g that the c o r r e c t i o n s are d u e to a later
h a n d . Apart f r o m the d i f f e r e n t ways of writing points above a n d ,
m e n t i o n e d by Prof. Canart, I have observed slight d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e
c o l o u r of the ink; f u r t h e r , t h e s e c o n d h a n d has a s o m e w h a t s h a r p e r
a n d t h i n n e r script; finally, t h e s e c o n d h a n d writes s o m e letters
consistently in a distinctive m a n n e r , esp. the , a n d the ligature of
et 1 .
1
For the text of Hierocles' commentary on the Golden Verses in Vat. gr. 2231,
see Khler XV. With regard to the corrections in V Khler remarks: "(...) utrumque
M a n y c o r r e c t i o n s a r e w r i t t e n in rasura. U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e
c o r r e c t o r erased the original text so t h o r o u g h l y that it has b e c o m e
absolutely illegible in most places. In a n u m b e r of places Prof. C a n a r t
has i n s p e c t e d V with ultra-violet light, b u t h e c o n c l u d e s (letter of
1 1 / 1 1 / 9 7 ) : "(...) le rsultat est p r e s q u e e n t i r e m e n t ngatif: les
g r a t t a g e s o n t t faits avec u n tel soin q u ' i l n e reste, des lettres
originales, q u e des traces a b s o l u m e n t indistinctes; parfois, o n p e u t se
d e m a n d e r si ces traces n e sont pas d u e s des dfauts d u p a p i e r ou
l'criture d e l'autre face d u folio."
It is r e m a r k a b l e that many variant r e a d i n g s in V a r e b o r r o w e d
f r o m the a u t h e n t i c Encheiridion, for instance Vat 69,1 , in
m a r g i n e ' V 2 . T h i s is especially clear in t h o s e places
w h e r e a passage is left o u t because of its incompatibility with Christian o r t h o d o x y , for instance Ench 32 s , 16 ff. ( a b o u t Apollo); t h e text
which is a d d e d in the margin by the second h a n d contains the variant
r e a d i n g for , which is also f o u n d in EAQSib.
T h e r e a r e n o c h a p t e r n u m b e r s b e t w e e n chs. ' (39) a n d '
(49); Prof. C a n a r t states that these n u m b e r s "ne s e m b l e n t pas avoir
t effacs ou avoir pli au p o i n t d e disparatre." Instead, in t h e text
the transition of o n e c h a p t e r to a n o t h e r is indicated in the usual way
(colon; r u b r i c a t e d initial); b u t s o m e t h i n g must have g o n e w r o n g ,
because t h e r e are only eight chapters between the n u m b e r e d chs. '
a n d ', so that ' should in fact have b e e n '.
The character of the adaptation of Vaticanus gr. 2231

S p a n n e u t , w h o discovered the third Christian a d a p t a t i o n of Ench in
Vaticanus gr. 2231, calls Vat "la plus f r a p p a n t e " of the t h r e e Christian
a d a p t a t i o n s ( S p a n n e u t , Moines 53); I, however, d o not quite perceive
t h e positive distinguishing f e a t u r e s of Vat, because t h e text is even
less consistently christianized than Nil, n o t to speak of Par. A n o t h e r
r e m a r k by S p a n n e u t , namely that Vat is "plus t y p i q u e m e n t monastique m m e q u e la Paraphrase", seems hardly d e f e n s i b l e to me: f o r
instance, t h e c h a p t e r o n love (Ench 33 H ), which is o m i t t e d in MY a n d
opusculum [the Golden Versesand Hierocles' commentaryGJB] scriptum ab una

manu atque correctum. Correxit autem postea altera m. (...)." I have not been able
to consult Khler's Textgeschichte von Hierokles' Kommentar zum Carmen Aureum der
Pythagoreer, Mainz 1965.
Par, is r e t a i n e d in Vat (ch. 44). T h e C h r i s t i a n c h a r a c t e r of Vat

r e m a i n s restricted to the c h a n g i n g of s o m e specific terms a n d of all
non-Christian p r o p e r names. Many things for which S p a n n e u t finds
fault with Nil ( S p a n n e u t , Moines 50) are also f o u n d in Vat; at Ench
53 4 ,9 the substitution of " by is
n o t very striking in c o m p a r i s o n with (Nil) a n d (Par).
S p a n n e u t is w r o n g w h e n h e states that Vat is t h e only C h r i s t i a n
a d a p t a t i o n that has an alternative version of Ench 53',2, because Par
has . T h e only r e m a r k a b l e differ e n c e s in c o m p a r i s o n with Nil a n d Par are constituted by t h e choice
of t h e p r o p e r n a m e s to r e p l a c e S o c r a t e s a n d o t h e r s ( A n t o n i u s ,
E u t h y m i u s , G r e g o r i u s , Basilius, Arsenius, S o l o m o n ) , a n d by t h e
p h r a s e which replaces Ench 5 3 ' , 2
( Vat 73',1-2) 2 .
I suspect that S p a n n e u t ' s enthusiasm is d u e to "Entdeckersfreude";
i n d e e d , his discovery is very i m p o r t a n t , both because the existence of
a third Christian a d a p t a t i o n is r e m a r k a b l e as such, a n d because it is
a n o t h e r witness to the text of Ench.
I will now d e s c r i b e t h e several ways in which t h e text of Ench is
m o d i f i e d in Vat; it goes without saying that here, as in t h e cases of Nil
a n d Par, my a c c o u n t o f t e n rehearses S p a n n e u t ' s account.
1.
Christianization
a. Omissions
All in all, t h e r e are f o u r omissions of passages or p h r a s e s t h a t a r e
incompatible with Christian belief a n d practice:
2
Spanneut, Moines 54, comments: "Mais ces derniers attributs de la divinit, s'ils
sont conciliables avec la thologie chrtienne, ne dtonneraient pas dans la
physique des matres du stocisme. Clanthe ne dit-il pas, dans la fameuse prire
rapporte par Stobe: ? L'adaptation est l'uvre d'un auteur
cultiv, qui savait son stocisme." However, as De Nicola [in prep.] rightly remarks,
it is much more probable that the author of Vat borrowed the phrase from Simp
LXXI 11-13 ()
' ,
(...). This hypothesis is corroborated by the fact
that the Commentary on Par also shows unmistakable traces of influence from
Simplicius: cf. Santerini Citi 58-62. Vaticanus gr. 2231 contains Vat, the Commentary
on Par, and Simplicius' commentary.
The fact that Vat borrows a phrase from Simplicius provides us with a terminus
post quem for the date of composition, but that is all there is to be said about this
problem.
Ench 314,17-18 ( Vat 37 4 ,16): about Eteocles and Polyneices

Ench 32 s , 11-12 (Va<38 3 ,ll)
Ench 32 s ,16-21 ( Vat 38 3 ,14): about Apollo
Ench 49,11 (Vat 69,10): about Homer
b. Changes of proper names
Ench 5a,3 = Vat 7,3
Ench 15,8 = Va* 21,8
Ench 29 4 ,20 = Vat 35 5 ,23
Ench 33'-,34-35 = Vat 48,2-3
Ench 46' ,4 = Vat 63,4
Ench 49 = Vat 69
Ench 51 3 ,14-17 = Va/71 3,14-17
Ench 53' ,2 = Va73',1-2
Ench 53 4 ,9 = Vat 73 4 ,6
]
] '
] 6 '
]
] '
(quater)]
(ter)] '
', , ]

" ]
c. Christian terms
Ench 31 5 ,23 = Vat 37 r \20
Ench 32', 1.2.5 = Va381"2,1.2.5
Ench 32 3 ,1 1 = Vat 38 3 ,11
Ench 32 3 ,15 = Va/38 3 ,14
Ench 4 6 ' , 5 = Vat63,5
]
, , ] ,
,
]
]
]
2. Other changes
lu a n u m b e r of places, Vat c h a n g e s the text of Ench for o t h e r reasons
t h a n to m a k e it palatable for Christian readers; h e r e t h e a u t h o r aims
at greater clarity by a d d i n g or c h a n g i n g words or phrases.
a. Additions /modifications
Ench 122,10 = Vat 16,5-6
Ench 17,4 = Vat 23,4
Ench 18,3 = Vat 24,3
Ench 24' ,2 = Vat 31 1 ,2
Ench 26,5 = Vat 33,6
Ench 34,8 = Vat 51,8
Ench 35,1 = Vat 52,1
Ench 42,3 = Vat 59,3-4
] ,
] ,
] ,

]
alterum]
] (suspectum)
]
]
Ench 42,4 = Vat 59,4

Ench 5 1 1 , 7 = Vat 71 1 ,7
]
' ]
b. Other words/formulations
Ench 4 , 1 0 = Vat 6,10
Ench 15,4 = Vat 21,4
c. Substantial changes (conjectural emendations ?)

Ench 2^,10 = Vat 4^,9-10
Ench 32^,5 = Vat 38 2 ,5
Ench 46^,9 = Vat 64,3
-] ,

]
om. et ]
The constitution of the text of the adaptation of Vaticanus Graecus 2231

Little is to be said o n the constitution of the text of Vat. T h e text is
t r a n s m i t t e d in o n e MS only, so t h e r e is n o c h o i c e to b e m a d e
between d i f f e r e n t transmitted readings. O n the o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e are
many places w h e r e the original text in V has been c o r r e c t e d by a later
h a n d . In such cases I have as a rule p r i n t e d t h e text given by the first
h a n d . In s o m e places t h e r e a d i n g of t h e first h a n d has b e c o m e
illegible as a result of erasure; b u t even t h e n it is o f t e n possible to
r e c o n s t r u c t the original r e a d i n g f r o m t h e length of the erasure, t h e
r e m a i n s of b r e a t h i n g s a n d accents a n d the like; such r e c o n s t r u c t e d
readings are written between square brackets []|.
With r e g a r d to the division of the chapters, I have always a d o p t e d
t h e division m a d e by the scribe, also in those cases w h e r e t h e rubricator chose a d i f f e r e n t division; cf. above, p. 258.
Of course, t h e transmitted text is n o t f r e e f r o m errors, b u t I have
b e e n very r e l u c t a n t in d e p a r t i n g f r o m the MS, for the reasons which
have already b e e n stated in t h e c h a p t e r s o n t h e text of Nil a n d Par
(see p p . 184-187 a n d 239-241).
T h a t the text of Vat as we have it has b e e n c o n t a m i n a t e d is certain,
b e c a u s e of t h e o c c u r r e n c e of d o u b l e readings: see f o r instance ch.
18,3-5 '
-, 63,5 . In the latter case I think we are
entitled to r e m o v e the word , because it is u n t h i n k a b l e that
t h e a u t h o r of Vat p u t an alternative Christian w o r d besides t h e
original word; o n the o t h e r h a n d , a l t h o u g h it would be t e m p t i n g to
write , which c o r r e s p o n d s to (the r e a d i n g f o u n d
in T a n d Simplicius), I have n o t d o n e so, because the r e a d i n g may have b e e n (as an e r r o r or as the result of c o n t a m i n a t i o n )
in t h e copy of Ench o n which Vat is based. In t h e case of the d o u b l e
in ch. 18,3-5, too, the transmitted text c a n n o t be correct; b u t
in this case it is impossible to tell what Vat originally read, so that I
have p r i n t e d the text of the MS between daggers.
Now these two cases are obvious, b u t t h e r e are many o t h e r places
w h e r e we c a n n o t be so sure that the transmitted text is wrong. For instance, I suspect that Ench 29 (= Vat 3 5 ) was originally absent f r o m
Vat, a n d that it was a d d e d f r o m Nil or o n e of the b r a n c h e s of t h e Ench
tradition in which the c h a p t e r occurs; b u t it would be unjustified to
delete t h e text in Vat.
H e r e are two f u r t h e r instances of c o n t a m i n a t i o n . In ch. 10,10-11
(= Ench 7, Par 10) Vat a d d s
, which is also f o u n d in Par, t h e
p r e s e n c e of t h e word shows that (an ancestor of) Vat d r e w o n
(a c o n g e n e r of) P M , b e c a u s e t h e w o r d is a b s e n t f r o m Pa. In Vat
31 4 ,24 (= Ench 24 4 ,24; Nil 31c 1 2 ,7) Vat shares a r e a d i n g with Nil: b o t h
have for
(Ench 2 4 4 , 2 4 ) . I n b o t h cases t h e
c o n t a m i n a t i o n has in all likelihood taken place f r o m Par a n d Nil to
Vat, because Vat has hardly any significant deliberate modifications of
the original text.
T h e only places (besides t h e d o u b l e r e a d i n g s ) w h e r e I have
d e p a r t e d f r o m t h e transmitted text are those places w h e r e t h e syntax
is u n a c c e p t a b l e (for instance ch. 53,5-6
3 , w h e r e the u n g r a m m a t i c a l
s h o u l d be c o r r e c t e d to ), w h e r e t h e r e are o r t h o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r s
(for i n s t a n c e ch. 11,1 for ) , or w h e r e t h e b r e a t h i n g or
a c c e n t u a t i o n of the MS a p p e a r s to be inferior (e.g. ch. 31 3 ,13 ' ]
V; ch. 32',4 ] V; ch. 50,1 ] V).
This error obviously results from perseveration of the ending - in the two
preceding words .
THE TEXTS
PART ONE
EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRIDION
T H E ORGANIZATION O F T H E APPARATUS CRITICUS
1. The ap[)araus codicum

For e a c h c h a p t e r t h e relevant MSS are specified. T h e s e c o n d family
(consisting only of a n d SiC) is separated f r o m the first by m e a n s of
a large h o r i z o n t a l stroke (). T h e b r a n c h e s of the first family a r e
s e p a r a t e d by m e a n s of slashes ( / / ) , which should be i n t e r p r e t e d as
follows: AC/Yy/ / Sib (SiG/HJ) m e a n s that the source of AC/Yy goes
back to t h e same e x e m p l a r as t h e source of Sib\ AC a n d Yy have a
c o m m o n hyparchetype, a n d A a n d C are gemelli; by t h e same token,
SiG a n d SzHJ derive f r o m a lost c o m m o n source, while SiH a n d Sz'J
a r e gemelli.
T h e d e s c e n d a n t s of lost MSS a r e specified b e t w e e n r o u n d a n d
square brackets: thus Sz(SzG/HJ) m e a n s that the readings of Sib can
be r e c o n s t r u c t e d f r o m the readings of &G/HJ; of these t h r e e MSS H
a n d J go back to a lost c o m m o n source, which is a gemellus of G. T o
give a n o t h e r instance: ( [ / ] [ ] ) m e a n s that has two
r e c o n s t r u c t e d derivatives, a n d ; the r e a d i n g s of are f o u n d in t h e
two gemelli , which in their turn go back to the same source as ;
t h e readings of , ' gemellus, survive in A a n d .
W h e n necessary, t h e c o n t e n t s of e x t a n t or r e c o n s t r u c t e d MSS is
specified b e t w e e n braces {). For instance: c. 29 AC/^[IPP/l>Q{s.
1}][/{420-21 -}/ ( / / ) { 8 . 1j])(ss. 1 - 4 } / /
5i(SiGJ)///Tt{ss. 5-7} m e a n s that has sections 1-4; a n d t only
have section 1, A only has section 4, lines 20-21 -; Tt,
finally, has sections 5-7.
Because b o t h Sib a n d SiC c o n t a i n the supplemented l e m m a t a in
Simplicius' c o m m e n t a r y , they can only be r e g a r d e d as i n d e p e n d e n t
witnesses in those parts that are n o t p r e s e n t in the original l e m m a t a
as f o u n d in t h e Simplicius MSS A B D ; t h e r e f o r e I have always
indicated w h e r e exactly these MSS start being i n d e p e n d e n t witnesses.

For instance, c. 32 AC/Sib(SzGJ) (ab 2 }TSzC)ab 2 ) m e a n s
that is t h e first word that is n o t f o u n d in the original (ABD)
lemma.
2. The indirect tradition
I n r e f e r r i n g to t h e i n d i r e c t t r a d i t i o n I have d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e
following types of testimonial
aff. = affert: a verbatim q u o t a t i o n
cit. = citt: a f r e e q u o t a t i o n
resp. = respicit: a r e f e r e n c e
imit. = imitatur: an imitation
usurp. = usurpt: a borrowed phrase
With r e g a r d to the text of Simplicius' c o m m e n t a r y , I have a d o p t e d
H a d o t ' s policy (Simplicius 188): I d o n o t r e p o r t all the verbal e c h o e s
of a c h a p t e r of Ench o c c u r r i n g in t h e c o m m e n t a r y o n this c h a p t e r
itself, b u t only t h e r e f e r e n c e s to p r e c e d i n g o r following c h a p t e r s of
Ench.
A full list of a u t h o r s can be f o u n d at pp. 432-433.
3. The source passages in the Diatribes and fragments
In q u o t i n g t h e s o u r c e passages I have d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e following
types:
= m e a n s that a p h r a s e in Ench is f o u n d literally or almost literally in
t h e Diatribes
sim. (similiter) is used for a similar passage, with verbal e c h o e s
cf. (confer) is used for a similar passage without any verbal similarity
f o r isolated words t h e r e is n o indication at all: "1 3 ,7 e.g. Ill
11,2 (et saepius)" m e a n s that the word also occurs in III 11,2
a n d elsewhere.
4. The apparatus criticus
B e c a u s e of t h e large n u m b e r of witnesses I have n o t q u o t e d all
variant readings in the a p p a r a t u s below the text.
All o r t h o g r a p h i c a l variant r e a d i n g s a r e r e c o r d e d in a s e p a r a t e
a p p a r a t u s at p p . 346-349. In this a p p a r a t u s I also r e c o r d s i m p l e
scribal e r r o r s that have b e e n c o r r e c t e d by the scribe himself.
T h e m a i n a p p a r a t u s , p r i n t e d below t h e text, c o n t a i n s all t h e

variant r e a d i n g s of the c o m p l e t e first a n d second families a n d of t h e
indirect tradition; f u r t h e r , it c o n t a i n s the variant r e a d i n g s of a n d
SiC, of Tt, of Sib, AC6, AC, Yy a n d . Variant readings of A, C, t h e
m i n o r f r a g m e n t MSS a n d the derivatives of a n d Sib a r e q u o t e d in
t h e a p p a r a t u s of lectiones variantes minores at p p . 342-345. I d o n o t
r e p o r t all t h e variations in accents a n d b r e a t h i n g s f o r all individual
MSS; t h u s ] ACSzJ m e a n s that A may have , C , a n d
&J .
I d o n o t r e p o r t systematically all t h e c o n j e c t u r e s by p r e v i o u s
scholars, b e c a u s e such c o n j e c t u r e s o f t e n prove to be f o u n d in MSS
u n k n o w n to these scholars, or are based on insufficient knowledge of
t h e t r a d i t i o n ; a n d many c o n j e c t u r e s a r e too i m p r o b a b l e in t h e m selves to be m e n t i o n e d .
T h e r e a d i n g s of the t h r e e Christian a d a p t a t i o n s are q u o t e d w h e n
they a p p e a r to be relevant to the text of Ench, including all t h e transpositions. I d o n o t m e n t i o n r e a d i n g s c o n c e r n e d with t h e Christian
c h a r a c t e r of these texts (for instance instead of ; instead of ). T h e r e a d e r w h o wants to have m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n
can always consult the text of the adaptations himself.
In the original l e m m a t a of Simplicius' c o m m e n t a r y , the r e a d i n g s
of ABD a r e q u o t e d in the m a i n a p p a r a t u s , the variants of CEFGHJx
a r e relegated to the a p p a r a t u s of lectiones variantes minores at pp. 342345.
In o r d e r to save space the a p p a r a t u s is negative when possible, a n d
positive w h e n necessary.
Because Simplicius allows himself considerable liberty in q u o t i n g
f r o m Ench (cf. pp. 111-112), I d o n o t systematically r e c o r d t h e variant
r e a d i n g s f o u n d in his c o m m e n t a r y .
C O N S P E C T U S SIGLORUM
I. Codices Epicteti Encheiridion continentes

Familia prima
A
C
Ww
Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1164, s. XIV ineuntis; e x a r a v e r u n t librarii

d u o : c o r r e c t i o n e s a d d i t a m e n t a q u e toto in textu scripsit librarius prior
A m b r o s i a n u s gr. 481 (L 43 sup.), s. XV
Vaticanus gr. 894, s. XV exeuntis; f r a g m e n t a c o n t i n e t
f o n s c o m m u n i s c o d i c u m et ; d e l e c t u m c o n t i n e t
fons c o m m u n i s codicum s e q u e n t i u m :
L a u r e n t i a n u s 31,37, s. XIV
Vaticanus gr. 1314, A.D. 1449
Parisinus gr. 3047, A.D. 1420
Vaticanus U r b i n a s gr. 132, A.D. 1420
fons c o m m u n i s c o d i c u m s e q u e n t i u m :
Vaticanus gr. 1823, s. XIV
Monacensis gr. 529, s. XIV
Dresdensis Da 55, s. XIV (collatus a C.G. Heyne; n u n c m a g n a
ex p a r t e n o n iam legitur)
N e a p o l i t a n u s II.C.37 (Borb. 96), s. XIV exeuntis vel s. XV
ineuntis
Vaticanus gr. 952, s. XV
Vaticanus gr. 1858, s. XV ineuntis
N e a p o l i t a n u s Girolamini C.F. 2.11 (olim XXII. 1), s. XV
fons c o m m u n i s c o d i c u m siglo indicatur
Yy
Vaticanus gr. 1950, s. XIV ineuntis; cc. 1-3 c o n t i n e t
Tt
Oxoniensis C a n o n i c i a n u s gr. 23, s. XIV exeuntis; f r a g m e n t a

continet
Sib
f o n s c o m m u n i s s e q u e n t i u m c o d i c u m Simplicii c o m m e n t a r i u m c o n t i n e n t i u m , in quibus l e m m a t a suppleta sunt:

V e n e t u s M a r c i a n u s gr. 261 (coll. 725), s. XV; N.B. siglo
S(i)G 1 * i n d i c a t u r c o r r e c t i o n e m a Bessarione post t e x t u m
SiG
e x a r a t u m a d d i t a m esse c u m in p a r t i b u s ab ipso scriptis turn

in partibus a S g o u r o p o l o exaratis. in cc. 24 et 25 siglum SiG*
indicat partes a Bessarione post textum e x a r a t u m additas
SH
B o n o n i e n s i s 2359, A.D. 1490; a b c. 24 l e m m a t a d e c u r t a t a
praebet
SzJ
Parisinus gr. 1960, A.D. 1491; e x e m p l a r huius codicis (et eius
gemelli x, d e q u o vide infra) multis in locis lectiones ex apog r a p h o d e p e r d i t o codicis Ambrosiani 481 (C) m u t u a t u m est
in codice Six, qui ex e o d e m f o n t e a t q u e SzJ derivatus est, et
in codicibus Sz'EF, qui ex e o d e m f o n t e a t q u e Sz'HJx derivati
sunt, l e m m a t a partim t a n t u m suppleta sunt:
SiE
Parisinus gr. 2072, s. XVI ineuntis
SiF
Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1023, s. XVI ineuntis
Six
fons c o m m u n i s codicum s e q u e n t i u m :
Sil
Parisinus Mazarineus 4459, s. XVI p r i m a e partis
Sz'K
Vaticanus Barberinianus gr. 76, s. XVI p r i m a e partis
SzL
V i n d o b o n e n s i s Phil. gr. 37, s. XVI ineuntis
SiP
V e n e t u s Marcianus gr. App. Cl. XI 13, s. XVI i n e u n t i s ( a n t e
A.D.1517)
SiQ
Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 247, s. XVI ineuntis (post A.D.
1519)
SzY
N e a p o l i t a n s III.E.29, s. XVI ineuntis (ante A.D. 1513)
N.B. I: q u a n t a pars textus Encheiridii codicibus S(i) E F H I K L P Q Y
c o n t i n e a t u r in a p p a r a t u n o n indicatur
N.B. II: codices SzIKLPQY e o r u m q u e lectiones in a p p a r a t i b u s n o n
separatim l a u d a n t u r
Familia altera
Atheniensis 373, s. XV
SiC
l e m m a t a s u p p l e t a in c o d i c e Vaticano gr. 327, s. XV ( a n t e

A.D. 1468), in q u o Simplicii c o m m e n t a r i u s c o n t i n e t u r . scriba
multas fenestras in textu reliquit; [4] indicat spatium vacuum
IV litterarum
II. Lemmata codicum Simplicii commentarium continentium (S)

SA
SB
SD
Vaticanus gr. 2231, s. XIV (A.D. 1317-1338)

Vaticanus gr. 326, s. XII-XIII
Parisinus Mazarineus 4460, s. XV alterius partis
Sa
fons c o m m u n i s codicum BCDEFGHJx
S
fons c o m m u n i s c o d i c u m CDEFGHJx
L e m m a t a qualia in codicibus 5ABD exstant, c a p i t u m initia t a n t u m
c o m p l e c t e n t i a , archetypi l e m m a t i b u s c o n g r u e r e veri simile est. h a e c
l e m m a t a in codicibus CEFGHJx (vide supra) suppleta sunt, sed his in
codicibus c a p i t u m initia multis in locis c o n t a m i n a t i o n e m passa sunt.
III. Simplidi commentarius (Simp)
d e codicibus vide supra
N.B. in Simplicii c o m m e n t a r i o e i u s q u e l e m m a t i b u s tria siglorum
g e n e r a d i s t i n g u e n d a sunt:
5
l e m m a t a qualia in codicibus ABD i n v e n i u n t u r
Si
l e m m a t a suppleta qualia in codicibus C et 6[EFGHJx]
inveniuntur
Simp
textus c o m m e n t a r i i
IV. Enchdridia
Nil
Christiana
[Nili] E n c h e i r i d i o n
NilM
V e n e t u s Marcianus gr. 131 (coll. 471), s. XI
Ni IP
Parisinus gr. 1220, s. XIV
q u a e ratio i n t e r codices M P i n t e r c e d a t i n c e r t u m est: a u t P ex M
derivatus est a u t u t e r q u e c o d e x e f o n t e c o m m u n i fluxit.
Par
ParM
Para
ParP
Par\
ParX
Par
Pary
Parb
Encheiridii Paraphrasis Christiana

L a u r e n t i a n u s 55,4, s. X (circa A.D. 960)
fons c o m m u n i s c o d i c u m s e q u e n t i u m :
Parisinus gr. 1053, s. XI ineuntis
V e n e t u s Marcianus gr. 127 (coll. 390), s. XIII
Atheniensis 521, s. XIII
f o n s c o m m u n i s codicum V et
f o n s c o m m u n i s c o d i c u m A et
fons c o m m u n i s m u l t o r u m codicum, d e quibus vide pp. 221234
Vat
E n c h e i r i d i o n c h r i s t i a n u m in c o d i c e V a t i c a n o gr. 2231 (s.

XIV; A.D. 1317-1338) r e p e r t u m
N.B. siglo Vat etiam indicatur codex Vat. gr. 2231
V. Auctorum Epicleti Encheiridion laudantium tahulam inverties pp. 432433

VI. Studiosi in apparatu critico laudati:
A. Carlini, privatim
M. C a s a u b o n , in editione a. 1659 in lucem emissa
G. H a l o a n d e r , in editione a. 1529 in lucem emissa
C.G. Heyne, in editione tertia a. 1783 in lucem emissa
A. Koraes, in e d i t i o n e a. 1826 in lucem emissa (vide etiam S c h e n k l
731-732)
A.J. K r o n e n b e r g , Ad Epictetum, C Q 3 ( 1 9 0 9 ) , 258-265; , ,
M n e m o s y n e II 38 (1910), 156-166
M. M e i b o m , in e d i t i o n e H. Relandi a. 1711 in lucem emissa, pp. 1-32
R.P. Oliver, in editione versionis Perotti a. 1954 in lucem emissa
N. Perottus, versio Latina a. 1450 confecta, ed. R.P. Oliver (1954)
I.I. Reiske, a p u d Schenkl 731-732
C. Salmasius, in editione H. Relandi a. 1711 in lucem emissa, pp. 3348
J. Schegk, in editione a. 1554 in lucem emissa
J. Schweighuser, in editione a. 1798 in lucem emissa
S.R. Slings, privatim
Ch. T h u r o t , in editione a. 1874 in lucem emissa
J. U p t o n , in editione a. 1741 in lucem emissa
J.B. Lefebvre d e Villebrune, e cuius e d i t i o n e a. 1794-1795 in lucem
emissa hie illic lectiones codicis 7. n u n c d e p e r d i t i citantur
H. Wolf, in editione a. 1560 in lucem emissa
Xac
XPC
X acl
XmK
X s1
X
X1
[4]
(1
<>
0
X ante correctionem
X post c o r r e c t i o n e m
X a n t e c o r r e c t i o n e m , a p r i m a m a n u correctus
X in m a r g i n e
X supra lineam
X infra lineam
X in textu
spatium vacuum q u a t t u o r litterarum
litterae vel verba ita inclusa d e l e n d a sunt
litterae vel verba ita inclusa a d d e n d a sunt
litterae vel verba ita inclusa n o n iam l e g u n t u r
S t e m m a codicum Epicteti Encheiridii

_
S t e m m a codicum Paraphrasis christianae
S t e m m a c o d i c u m Simplicii c o m m e n t a r i i
ic
T H E HANDBOOK O F EPICTETUS
ch. 1 1 T h e r e are two classes of things: those that are u n d e r o u r

c o n t r o l a n d those that are not. U n d e r o u r control are o p i n i o n ,
choice, desire, aversion a n d , in a word, everything that is o u r own
doing; n o t u n d e r o u r control are o u r body, o u r possessions, o u r
reputations, o u r offices and, in a word, everything that is not our own
doing. 2 T h e things that are u n d e r o u r control are by nature free,
u n h i n d e r e d , u n i m p e d e d ; the things that are not u n d e r o u r control
are weak, slavish, h i n d e r e d , u p to others. 3 R e m e m b e r , t h e r e f o r e ,
that if you regard the things that are by nature slavish as free, a n d the
things that are u p to others as your own, you will be h a m p e r e d , you
will suffer, you will get upset, you will blame both gods a n d m e n ; if,
on the o t h e r h a n d , you regard as yours only what in fact is yours, and
what is u p to othersas it isas u p to others, n o b o d y will ever
c. 1 A C / Y y / / S i 6 ( S z G / H J ) | s . 1 1 ' tertium3 ; s. 2 ab 5 ; s. 3 ab 7
; s. 4 ab 13 ; s. 5 ab 19 priore)
c. 1-2 resp. Olymp., in Grg. 39,1 (198,9-18 W.); Simp. VIII 3-7
c. 1 s. 1-3 1-12 resp. Simp. V 3-10, XII 32-33; s. 1-2 1-6 resp. Simp. IV 2-4; s. 1 1-3
- ff. SD (I 1-2); 1-2 - cit. Sch.Luc. Vit.Auct. 21 (127,10-11 R.); 1
- alterum aff. SA/a[B(CEFGHJx)] (I 1-2); Olymp., in Grg. 39,1 (198,9-10
W.); 1-4 " tertium- resp. Simp. III 3; 3-4 - aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)]
(II 1-2); cit. Sch.Luc. Vit.Auct. 21 (127,13-15 R.); s. 2 4-6 - ff. SD (III 1);
4 - aff. SA/a[B(CEFGHJx) ] (III 1) ; 5-6 - cit. Simp. XII 5-7;
s. 3 6-7 - aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)] (IV 1); 8-12 - resp.
Simp. LXXI 45-47
c. 1 s. 1 1 - alterum = I 22,10; sim. fr. IV 2-3; 1-3 ' tertium sim.
I 22,10; 2 - cf. II 14,22; 3 - sim. II 19,32; - cf. IV
1,130; , cf. IV 1,83; IV 4,33; , , sim. III 26,34; ,
cf. II 14,24; cf. III 24,68; s. 2 4-6 - sim. II 15,1; 4-5 cf. I 4,18; II 19,29; II 23,42; 4 - sim. II 2,3; 5 ,
sim. I 25,3; II 19,32; 5-6 ' cf. IV 1,132; 5-6
, cf. IV 5,15; s. 3 6-12 - cf. II 6,8; 6 e.g. I
24,1 (et saepius); 7 ' sim. III 22,38; III 24,4; cf. II 13,8;
e.g. I 1,12 (et saepius); , cf. III 2,3; e.g. III 11,2 (et
saepius); e.g. II 6,8 (et saepius); 8 - sim. II 19,26; III
10,13; III 22,48; III 24,58; cf. III 22,13; 9 - alterum cf. IV 5,7; 9-12
- cf. III 13,11; 9-10 - sim. II 17,22; cf. I 6,40; III 2,16; III
24,69; IV 1,1
c. 1 ' , ' . '

, , , ,
' , , , ,
. ' ,
, ' , ,
, , ,
, , , ,

, ( ) , -
titulus YyA (lectio incerta) Simp ( 4) Vat,

M/M (tituliim om. NiP): AC:
: :
( ) :
Ww
c. 1 (1-6 vix legibile in T ) s. 1 1 ] Olymp. II ]
Olymp., om. ParMP II 3-4 - om. T u v MZM a c 2 II 3 om. PaiM II
ACYy Para II ] N i / M 2 m S P (om. M / M a c , vide supra) Para: Sek
Luc.: ' ci. Reiske II ] Sch.Luc. (et ci. Reiske) Il ]
SA: om. Sch.Luc. II 4 ] Sch.Luc. Il s. 2 4 ]
Par: om. S II s. 3 6 .Sa II 8 prius om. ParM II 9 ( )
om. Yy II om. Par II Para
2
3
compel you, nobody will h i n d e r you, you will blame nobody, you will
not r e p r o a c h anyone, you will do n o t h i n g against your will, nobody
will h a r m you, you will have n o enemy, for you will n o t suffer
anything harmful. 4 Thus, if you aim at such things, r e m e m b e r that
you should not occupy yourself with them with modest effort, but
that you must give u p some things altogether, a n d p o s t p o n e others
for the present m o m e n t . If, however, you wish both to attain these
things a n d to hold office and be rich, you risk failure even to obtain
the latter, because you are also seeking the f o r m e r ; b u t you will
inevitably fail to attain those things that alone p r o c u r e f r e e d o m and
happiness. 5 T h e r e f o r e you should do your best f r o m the outset to
say to every harsh impression, "You are an impression, a n d not at all
what you seem to be"; t h e n e x a m i n e it a n d j u d g e it by those
standards that are at your disposal, in the first place and especially by
this one, whether it belongs to the things that are u n d e r o u r control
or to the things that are not u n d e r o u r control; a n d if it has to d o
with o n e of the things that are not u n d e r our control, bear in mind
that it is nothing to you.
ch. 2 1 R e m e m b e r that the promise of desire is to obtain what you
desire, a n d the promise of aversion n o t to fall into what you avoid.
And h e who does not obtain what h e desires is u n f o r t u n a t e , but h e
who falls into what is avoided suffers misfortune. If, then, you avoid
only what is not in accordance with nature a m o n g the things that are
c. 1 AC/Yy//St(SzG/HJ)|s. 1 1 ' tertiiim3 ; s. 2 ab 5 ; s. 3 ab 7
; s. 4 ab 13 ; s. 5 ab 19 priore[
c. 2 A C / Y y / / S ( 5 i G / H J ) | a b 2 )
10 usurp. [Ant.] 4 (5 Ath.); s. 4 resp. Simp. VI 3-7; 12-13
- aff. SA/a[D(CEFGHJx)] (V 1-2; lacuna in SB), Simp. VII 7375.88-90; 13-14 - aff. Simp. VII 91-92; 13-14 - cit. Simp. XIII 2021; s. 5 18-19 - aff. SA (VI 1-2): - afT. Sa[BD( CEFGHJx) ]
(VI 1-2); 18-19 - aff. Olymp., in Phd. 6,2,12-13 (97 W.); 19
usurp. [Ant.] 21 (7 Ath.)
c. 2 s. 1 1 - aff. SA/a[ BD(CEFGHJx) ] (VII 1-2)
10 - cf. I 1,12; 10-11 - sim. I 14,16; I 17,28; I 28,10; II 23,42; III
2,14; III 5,16; III 22,48; III 24,79; III 26,18; IV 7,9; s. 4 cf. II 2,12-14; IV 2,4-7; IV
10,18-19.25; 16-17 - cf. II 23,28-29; s. 5 cf. II 18,24-25; III 3,14-15;
III 12,15; 19 cf. I 27,1; 19-20 - cf. fr. I 7; 22
e.g. IV 4,39 (et saepius); = III 3,15; III 22,11; IV 1,6;
IV 6,10; sim. I 29,7.24; I 30,3; III 16,15; III 22,21
c. 2 s. 1 1-2 - sim. III 23,9; 2-4 - cf. IV 4,35; 3
, sim. I 4,1; II 14,8; III 22,48; 4-5 v cf. omnino I 4,1-4
10
15
20
, , , , , , ,
.
,
, ,
, '

' .

, , ,
' ' -
' , .
c. 2 ,

,
, ,
10 ] Par II 11 '] Par Vat II

, ] , Nil II
om. Par II 12 ] Yy II s. 4 12 ACYy II 13
Pa?MPA: / ] Villebrunii cod. 7 m K, unde
vel (sic) dubitanter ci. Schweighuser, ' ci. Koraes II
] AC: /: Simpa (VII 92) Vat II 14
Simp (V 22.42, VII 92) Par Val II om. Pr/rMPVA II 15 ]
: Nil II 16 SJ Nil II 17 Yy Par II
AC II ] / II Sib Nil
Par Vat Simpa. (V 50): ACYy T SimpA II s. 5 18 S II
non vertit Perottus, addub. Wolf et Oliver II ] Sa II om.
Olymp. Il ] , Olymp. II 19 ] ed. Schegk (1554) in
margine II 20 om. Nil (probantibns Meibom et Schweighuser Add.) II 21
Sib NilPar, et legisse videtur Simp (VI 24.25): pACYy Vat II alterum om. ACYy II 22 ] AC II om. II Nil Par \\ ACYySi Vat:
Nil Par. Simp (VI 37; seel illud ortum est ex ' [1.21 (bis), 1. 22] )
c. 2 s. 1 1 ] Vat II ACYy Simp (VII 7) Par Val: om. S
(praeter SCG'* s ') / ] S (praeter SC):
Simp (VII 8) II 1-2 -] ; in margine
supplevit . ' (i.e. in omissione
supplenda scriba falso in textu pro reliquit) II 1
ACYy (et legisse videtur fons codicis T, vide supra): Simp (VII 8):
Par. S ( SC ex Par) Nil Vat II Nil II 2 ACYy Sib Simp
(VII 9) Par Vat: : om. Nil II ] Simp (VII 910): om. Par II ] : Nil II 3 Nil:
ACSi : Yy: Par Vat II AC II alterum Nil: om. ACYySi
Par Vat II 4 AC
u n d e r your control, you will not fall into any of the things you avoid;
but if you avoid illness or death or poverty, you will suffer misfortune.
2 T h e r e f o r e take away aversion from all the things that are not u n d e r
o u r control, a n d transfer it to the things that are u n n a t u r a l a m o n g
the things that are u n d e r o u r control. As to desire, refrain f r o m it
completely for the time being; for if you desire some of the things
that are not u n d e r o u r control, you are sure to be u n f o r t u n a t e ; and,
on the o t h e r h a n d , n o n e of the things that are u n d e r o u r control,
which it would be good to desire, is as yet within your reach. Use only
choice a n d refusal, lightly and with reservation and without straining.
ch. 3 With all the things that attract you or that are useful or that
are appreciated r e m e m b e r to say what kind of thing it is, starting
from the smallest things. If you are fond of a jug, say, "I am f o n d of a
jug"; for if it gets broken, you will not be upset. If you kiss your child
or wife, say that you are kissing a h u m a n being; for when it dies you
will not be upset.
ch. 4 W h e n you are about to undertake some action, r e m i n d yourself what kind of action it is. If you are going to bathe, picture in your
m i n d the things that h a p p e n in a public bath people who splash
you with water, people who jostle you, people who insult you, people
who steal; that way you will approach the action m o r e securely, if you
say f r o m the outset, "I want to have a bath, and to keep my choices in
a c c o r d a n c e with nature." And do so on every occasion. For in that
c. 2 AC/Yy//S(SiG/HJ){ab 2 )
c. 3 A C / Y y / / ( Q [ / ] [ / / ( / / ) ] ) / / / S i ( S i G / H J ) l a b 2 |TSiCjab 3 )
c. 4 AC/Si(SiG/HJ){ab 2 )'TSzC(ab 2 )
c. 3 resp. Simp. IX 3-5, XVI 6-7; imit. Cecaum., Strut. 142 (238,27-240,4 L.); 1-2
'- aff. SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx)] (VIII 1-2); 2-3 - resp.
Simp. IX 74-75, XVII 43-44; 3-5 - cit. Olymp., in Grg. 26,25 (144,15-19
W.)
c. 4 resp. Simp. X 3-5; 1-2 "- ff. SA/a[B(CEFGHJx)] (IX 1-2): " aff. SD (IX 1-2); 1 "- aff. Simp. L 3-4
5-6 - cf. I 4,2; II 17,24; 5-6 , , cf. IV 6,2;
, cf. III 20,17; s. 2 6-11 - cf. I 4,1; fr. XXVII; 6-8 sim. III 22,13; 6-7 - prias cf. III 12,7; IV 4,33; 8-9 - cf. IV
4,35; 9-10 - cf. IV 1,84; 11 ' = fr. XXVII,3
c. 3 cf. omnino III 24,84-88; 1 sim. I 19,4; 2-3 - cf.
IV 1,111; 2-3 - cf. I 18,18; 3-4 (sc. ) cf. III
24,84; IV 10,34
c. 4 1-3 "- cf. III 10,1; 1-2 "- cf. III 15,1; 3 cf. IV 4,24; 4-6 - sim. II 2,2; 5 sim. III 21,12;
6 et 9-10 - = II 2,2; III 4,9; sim. III 6,3; cf. IV 5,6
10
'
, ,
' ' .
'
, , '
, .
, ' .
c. 3 '
,
. ,
. , - .
c. 4 " ,
, ,
, , , , ,
.
' , ,
5 ci. Ch. Thurot II non legisse videtur Simp (VII 17.50) II 5-6
Nil II 6 Yy II ] Sib ( et
incle S G ' * P C ; S?J1 s l ) Il s. 2 9 AC: ParII ]
Nil: om. C II '] ' Nil MP II - Nil MP II ] Sib (
SG 1 * s I , de le to ): Par /: () Simp (VII 66) II 10 om.
S I G ' * P C Simp (VII 66.141) Nil Par (- pro - Vat, sed
Vat2PC,
incertum quid ante fuerit) II om. AC II Simp (VII 66.142) Nil Par II
] P a r II ] Yy Par II om. II ] Nil 1111
S I G H Nil Par, ACYySJ Vat (cle Simp nil comperti est) II '
post transpos. Simp (VII 106): om. Simp (VII 85.116)
c. 3 1 Sa (sed SFJ ls ') Par II Sa Simp (VIII 13) Par Vat:
ACYy T SA Nil II AC II 2 ] Par, et sic legisse
videtur Simp (VIII 34) Il Par II 3 AC II ] Sib
( Sj' s ') II ] Sib ( Stj' s ') II ' (rasura post
, et p.c. A; cf. Diss III 24,84; IV 10,34): A a c CSz SiC Nil Vat:
(sc. ) Par II 4 om. / -] - (sic)
Olymp. II ] S C II 5 Yy: Olymp.
c. 4 1 S Simp (L 3, ad verbum reddens) Nil Par, AC T Simp
(IX 16.83, libr reddens) Vat: fort, II 2 Nil Par Vat om. AC S II
C SiC II 3 M / M II Vat II Si C
Nil (cf. IV 4,24): A C Vat : Sib: , II 5 ' SiC II Par II ]
SiC II A C II om. Par II ] (, ) 1(, ) ci.
Schweighuser II 6 SiC II 6-10 -
om. Nil II 7 ] II '] SiC
way, if something h a p p e n s that hinders you in your bathing, you will

say readily, "Well, I did not only want this, but I also wanted to keep
my choices in accordance with nature; b u t I will not d o so, if I get
irritated about the things that h a p p e n . "
ch. 5a People get upset not by what h a p p e n s but by their opinions
o n what h a p p e n s . For instance, d e a t h is n o t h i n g to be f e a r e d ,
because in that case it would have a p p e a r e d so to Socrates as well; but
the opinion about death, that it is to be feared, that is the thing to be
feared. T h e r e f o r e , whenever we are h a m p e r e d or upset or grieved,
let us never blame s o m e o n e else, but ourselves, that is, our opinions.
ch. 5b An u n e d u c a t e d person accuses o t h e r s for his failures; a
person who has started his education accuses himself; an e d u c a t e d
person accuses neither someone else n o r himself.
ch. 6 Do not be p r o u d of any excellence that is not your own. If a
horse proudly said, "I am beautiful", it would be bearable; but when
you proudly say, "I have a beautiful horse", you must know that you
c. 4 A C / S i 0 ( S i G / H J ) (ab 2 )TStC[ab 2 |
c. 5a A / C W w ( b i s ) / / ( | / ] [ / / ( / / ) ] ) / / / S 0 ( S G / H J ) ) a b 2
oov)TSiC)ab 2 oov)
c. 5b A / C W w ( b i s ) / / ( Q [ n V / O Q ] [ r / A / t ( S / S / A e ) ] ) / / / S 6 ( S G / H J ) (ab 2
)TSC[ab 2 )
c. 6 AC/S?6(.S'tG/HJ)(ab 1 )TSzC[ab 1 )
c. 5a aff. Stob. IV 1,51,20 (SA; IV 2,1070,7-12 H.); resp. Simp. XVI 7-8; 1-4
- resp. al-Kincli, ftwateXII 1 (44 [arabice], 60 [italice] R.-W.); Ambr.,
Bon. Mort. 8,31 (730,18-20 S.); 1-2 - aff. Eng., Theod. 87,14-15 L.;
S A / a [ BD (CEFGHJx)] (X 1-2); cit. Arethas, Sch.D.Chr. or. XVI 4 (112 S.); resp.
Procl., in Aie. 288,8-10 (II 326 S.); Simp. XII 2-3; fort. resp. Pleth., Virt. B4 (8,2-3
T.); 2-4 - cit. Simp. XXIX 13-14; 3-4 - resp. Simp. XXIX 4344; 5 - imit. [Ant.] 28 (8 Atli.)
c. 5b aff. Olymp., in Ale. 101,8-12 (= Olymp.(1), 67 W.); cit. Olymp., in Grg. 39,1 (=
Olymp.(2), 198,3-4 W.); Procl., in Ale. 287,3-9 (II 326 S.); resp. Olymp., in Grg. 24,3
(= Olymp.(3);
131,1-14 W.); Simp. LXVI 10-12; 1-2 - aff.
SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XI 1-2); Vind. 50 (294 .); 99 (13 S.)
c. 6 aff. Apostolius VII 60b (II 411,16-21 L.-S.); Stob. III 21,17 (SMA HI 560,8-13
H.); resp. Miskawayh, Tahdhib VI 2,2,a.2 (197 Z. [arabice]; 297-298 A. [gallice]);
Simp. XIII 3-7; 1 - aff. S A / a [ BD (CEFGHJx)] (XII 1)
10 IV 4,25
c. 5a 1-4 cf. II 16,19; 1-2 - cf. I 19,7-8; I 25,28; II 16,22.40; 2-4
- cf. II 1,13; III 26,38; 2-3 - cf. II 1,15; 4-6 - sim. I
11,35.37; 5 - cf. III 19,3; cf. II 23,42
c. 6 cf. omnino III 14,11-14; fr. XVIII; gnoni. Stob. (C) 15; 3 sim. II
24,11
10
, '
,
, .
c. 5a ,
, ,
,
, . , , ' ,
.
c. 5b '

.
c. 6 . '
,
,
8 SiC Par Vat : Sib: AC (deest Nit) II ]

: SiC: Par II ] Sib SiC Vat : om. Par II ' om.
SiC Par Vat II 10 ] SiC Vat II SiC
c. 5a 1 ] [Ant.] II 1-2 alterum]
[Ant.] II 2 ] Sa Par: [Ant.] II
om. Stob. Nil II ACWwS T S i C Stob. Par Vat : OSz Simp (
25.28.35) Nil II ] Stob. Nil II ] Stob. II 3 ] SiC II
] Stob. II 3-4 - om. Parll 3-4 prius prius]
Stob. II 3 om. ACWw II SiC II 4
om. ACWw Stob, (legit al-Kind; de Ambr. nihil comperti est) Il Nil II 4-5
om. Stob. Para (habent ParMA) II 4 ] ACWw: b (sed habent ) II 5 ]
: [Ant.] II ACWwSi SiC Stob. Nil Val :
[Ant.] Par II 6 ] Stob. II ] Stob.
c. 5b 1 II ] Simp (XI 4; sed non habent S
SimpB): ci. Koraes (cf. Simp XI 3-7): om. Vind. II om. Olymp.(1) Par II
ACWw T S i C S Olymp.{1, 3) Vat, et legisse videtur Procl. (
): Olymp.(2, libr reddens) Vind. NilPar II 2 Vind.
("fortasse " Schenkl) II SD II ]
Olymp.(1): Procl. II ] ,
Olymp. (1\ 2) II ]
Olymp.(1): Procl. II 3 ]
Olymp. (2): Olymp. (1):
() Procl. II -] - Olymp.(2) II ACWwSi TSiC
Olymp.(2) Nil Par Vat : Olymp.(1),
et ita legisse videtur Procl. (b
)
c. 6 1 om. Nil II om. SiC II 2 Stob. Apost. II ]
AC SiE II ] Stob. Apost. II om. Apost. II 3 om.
Stob. Apost. II Villebrunii cod. 7 m K, et legisse videtur Simp (XII 16-17),
coniecerat Upton: bono equi vertit Perottus (qui cod. SG in interpretanclo usus est):
AC Sib T S i C Stob. Apost. Nil Vat, et sic legisse videtur Par ( pro
praebens) II ] SiC Vat
are boasting about a horse's good. What, then, is yours? T h e use of

impressions. T h e r e f o r e , when you behave in accordance with nature
in the use of impressions, then you can be proud; for then you will be
p r o u d of a good of your own.
ch. 7 J u s t as on a voyage, when the ship rides at a n c h o r , if you
should go ashore to get water, you will also collect a shell-fish or a
b u l b on your way, b u t you will have to keep watching the ship a n d
continually look back in case the captain is calling, and, if he should
call, give u p all these things, lest you should be thrown on board tied
u p like the sheep, so too in life, if instead of a shell-fish or a bulb you
are given a wife or a child, there will be n o t h i n g against it; but if the
captain calls, give u p all these things and r u n to the ship, without so
m u c h as looking back; and if you are old, never even move far away
from the ship, lest you should be missing when he calls you.
c. 6 AC/Si0(.SiG/HJ)|ab 1 |TSiClab 1 )
c. 7 A C / S i 0 ( S G / H J ) I a b 2 |TSC(ab 2 |
c. 7 aff. Stob. IV 1,51,21 (SA; IV 2,1070,14-1071,8 H.); imit. al-Kind, RisalXI
(42-44 [arabice], 57-59 [italice] R.-W.); resp. Simp. IX 17. XIV 3-7, XXIII 5-7; 1-2
( Simplicius) aff. .SA/[BD(CEFGHJx) ) (XIII 1-2)
4 - = III 24,69; cf. fr. IV 4-5; 4-6 '- cf. III 1,40; III 7,7
c. 7 7-8 - cf. III 5,9-10
10
. ; , '
,
.
c. 7
,
,
, ,
, ' ,
, , ,

, ,
.
4 ] Stob. Apost. II ] SiC Par Vat II ]

SiC II 4-5 ' ] Stob.: Apost. II 5 ]
SiH'P c J: S i G H a c l II ACSi Vat (cf. III 1,40):
SiG'* s l Si C Stob. Apost. Nil Par II ] Stob. Apost. II 5-6 om. II 5 SiG'* s 1 SiC Stob. Vat : ACSz (cleest T, vide
supra): Nil (cf. Diss III 7,7 ) II ]
SiC II 5-6 ] Stob. Apost. II 6 Sib
c. 7 1 ] S (praeter SJx) Par II ] SAB Par ( habent
SCDJx; SEFGH) II om. Stob. II 2 om. M/II ] ()
S i G H SiC (non ita SiEJ) Par II prius] SiC: om. Parll SiC:
Par : C II Sib Si C Par Stob.: Nil II alterum]
Simp (XIII 40) II 3 Stob. II om. Nil II om. Stob. II
om. Par II II Stob. II 4 SiC Stob. Nil Par Vat :
ACSiJ: T u v (sed vix legibile): SiGH II prius ACSi Par.
SiC: : Stob. Nil Vat II alterum] : Stob. II
Stob, ( ' Hense) II 5 om. Stob. II SiC: Stob. II Par:
Stob, ( Hense) II 6 ] SiC II ] SiC:
Stob. II Stob. II Stob. II 7 ] SiC Vat, et legisse videtur
Par ( ) II SiC II ] / II ]
SiC: Par Vat II ] : Simp (XIII 47) II 8
SiGH (non ita SiJ) Il ] Simp (XIII
49; cf. XIII 55 ) II ASiGH Vat : CSiJ Simp:
om. SiC Stob. Nil Par II SiC Simp (XIII 49) Nil Par Stob.: ACS ft Vat II 89 ] Stob. II 9 ] AC: SiHJ et fort. S i G a c l II
] Par (et om. ) II ]
Stob. II prius om. SiGH (habet SiJ) Stob. II 10 S iC Simp (in
paraphrasi, XIII 65) NilParW ] A (sed A* s ') Stob. :
( SiC) ( om. Par
SiC) Si C Par Vat
ch. 8 Do n o t seek to have events h a p p e n as you wish, but wish

them to h a p p e n as they do h a p p e n , and all will be well with you.
ch. 9 Illness is an i m p e d i m e n t to the body, but not to choice, if it
does not wish so itself. Lameness is an impediment to the leg, but not
to choice. And tell yourself this about each of the things that h a p p e n
to you; for you will find it to be an impediment to something else, but
not to you.
ch. 10 At everything that h a p p e n s to you r e m e m b e r to turn to
yourself a n d find what capacity you have to deal with it. If you see a
beautiful boy or girl, you will find self-control as the capacity to deal
with it; if hard labour is imposed on you, you will find e n d u r a n c e ; if
abuse, you will find patience. And when you make a habit of this, the
impressions will not carry you away.
ch. 11 Never say in the case of anything, "I have lost it", but "I have
given it back." Your child has died? It has been given back. Your wife
c. 8 A/CWw
c. 9 A C / ( Q [ n V / 0 ] [ r / A / t ( E / L / A e ) ] ) / / S 6 ( S i G / H J ) ( a b 2
TSzC(bis; ab 2 !
c. 10 A C / Q ( I W / < l > ) / / S i ( . S t G / H J ) | a b 2 )TSiC[ab 2
xo)///Tt
c. 11 A C / ([/ ][// ( / / ) ] ) / / S i h ( StG/HJ) |ab 2
TSCjab 2 r|
c. 8 aff. Gnom. (III 471 .); [Max.], Loc. comm. 42 (col. 924A); Mel., Loc. comm. II
89 (col. 1220B); S A / a [ BD (CEFGHJx) ] (XIV 1-2); Simp. LXXI 17-19; Stob. II 8,23
(FP; II 157,18-19 W.); cit. 83 (25 S.); Bas., Ep. 151 (II 76,14-15 C.); Marc. 109a
(111 O.); Procop., Ep. 30,14 (20 G.-L.); Simp. XV 3-4; imit. Dor., Ep. 2,187 (502,1416 R.-P.); , Sent. 12,202 (528,43-44 R.-P.); al-Kindi, Risal II 4 (33 [arabice], 49
[italice] R.-W.); 1 - aff. Simp. XXXV 251-252; 1-2 - cit. Simp.
XVI 5-6
c. 9 aff. Stob. II 8,22 (FP; II 157,12-16 W.); resp. Simp. XVI 5; fort. resp. Hierocl.
XI 1 (42,20-43,1 K ) ; 1-2 - aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XV 1-2); 1-2
fort, usurp. Hierocl. XI 1 (42,21 .)
c. 10 imit. [Ant.] 39 (9 Atb.); resp. Simp. XVII 3-5; fort. resp. [Ant.] 3 (4 Atb.); 12 '- aff. .SA (XVI 1-3): 1-2 '- aff. .SBD(CEFGHJx) (XVI 1-2); 5-6
- usurp. [Ant.] 32 (8 Ath.)
c. 11 aff. Stob. IV 1,44,79 (SMA; IV 2,978,17-979,2 H.); resp. [Ant.] 36 (9 Atb.);
Ibn Fatik, Mukhtr p. 42 B.; imit. al-Kindi, RisalVUl (38-39 [arabice], 54-55 [italice] R.-W.); 1-4 - aff. Eng., Theod. 87,10-13 L. (4 - libr
reddens); 1-2 - aff. S A / [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XVII 1-2); 2 ; cit. Hierocl. XI 6 (44,13 K); fort, usurp. B a s J u l . 36 (col.
245b)
c. 8 cf. I 12,15; II 14,7; II 17,17-18.22.28; IV 1,89-90; IV 7,20
c. 9 cf. omnino I 1,23; I 18,17; I 19,8; 2 - cf. I 12,24
c. 10 cf. o m n i n o I 6,28-29; 2-3 - sim. II 18,15; III 3,14; 5-6 cf. II 18,24-28
c. 11 cf. o m n i n o II 16,28; IV 1,101-103.172; IV 10,16; 1-3 -
alterum cf. fr. XXIII,15-16; 2 = IV 1,141
c. 8 ,
, .
c. 9 , ,
. , .
'
, .
c. 10 '
.
' , -
, ,
.
.
c. 11 , '
. ; . ;
c. 8 1 ] Gnom. II ]
[Max.]: Mel. II ] Dor. (bis) II ]
Gnom. II 1-2 -] Gnom. (om. ) II 1 ]
ACWw: Par II 1-2 S Simp (LXXI 19, totum
caput verbatim reddens): ACWw:
Stob.: (praeter cod. Heidelb.) [Max.] Mel.:
( Marc.) Bas. Marc. (om. ): Dor. (bis) Gnom.
(om. ): Simp (XIV 19.52.400, XVI 6):
Vat: Par:
Nil: Simp (XV 3-4): Simp
(XIV 293) II om. Bas. Dor. (Sent.) Gnom. Marc. [Max.] Mel. II
] ACWw ( SE): Stob.: Dor. (Ep.\
om. altera loco): Nil: Par
c. 9 1 om. Simp (XV 11) II ] AC (et SJ lm Kx; non itat) II ]
A Q ) 0 A (lectio incerta) SJ Im K: Stob.: om. Sx II 2 Stob.F II 2-4
-] , , SiC (altera loco) II 2 Sib SimpH's'jx (XV
45) II om. Simp (XV 45) II 2-4 - om. Stob. Nil II 3
Sib Par II Vat: Si C (priore loco) Il AC II
] SiC (priore loco) II 4 Stob.
c. 10 1 SF'P C H Par II T Par: SC II ]
Vat: SC II 1-2 ] S (praeter SE) II 3
] SiC II om. SiC II 4 ] SzJ Nil: om. SiC [2] II AC SzC
NilP Vatdc2 II 5-6 ]
SzC II 5 Nil
c. 11 1 ] SBCD: om. Par II Nil II om. Par II 2
rMP: Nil II ]
Hierocl. II Nil II ] Hierocl. II 2-4 - om.
Stob. II 2-3 ; bSib Nil Vat1 P c , et legit Simp (XVII 37.42):
om. ACTt SzC Eug. Par Vat (add. Vat2)
has died? She has been given back. Your land has been taken from
you? T h a t too has been given back. "But the one who took it from me
is a wicked m a n . " What concern is it of yours by whose intervention
the giver asked it back from you? As long as these things are given to
you, take care of them as things that belong to s o m e o n e else, just as
travellers mind the inn.
ch. 12 1 If you want to make progress, dismiss considerations of
this type: "If I neglect my affairs, I will have n o t h i n g to live on"; "If I
do n o t punish my slave-boy, he will be bad." For it is better to starve
to death after a life without grief and fear, than to live in wealth in a
state of mental disturbance; it is also better for the slave-boy to be bad
than for you to be unhappy. 2 Start therefore from small things. T h e
olive-oil is spilled; the wine is stolen: say, 'This is the price I pay for
my equanimity, and this for an undisturbed state of mind; n o t h i n g is
given without a price." And when you call your slave-boy, keep in
mind that he may not heed you or, when he does heed you, may d o
n o n e of the things you want. But he is not in such a fine position that
your peace of mind is in his hands.
c. 11 A C / ( G [ n V ^ Q ] [ r / A / T ( E / L / A e ) ] ) / / S z ( S z G / H J ) | a b 2 } / / /
T.SiC(ab 2 |
c. 12 ^ ( [ / ] [ / / ( / / ) ] ) / / . $ ( 5 ' 0 / ^ ; ) 2 p r i o r e ) / / /
TtT.SiC)ab 2 priore)
5-6 prius cit. Simp. XVIII 2-3; 5-6 alterum resp.
[Ant.] 80 (15 Atb.); Olymp., in Grg. 48,4 (252,31-253,2 W.)
c. 12 s. 1 1-3 - aff. Eng., Tlieod. 87,4-6 L.; 1 - aff.
SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XVIII 1); 2-3 prius aff. Simp. XXXII 7-8; 3-4
- fort. resp. [Max.], Loc. comm. 53 (col. 957B); Mel., Loc.
comm. I 55 (col. 952B); , I 58 (col. 957D); 3 resp. Simp. XXXII
10-11; 3-4 aff. Simp. VII 136, XII 3; s. 2 aff. Stob. III 19,15 (SMA
(lectiones codicis Br ex Erich interpolati non citantur); III 533,12-17 H.); 5-6 resp. Simp. IX 74-75, XVII 43-44; 6 - resp. Eng., Theod.
87,13 L.; 7 - aff. Eng., Theod. 87,13-14 L.
4-5 - cf. I 1,32; 5 ' cf. III 24,86; IV 1,79.105;
cf. I 24,14; II 23,36.37.41.43.45; IV 5,15
c. 12 cf. omnino III 26; s. 1 2 cf. I 9,8; III 26,29; IV 10,27; 3-4
- cf. fr. XXXII; 3-4 sim. III 22,48; III
24,117; IV 1,5; IV 6,16; cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 35; s. 2 5-6 - cf. I 18,18; IV
1,111; 6 - sim. IV 1,141; sim. IV 10,26; ,
sim. III 10,16; 7 - cf. IV 3,7-8; 8 - = IV
2,2; IV 10,19; 8-9 - sim. I 13,2
10
. ; .
. , ;
' , , .
c. 12 ,
,
, .

.
, ,
,
. ,
,
' ' '
.
3 Sib ( del. SiG ' *PC) II om. Tt II om. Nil II

3-4 - om. Tt II 3 ] ' 6 SiC II 4 -]
Eug. II ] Slob. II TtSiGHJ 1 s 1 ( SiJ1) II
(praeter ) T S i C Par Vat, et legit al-Kindi: AAIISi (add. SiG>* sl ) Stob.:
C Nil II ] Stob.: om. Nil II Nil II 5 ' ] Tt II
Simp (XVII 33) Nil Vat : Stob.: (sic) Tt: :
SiC: : t II 5-6 prius]
Stob. II 5 TSzC'P c Nil Vat, et legunt Simp (XVII 2426.28.46, XVIII 2) Par: S i C a c l : ACbSib: -tTt II om. SiC
c. 12 s. 1 1 AC6 SE Eug.: Par II 2 v prius om. Tt II
Tt II ] Tt: Nil II Eng. II 3
TtSiGH Simp (XVIII 31) Nil Par Vat : SiC: ACVSiJ II 4 om. SiC
II II 5 Tt T S i C Simp (XVIII 36) Par: A C b S i b Vat : I
] Simp (XVIII 36) Il s. 2 5 ] Stob. II 6 AC0Si0
SiC Nil Diss (III 10,16): Diss (IV 10,26) Stob. Par, et legit Simp
(XVIII 49.90.93): Vat II 7 Stob. II om. Eug. Nil Par II prius]
: Stob. II AC II alteram] Tt II 8 prias
om. Stob. II Stob. II bSib: Diss (bis) Stob. II ] SiC II
alteram om. Nil II ] Stob. II 9 ] II ] T S i C
Stob. II Tt T S i C Simp (XVIII 65.84.87) Diss Nil Par: ACSi Stob. Vat : G
[Uppsal. gr. 25] (probantibus Villebrune et Koraes) Il om. Stob. Il ]
M/M ac '^ Il 10-11 '- om. II 10 '] AC II ] vel '
ci. Wolf: Par II om. Tt II ] , TtSi Vat :
om. Stob. II '] Stob. II : A a c l (ut vid.) Il ] Tt T Simp
(XVIII 67) Stob.: SiG 1 V SiC Par
ch. 13 If you want to make progress, you should be c o n t e n t to

a p p e a r senseless a n d silly in external matters. Do not wish to give the
impression of knowing anything; a n d if some people believe you to
be an important person, distrust yourself. For you must know that it is
not easy to keep your choice in accordance with n a t u r e a n d at the
same time to care for external things; but if you care for the o n e you
must inevitably neglect the other.
ch. 14a If you wish your children and your wife and your friends
to live by all means, you are foolish; for you wish the things that are
n o t u n d e r your control to be u n d e r your control, a n d the things
that b e l o n g to o t h e r s to b e l o n g to you. In the same way, if you
want your slave-boy to make no mistakes, you are stupid; for you
wish badness not to be badness, but something else. But if you wish
not to fail in what you desire, that is what you are able to achieve;
t h e r e f o r e exercise yourself in those things that you are able to
achieve.
ch. 14b Each m a n ' s master is the o n e who has the power to
achieve or prevent what that m a n does or does not wish. T h e r e f o r e
everyone who wishes to be free should neither wish nor avoid any of
the things that are u n d e r o t h e r p e o p l e ' s c o n t r o l ; if not so, it
inevitably leads to slavery.
c. 13 A C / S i ( S G / H J ) | a b 3 a0i|//TtTS?C(ab 3 )
c. 14a AC/S6(.SG/HJ) |ab 2 |//TtTSiC(ab 2 t)
c. 14b A C / S z ( S G / H J ) ( a b 3 0|//(3-4 -)TSCiab 3
c. 13 1-2 - aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XIX 1-2); 2-3 - aff.
SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XX 1-2); 2 - aff. Simp. XXXI 21-22; 2-3
- imit. [Ant.] 64 (13 Atb.); 3-4 - imit. [Ant.] 6 4 ( 1 3 A t h . )
c. 14a [s. 1] 1-2 - aff. S A / [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXI 1-2); 5-6 alterum imit. [Ant.] 92 (17 Atb.)
c. 14b [s. 2] 1-2 - aff. S A / [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXII 1-2)
c. 13 1-3 -. II 1,36; 1-2 - cf. I 22,18; 2-3 - cf. gnom.
Stob. (C) 3; 3-5 '- cf. II 2,10; omnino IV 2; IV 10,25; gnom'. Stob. (C)
10; 3-4 - cf. ad c. 4; 5 '- sim. IV 2,7
c. 14a [s. 1] 1-2 - cf. III 24,20.87; IV 1,67.107; 2-4 - sim. IV 5,7; 5 cf. II 2,4; IV 1,75
c. 14b [s. 2] 1-2 - sim. II 2,26; IV 1,58-59; cf. I 4,19; II 13,10; IV
1,82.85; IV 4,38; IV 5,4; IV 7,10; IV 12,8; 3-4 - cf. II 2,12-13.25; IV 1,77; 4
, (...) = IV 10,6
c. 13 Et ,
,
, .
' .
c. 14a
,
, , , '
. ,
.
c. 14b '
.
,
' , .
c. 13 1 AC SE II S Simp (XIX 5.8.9.10) II 2 S II ] Nil II

] Tt II om. Nil II ] Simp ( X X X I 22) II
Tt (sed spat. vac. iiniiis litt.) II 2-3 ] Sa (praeter
C
S E J X : S G ' P
(vel S G ' V : erasum)) Par II 3 ] S F G ' P C H (non
ita S Z J X ) : S Z G A C lit vid. Il 3-4 ]
Nil II 4 ] S Z G A C ' * ( SZG'* S ') II om. Tt II
Simp (XX 30) II ] SZC (ex Par) II 5 ' T S i C Par, et sic legisse videtur Simp (XX 36-37), ita fere et Diss IV 2,7
(' , , ' ): ACTtSi Nil: ' - Vat II
prias] Par:
c. 14a [s. 1] 1-2 -] - (sic) Par II 1 ]
Val II ] T t II 2 S Nil Vat : ACTt SE:
(absque ) Par II SA Nil, et legisse videtur Simp (XXI 14; bis) (cf.
I V 1 , 6 7 ): ACTt S E G ' * S 1 J 1 S ' X Par Vat : om. Sa
(sed
SEG'* s 'j' s 'x) Simp (XXI 12, sed vide supra) Il ] Par:
Para II ] A C II 3 - om. Tt (in margine add.
, , et ante inseruit
Tt 2 ) II - om.
AC II 4 ' in rasura SiC II 5 ] TtSift II 6 ] SiC
c. 14b [s. 2] hoc caput capiti praecedenti coniungunt AC Nil II 1 ]
' Nil II 2 om. S Simp ( X X I I 8) II 3 om. Nil II SiJ T S i C Vat :
ACSiGH Nil: Tt
[1]
[2]
ch. 15 R e m e m b e r to behave in life as if you were a t t e n d i n g a

b a n q u e t . S o m e t h i n g is being carried a r o u n d , a n d arrives at your
place: reach out a n d take a modest share of it. It passes by: do not
hold it back. It is not yet coming: do not stretch your desire towards
it, but wait until it arrives at your place. In the same way towards your
childr en, in the same way towards your wife, in the same way towards
offices, in the same way towards wealth; a n d you will be worthy to
share a b a n q u e t with the gods one clay. If, however, you d o not take
these things even when they are put in f r o n t of you, but despise
them, then you will not only share a b a n q u e t with the gods, but also
rule with them. For by acting in this way Diogenes and Heraclitus and
m e n like them were deservedly gods and deservedly called so.
ch. 16 When you see s o m e o n e weeping in grief, either because his
child is a b r o a d or because h e has lost his property, beware that you
are not carried away by the impression that the m a n is in external ills,
b u t you must immediately tell yourself, "It is n o t the event that
distresses this m a n (for it does not distress others), but his opinion of
the events." Do not, however, hesitate to sympathize with him in
words and, if it so happens, to weep with him; but only beware that
you do not weep inwardly.
c. 1 5 A C / ( [ / ] [ / / ( / / ) ] ) / / S Z 0 ( S G / H J ) (ab 2 )
///Tt'T.SClab 2 )
c. 16 AC/Sift(.SzG/HJ)Iab 3 '|//'T.SzC{ab 3 '
c. 15 resp. Simp. XXV 3-4.18-19; 1-6 - aff. Stob. III 5,20 (MATr
llectiones codicum LBr ex Erich interpolatorum non citantur); III 262,8-263,5 H.); 1
- aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XXIII 1-2); 6
imit. [Ant.] 66 (13 Ath.)
c. 16 aff. Stob. IV 1,44,78 (SMA; IV 2,978,8-15 IT); 1-3 "- aff.
SA/ [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXIV 1-3); 1 "- aff. Simp. XXVI 5; 2-3 resp. Simp. XXVI 5-7
c. 15 1-6 - cf. II 4,8-10; fr. XVII; 9 cf. II 16,44
c. 16 cf. omnino III 3,15-19; III 24; 1-5 "- cf. I 27,5-6; 1
cf. III 24,8.22; 2 - cf. II 18,24; 3-5 - cf. I 11,31; I
25,17.28; I 28,23; III 13,8; 5-6 - cf. IV 12,17; 6-7 - = I
18,19
c . 15 . ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
,
' , ,
. '
.
c.
16 "
, '
( ) ,
.
, ,
.
c. 15 1 om. Stob. Par II ] > ci. Schweighuser II om. Tt

Sa (habet .Sx; add. SG'* S ') Stob. Il ] Stob.: om. Par II SA II 2
] Si C: () Stob. Nil II Tt II ]
Stob. II .SiC: Simp (XXIII 16): Stob. II 3
Par II ] Stob. II Vat : SiC II 4 -]
' Stob. II 4-5 prius]
, , Stob. II 4-5 om. TSiC,
nec legisse videtur Simp (XXIII 8) (habent Nil Vat\ om. Par suo more) II 5 (bis)
om. Nil II 5-6 Nil II 5 om. Stob. II 6 Stob. II 6-9 om. Stob. II 6 ] M/II om. SiC [2] Il Nil II om.
SiC [3] II ] dubitanter ci. Meibom II 7 '] SiGH (non
ita SiJ) Il Nil II om. SiC Par II Simp (XXIII 32) Il
] Nil II om. Si C II 8 ] '
Simp (XXIII 39) II om. Simp (I.e.) II 9 ] :
om. SiC II
c. 16 1 S a Simp (XXIV 8, XXVI 5) Stob. Par: SA: ACTt
SEG ' *s' Nil Vat 11 ] Simp (XXIV 8-9) 112 Tt .Sa (praeter SE) Stob. ParM:
ParY: ParV II om. 5 S(aT0SGJ:
SE) Il om. Simp (XXIV 9) II Par II Simp
(XXIV 10) II 3 SDFGH (deest SE; SG'* s l ) II ] SG a c 1 *: Stob. II om. Stob. Par (probantibus Meibom, Heyne et Kronenberg
(1910),166) II ] II ] ACTtSi Vat :
(sic) SiF II ] ( Hense) Stob.:
om. Vat II 4 Stob. 115 ] Tt:
Stob. II om. TSiC Stob. 11 NilParVat : AC:
Tt.S'i (desuntTSiC Stob.) II 6 Stob. II Tt SiC II ]
SiC: Tt" 0 ' Stob.: SiGH II
] Nil : Stob. II om. ACSiJ II 7 Nil
II ante add. (sic) supra et infra lineam Tt '
ch. 17 R e m e m b e r that you are an actor in a play the character of

which is d e t e r m i n e d by the playwright: a short play, if he wants it to
be short; a long play, if he wants it to be long; if he wants you to play
a beggar's role, r e m e m b e r to play this role properly too; and in the
same way if he wants you to play a cripple, an official, a private
person. For this is yours to do: to play well the role that is assigned to
you; but picking it out is the task of someone else.
ch. 18 Whenever a crow croaks unfavourably, do not let yourself be
carried away by the impression, but immediately draw a distinction in
your mind a n d say, "None of these signs pertains to me, b u t they
pertain to my body or my property or my reputation or my children
or my wife. T o me, however, all portents are favourable, if I wish
them to be so; for whichever of these things may h a p p e n , it is u n d e r
my control to benefit from them."
ch. 19a [1] You can be invincible, if you never enter any contest
in which victory is not u n d e r your control.
ch. 19b [2] See to it that you are never carried away by your
impression, in thinking that s o m e o n e is happy when you see him
being preferred to you in honour, or in possession of great power, or
c. 17 AC/ ([/][// (//) ])//Si( S'G/HJ) lab 2 priore)
///TtT(vix legibiIis)SC[ab 2 priore[
c. 18 V C W w / / ( e [ I W / ^ b i s J ] [ r / A / t ( B / / A e ) ] ) / / / S i ( S i G / H I ) lab 2
')////T(vix legibi1is)SiCIab 2 ')
c. 19a /([/][//(//)])//T(vix legibilis)
c. 19b /([/][//(//) ])//S(SiG/HJ)[ab 3 ) ///
TtT(vix legibilis)SC)ab 3 )
c. 17 aff. Stob. II 8,27 (FP; II 159,11-16 W.); resp. Olymp., in Org. 17,2 (97,24-26
W.); fort. resp. Plot. 3,2,17,18-19 (I 294 H.-S.); Synes., Prov. I 13 (93,14-94,16 T.); 12 - aff. SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XXV 1-2); cit. Procop., Ep.
159,21-22 (77 G.-L.)
c. 18 1-2 - aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XXVI 1-2); 1-2 - usurp. [Ant.] 92 (17 Atb.); 4-5 - cit. Simp. XXVII 3; 5-6 '
usurp. Simp. XXXIX 26-27
c. 19a [s. 1] aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (XXVII 1-2); cit. Simp. XXVIII 4-5; imit.
[Ant.] 92 (17 Atb.)
c. 19b [s. 2] resp. Simp. XXIX 3-4; 1-2 "- aff. SA/ [BD
(CEFGHJx)] (XXVIII 1-3); imit. [Ant.] 9 1 (17 Atb.); 2 ( )
cit. Simp. VI 12
c. 17 cf. I 29,41; III 24,96-99; IV 7,13-14; fr. XI
c. 18 1 - cf. III 1,37; 3-4 cf. IV 7,5; 34
cf. IV 7,35; 3 sim. I 1,10; II
13,11; III 18,3; III 22,106; IV 7,18; cf. I 25,23; I 29,' 10; IV 6,34; cf. III
23,32; 5-6- cf. omnino III 20, praecipue III 20,9
c. 19a [s. 1] cf. III 6,5; 1-2 - sim. III 22,102
c. 19b [s. 2] cf. IV 6,25-27; 1-2 "- cf. I 9,20; III 3,17; III 17,5; IV
7,21; 2 - cf. ad c. 16,2
c. 17
, , ,
, -
, , . ' ,
.
c. 18 ,
, ' , '
.
, , '
' .
c. 19a ' , .
c. 19b "
-
c. 17 (vix legibile in ) 1 ] AC SE Stob.: Procop. II ] ' Nil (=

?) II Stoi.F II 2 ] Procop. Il 2-3
Nil II 3 Tt II om. Stob. II ] ' (om. ) Stob. II
] Stob. II 4 -] - f a r II ' om. Stob. II
5 AC0Si6 Vat II om. Tt II om.
SiC II ] Stob. II SzC
c. 18 (vix legibile in ) 1 S (sed habet SE: SF) II 2
] SB II ] SiC II T u v S i C Nil Par Vat :
ACWwTtSi II Si C II 2-3 bSib TSiC Vat: Par:
Tt: ACWw Nil II 3 T S i C Par Vat :
ACWwTtSi Nil II ' ] Sib II SzJ Nil Par 11 3-4
] Simp (XXVI 13-14) II 3
om. TSiC Par II 3-4 om. Vat II 3 tertiiim] Nil
II 4 om. ACWwTt II Tt II SiC II 5 om. T l l v SiC Parll ]
vel ci. Koraes II 6 Tt SiC (lectio T incerta)
c. 19a [s. 1] (vix legibile in ) 1 ] Simp (XXVII 15; cf. XXVIII 4)
c. 19b [s. 2] (vix legibile in T) hoc caput capiti praececlenti coniungunt AC II 1
] Sa (praeter SE) Il SD II ] Nil II om. Par II 2 Tt
[1]
[2]
otherwise enjoying a good reputation. For if the essence of good is

u n d e r o u r control, neither envy n o r jealousy has a place; a n d as for
yourself, you do not want to be a praetor, a senator or a consul, but
you want to be free. T h e r e is only o n e road that leads to f r e e d o m :
despising the things that are not u n d e r our control.
ch. 20 R e m e m b e r that it is not the man who abuses you or hits you
t h a t insults you, b u t your o p i n i o n of these m e n , that they are
insulting you. T h e r e f o r e , when s o m e o n e irritates you, realize that
your conceptions irritate you. And so, try not to be carried away by
your impressions in the first place; for once you gain time and delay,
you will become master of yourself more easily.
ch. 21 Death a n d exile and all the o t h e r things that seem to be
d r e a d f u l must be before your eyes every day, but most of all death.
And you will never have any abject t h o u g h t , n o r will you long for
something excessively.
ch. 22 If you long for philosophy, p r e p a r e yourself from the start
that you will be laughed at, that many people will j e e r at you, that
c. 19b /([/][//(//) ])//S2(SzG/HJ)(ab 3 } ///

TtT(vix 1egibiIis)SzCIab 3 )
c. 20 AC/Sz6(SzG/HJ){ab 2 |//T(vix legibilis)SiCfab 2 )
c. 21 A/CWw//Sz0(SzG/HJ)///TtT(vix legibilis)
c. 22 AC/ ([/][// (//) ] )//Si6( StG/HJ) {ab 2 priore}
(usque ad I. 5 vix legibilis) SiC(ab 2 priore}
3 - cit. Simp. XXVI 7-8, LX 24-25; 5-6 - aff. Eng., Theod. 87,7-8 L.; imit.
[Ant.] 58 (12 Atb.)
c. 20 1-2 - aff. SA/ [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXIX 1-2); 3-4
cit. Simp. VI 12
c. 21 aff. Byz. 185 (196 W.); Georg. 481 (172 O.); Mel., Loc. comm. I 14 (col.
813A); imit. [Ant.] 91 (17 Ath.); resp. Olymp., in Grg. 48,4 (252,31-253,2 W.); 1-2
- (= Simp XXIX 38-41) ad instar lemmatis praebet SA: in
textu Simpliciano habet Sa[BD(CEFGHJx) ]; 1-2 - usurp. [Ant.] 74
(14 Ath.)
c. 22 resp. Simp. XXXI 3-6; 1-2 - aff. SA/a[BD
(CEFGHJx)] (XXX 1-2)
3 - cf. IV 10,8; 3-4 , cf. III 22,61; 4-5 , sim.
IV 1,149; 5-6 - sim. IV 4,39; IV 6,9; cf. IV 1,131
c. 20 cf. omnino fr. XVI; 1 - sim. III 22,100; 1-2 - cf.
I 25,28; 34 - cf. ad c. 16,2; 4-5 - cf. II 18,12-13
c. 21 1 - sim. I 11,33; sim. I 4,24; II 16,19; III
22,21-22; 2 sim. IV 10,31; 3 - sim. I 3,1.4
c. 22 1-2 - cf. I 22,18; 1 = II 2,10
. ' ,
, 5
, '
, ' .
c.
20 ,
. ,
.

5
, .
c. 21
'
.
c.
22
3 ] Sib (praeter SiE; ciel. SiG ' *PC; SiG ' *S'; S i j ' mK)
II Vat II ] ACTtSi II ] Tt: SiC II 4 AC II
] AC II om. TSiC II alterum] Nil Vat II 5 SiC Nil II ]
[Ant.]
c. 20 (vix legibile in ) 1 AC T u v S Par Vat : Tt Nil II 2
Sa (praeter SE; S G a c ' , ut vid.) Il Nil II 3 Par II
TtSi6 SiC Par Vat : AC T u v Nil II Tt II 4 om. Simp
(XXIX 26) II ] Simp (I.e.) II ] [4] SiC II 5 ]
SiC II ] Tt: [2] SiC
c. 21 (vix legibile in ) 1 prius] Simp (XXIX 38-39) Il ] Byz.
Georg. Mel. II ASi Simp (XXIX 39-40) Vat2Pc:
Nil: Va^'2:
Tt: CWw SiC: Par:
Byz. Mel.: Georg. II 2 ] [Ant.]: om. Georg. II
] [Ant.] 74: [Ant.] 91 II 2-3 - om. Byz. Georg. Mel.
Par II 2 ] Nil II SiC (lectio
incerta) II 3 - om. Georg. II ACWwTt TSiC [Ant.] Mel. Par:
Sib Byz. Nil Vat II ] Mel.:
Byz. (praeter cocld. Leid, et Mon.) II WwSiH: SiC II
] Par II ] Tt II 4 om. Byz. Georg. Mel.
c. 22 (usque ad 1. 5 vix legibile in T) 2 om. SJx Nil II alterum] Nil
they will say, "Look at o u r f r i e n d , s u d d e n l y t u r n e d i n t o a

philosopher" a n d "Where did h e get that high brow?" You must not
put on a high brow, but stick to the rules that appear best to you, as if
put into that place by god. R e m e m b e r , that if you abide by the same
principles, those who first laughed at you, will admire you later; but if
you are defeated by them, you will be laughed at twice.
ch. 23 If it ever h a p p e n s to you that you turn to externals with the
aim of pleasing someone, realize that you have lost your plan of life.
Be therefore content in every situation to be a philosopher; but if you
want to a p p e a r a p h i l o s o p h e r as well, make yourself a p p e a r so to
yourself, a n d that will be quite e n o u g h .
ch. 24 1 These considerations should not oppress you: "I will live
my whole life without being valued and a nobody anywhere." For if
lack of value is a bad thing (as it is), you cannot be in a bad situation
because of s o m e o n e else, any more than in a disgraceful situation. It
is not your business, is it, to obtain a public office or to be taken to a
b a n q u e t . Certainly not. How, t h e n , is this still lack of value?
c. 22 AC/ ([/][//(//) ])//Sz(SzG/HJ)lab 2 priore)

T(usque ad 1. 5 vix 1egibi1is)SiC(ab 2 priore)
c. 23 AC/ ([/][//(//)])//.Si6(SiG/HJ)|ab 2 }
TSz'Ciab 2 )
c. 24 / ( [ / | [ / / ( / / ) ] ) / / . $ ( 5 ^ ) ^ 2 ; 18-19 ' = Simp XXXII 132)///Tt| 2 10-11 -; 3 15-18 -)TSiC|'2-7
-)
3-4 - aff. Simp. LXVIII 14-15; 5-6 - fort. resp. Pletli., Virt. A 2
(3,5-6 et 3,17-18 T.); 6-8 - aff. Simp. XXXI 32-35
c. 23 1-2 ' (" Simplicius)- aff. SA/ [ BD ( CEFGHJx) ] (XXXI 1-2)
c. 24 s. 1 1-2 - aff. Eug., T)ieo 87,6-7 L.; SA/a\BD(CEFGHJx) ]
(XXXII 1-2)
3 - cf. I 18,10; II 21,13; III 16,11; 3-4 - sim. II 8,24; 46 - cf. III 24,95; 4-5 sim. III 23,21 (Pl., Cri. 46b); 5-6
- cf. III 21,18; 5 - sim. I 9,16.24 (Pl., Ap. 28e); 6-7 cf. II 22,8
c. 23 cf. III 12,16; III 24,118; 2-3 - sim. IV 8,23; cf. IV 8,17.35
c. 24 s. 1 1 - cf. IV 2,4; 3 - cf. I 9,34; I 28,23; IV 12,8; 4
- = II 6,8

; ,
5
. , ,
, .
c. 23
, .
,
.
c. 2 4 .
),
'
.
5
' ; . ' ;
3 ] Simp (LXVIII 14) 114 TSzC Nil Par Vat : ACbSi II 5

SzC II om. SiG SzC Simp (XXXI 3) Par II SimpA (XXXI 4);
Simpa legit (quam lectionem veram puto; Simp. orat. obi. citat []) II
om. II 6 ] II ] / om. SzC Simp (XXXI 32; sed
babet Simp XXXI 4) II Nil II 6-7 -]
Simp (XXXI 5) II 7 om. Simp (XXXI 5.33) II ]
SzGJ: om. Simp (XXXI 33; sed habet Simp XXXI 5) Par II ]
SzC Simp (XXXI 5; sed habet Simp XXXI 33) II A 1 P c CSz
( SzG'**'): A a c II 8 ] Simp (XXX 54)
II SzC
c. 2 3 1 ] Simp ( X X X I 7 ) II ] Simp ( X X X I 7 ) :
M/M II ] : AC SE Vatac* (ut vid.): om. Simp
( X X X I 7 ) II 2 ] S G ' * S 1 S C :
( SD) SBDFGHJx II 2-3 (sic) Par II 2
om. Va ac2 II ACSi Diss Vat : TSzC Nil Par II 3 prius om. Nil Par II
TSzC Par, et legisse videtur Simp ( X X X I 2 6 - 2 7 ) : ACbSib Vat (unde
ci. Upton): Nil II 3 - 4 Simp ( X X X I 1 5 . 2 8 )
Nil: Par: SzC: A C S Z Vat :
ci. Koraes
c. 24 s. 1 1 Par II om. S (praeter SE) Simp (XXXII 18) Nil II
Eng. Nil Par Vat : AC SAE SzwzpA (XXXII 18; SimpD): Sa SimpB: P a r MV II 2 ] Eng. II
] Eug.: Vat II ] SzC II 2-3
Sib (praeter SzH) TSzC Nil Vat, et legit Simp (XXXII 19-20 ; 24-25
, ; 27 , , ): om. ACSzH II 3 alterum
om. II 4 SzGH ( SzG'*P c ): SzJ II
() Par II ] Nil II Simp (XXXII 40) II ] II
ci. Koraes II 5 ' ] Simp
(XXXII 40) II '] Simp (I.e.) Nil II om. SiC Vat II Nil
And how will you be a nobody anywhere, you who only have to be in
t h e things that are u n d e r your control, in which you have the
opportunity to be of the greatest value? 2 But your friends will lack
help? What do you mean, "lack help"? They will not have money from
you, n o r will you make them Roman citizens. But who told you that
these things are a m o n g those u n d e r o u r control, and are not o t h e r
people's business? And who is able to give a n o t h e r what h e does not
have himself? 3 "Get money, then," someone says, "in o r d e r that we
too get it." If I can get it while keeping myself self-respecting a n d
faithful and high-minded, show me the way and I will get it. But if you
want me to lose my own good, so that you get what is not good, see
for yourselves how unfair and inconsiderate you are. And what is it
that you want most: money or a faithful and self-respecting friend?
T h e r e f o r e r a t h e r help me in this; a n d d o not want me to d o the
things by which I will lose these very qualities. 4 "But my country",
s o m e o n e says, "will lack the help I can give it." Again, what help d o
you m e a n ? Your country will not have porticoes or baths by your
efforts. So what? It does not have shoes m a d e by the blacksmith
either, n o r weapons made by the cobbler: it is sufficient if each man
fulfils his own task. If you m a d e s o m e o n e else a faithful a n d selfrespecting citizen, would that n o t be useful to the state? "Yes."
Accordingly you would not be useless yourself to it either. 5 "What
c. 24 A C / ( Q [ I W / O N ] [ R / A / T ( S / L / A 0 ) ] ) / / S i ( S i G J ) { a b 2 ; 18-19 ' = Simp XXXII 132}///Tt{ 2 10-11 -; s 15-18 -)TSzC{ 1 2-7

-)
s. 4 18-19 '- aff. Simp. XXXII 132 (novum paragraphum incipit SimpA,
acl instar lemmatis praebet Simpa)
7 - = III 25,3; s. 2 10-11 - cf. III 21,10; s. 3 15-18 - cf.
gnom. Stob. (D) 8; Mosch, gnom. () 3; 15 , I 11,24; 16
e.g. II 2,4; II 4,2; IV 1,161; IV 13,19.20 (et saepius); s. 4 22-23 -
cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 60; 24 - cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 59
.5
, v ,
; ; ; ,
' ,
' , ;
; .
, . '
, , ,
, ;
, ' ,
. ' , ' ,
. , ;
. ;
,
,
, ; .
.
6 TSiC Simp (XXXII 75) Nil Par Vat : om. AC bSib II S S i G ' V T S C
Par Vat, et ita legisse videtur Simp (XXXII 75-81): AC bSib Nil II ]
NUM.: M/P II 7 ] Par II ] Simp
(XXXII 78.83) Par II SzC II s. 2 7 om. : ci. Meibom (probantibus
Upton et Schweighuser), et ita legisse videtur Simp (XXXII 82-83: ,
) II 8 SiG ' *m Nil: AC bSib Vat (
Simp [XXXII 89.91] Par) II 9 II 10-11 - om. S i G a c l * II
10 alterum om. Tt II ] Tt Simp
(XXXII 94) Par: Simp (XXXII 136) Il s. 3 11 ]
SiG Simp (XXXII 96) II 12 om. NilParM II 13-18 - om. SzG a c l *
11 15 om. Vat II ] Tt II ]
SiG* Nil II alterum om. SiG* Par II Tt II 17 ] Peril A a c I (ut vid.): Xt 1 Pc:
T f l C II Nil II Tt II ] II 18
om. II Tt II s. 4 18- 5 27 ' - om. S i J a c ' II 18 '
t Nil 11 19-,27 - om. S i G a c l * II 19 , J
Par II om. bSiG* Par II 20 prius Nil, et ita legisse
videtur Par : ACSiG*J Vat : Simp (XXXII 141) II alterum] Vat
II 20-21 Simp (XXXII 141) II 21 -] -
ACSiJ (21 - om. , pro praebens) M/ II 22
Simp (XXXII 148) II SiG* II 23
Simp (XXXII 148) II om. SiG* // T u v II 24 -]
Nil Vat II s. 5 24-25 Simp
(XXXII 154) Nil: Par : ACSiG*J Vat
place then", s o m e o n e says, "shall I have in the state?" T h e o n e you

can have while r e m a i n i n g the faithful a n d self-respecting m a n you
are. For if you lose these qualities while wishing to help the state,
what use will you be to it if you t u r n o u t to be shameless a n d
unfaithful?
ch. 25 1 If s o m e o n e has been h o n o u r e d above you at a b a n q u e t
or in a salutation or in being asked for advice, you should be happy
that he has got these things, if they are good; if, on the o t h e r h a n d ,
they are bad, do not be angry that you did not get them. R e m e m b e r
that you cannot lay a claim to the same, if you are not doing the same
with a view to getting things that are not u n d e r o u r control. 2 For in
what way can he who does not frequently go to s o m e o n e ' s d o o r get
the same as the o n e who goes? How can he who does not escort get
the same as the o n e who escorts? How can he who does not praise get
the same as the o n e who praises? T h e r e f o r e you will be unjust a n d
insatiable, if, refusing to pay the price for which these things are
b o u g h t , you wish to get them for free. 3 But for what price d o you
buy a h e a d of lettuce? An obol, maybe. If, t h e n , s o m e o n e pays an
obol a n d gets a head of lettuce, but you, not paying an obol, d o not
get it, do not think that you have less than the o n e who got it: for he
may have the lettuce, you have the obol which you did n o t give.
4 And exactly the same holds g o o d for life. You have n o t b e e n
invited to s o m e o n e ' s banquet? Of course not: you did not pay the
host the price for which he sells the banquet; he sells it for praise, h e
sells it for attention. Pay the price for which it is sold, if it benefits
you; but if you do not want to pay the o n e and yet receive the other,
c. 24 AC/(e[IW/MJ[r/A/t(E/E/Ae)])//Si(SiGJ)|ab 2 ; 18-19 ' = Simp XXXII 132|///Tt| a 10-ll -; 3 15-18 -|TSiCl'2-7

-)
c. 25 /([/][//(//) ] )//Si(SiG*J) (ab 1 altero}
TSiClab 1 a1tero(
c. 25 s. 1 1-2 - resp. Simp. XXXII 39-40; 1 (' Simplicius)
aff. SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (XXXIII 1)
c. 25 s. 1-2 1-9 - cf. omnino III 17,2-3; IV 6,25-27; s. 1 4-5 cf. IV 2,2-4; s. 2 5-7 - cf. III 24,49; IV 6,36; IV 10,19-20; 6 cf. III 24,44; 9 - = IV 10,24; s. 3 9-10 - sim. II 10,9;
III 24,48; s. 4 13-15 - alterum cf. I 25,15; III 17,5; III 24,49; 16-17 cf. IV 10,23-24
;
. ,
;
c. 25
, ,
,
,
' .
,
, ;
, '
,
; , .
, ,
,
. . ' ;
, , , ' ,
25 om. Simp (XXXII 157) II 26 ] , Simp (XXXII

158) II Si G* Nil Vat II 27 ] Nil Party II S i J a c l
Nil II ACSiJ
c. 25 s. 1 1 T Par Val : S ( SE):
AC6 Nil II S (praeter SEJx) Nil II Par II
Simp (XXXIII 6) II 1 - 4 1 9 alterum om. SiGaC>* II 1-2
] Si C II 2 ACSiJ : SiC:
Vat : Simp (XXXIII 7; cf. XXXII 40): Nil Par:
SiG* II om. Simp (XXXIII 20) II 3 ] ,
Simp (XXXIII 48-49) Il 4 om. II TSiC Vat :
Nil: ACSi: Simp (XXXIII 49) II ] Nil
II ] SiC II s. 2 5-6 Nil II 5 om. Par II 6
om. SiC [2] II 7 om. II 8 Vat II ] SiC II ACSiJ
Nil Par \\ 9 ] SiC II s. 3 10-11 (sic)
SiC II 11-12 ] A t Vat : SiG II 13
OIT). A C r A I W S i J II SiG* f a r II s. 4 13 SiG* TSiC Par
Vat : ACSiJ: ( s.l. 1 ) : Nil 1114
SiG* Simp (XXXIII 65) Nil : ACSiJ TSiC Para Vat II 15
SiC II om. Par II Par II SiC II ]
Par: SiG*: om. SiC Nil II SiG* TSiC Nil Vat :
ACSiJ II SiG* TSiC Nil: ACSzJ Vat II 16 Nil II 16-18
alterum post 18-19 alterum citt Simp (XXXIII 69-74) II
16 -] - SiG* II ] Si G* SimpX (XXXIII 72) Par.
Simpa
you are insatiable and stupid. 5 Do you have nothing, then, instead
of the banquet? Well, you have not had to praise the man you did not
want to praise; you have not had to put u p with his doorkeepers.
ch. 26 T h e will of nature can be learnt from the things in which we
d o n o t differ f r o m each other. For instance, when s o m e o n e else's
slave breaks a cup, o u r immediate reaction is, "It is just o n e of those
things that h a p p e n . " Realize, t h e n , that w h e n your own c u p is
broken, you must react in the same way as when s o m e o n e else's c u p
was broken. Transfer this to m o r e important things as well. S o m e o n e
else's child or wife has died? T h e r e is nobody who would not say,
"That's life." But when s o m e o n e ' s own child dies, he immediately
goes, "Alas!" and "Poor me!" But we should r e m e m b e r how we feel
when we hear such things about others.
ch. 27 Just as there is no target set u p for misses, so there is no
nature of evil in the universe either.
ch. 28 If somebody entrusted your body to the first person who
met you, you would be angry; are you not ashamed, then, that you
entrust your mind to any person who meets you, so that, if he abuses
you, your mind is upset and confused?
c. 25 AC/(e[nV/0n][r/A/t(S/E/Ae)])//Si(SiG*J){ab 1 altero}
TSiC[ab 1 altero}
c. 26 AC/(Q[n<P/M][r/T(H//Ae)])/Si(SiGJ){ab 2 }TSiC[ab 2
)
c. 27 /([/][/(//)])
c. 28 ^([/][/(//) ])//Sz(SzGJ)|ab 2 }TStC(ab 2
}
c. 26 1 - aff. SA/[ BD(CEFGHJx) ] (XXXIV 1-2)
c. 27 aff. SA/ [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXXV 1-2); resp. Simp. XIV 397-398
c. 28 1-2 Et-av aff. SA/[ BD(CEFGHJx) ] (XXXVI 1-2)
s. 5 17-18 - cf. IV 3,7-8; IV 9,1
c. 26 1 - cf. I 17,13-17; 6 = I 9,30; 7-8 '- = I
4,23
c. 28 1-2 - cf. II 12,19; 2-4 - cf. I 25,29; II 12,14; 3 ,
sim. III 22,25
, .
;
, .
c.
26 -
, . ,
, ,
. ,
;
'
.
c. 27 " ,
.
c. 28 ,
,
,
17 TSiC Par II s. 5 18 om. Nil II Simp (XXXIII 71) II

om. Simp (I.e.) Par II 19 - om. II SiG* Simp (I.e.) II
SiC
c. 26 1 om. SD II 2 om. SiC Par, nec legisse vicletur S (contra
morem siiuin post desinens) II ] o A C S i
VatPc: Va<ac (nisi fallor; rasura post ): ( )
II APcSiG TSiC Simp (XXXIV 26) Vat (cf. Diss III 24,84; IV 10,34):
A C S i J Nil Par II 3 TSiC Simp (I.e.) Par: AC bSib Nil
Vat II SiC Simp (I.e.) Nil Par, ACSi Vat ( om.
e a c l , minio adscriptum) II om. II prius TSiC Nil Par: ACSi
Simp (XXXIV 27) Vat II om. NilII 4 APCT (cf. Diss III 24,84; IV 10,34):
ACSi Nil Vat : SiC: () Par: Simp (XXXIV 30)
II ] " exspectasses" Schweighuser: ci. Reiske II 4-5 ] - II 4-5 5 TSiC Vat : Para:
ACSiJ ?: Nil II 5 ] Simp (XXXIV 31): ci.
Reiske II 5-6 ] Simp (XXXIV 32) II
5 alterum] SiG Vat II 6 ACSi SiC Simp (XXXIV 33) Vat :
Nil Par II TSiC Nil II ] Simp
(XXXIV 33) II 7 TSiC Simp (XXXIV 37) Diss Nil: om. AC bSib Vat II 8
SiJ SiC
c. 27 1 Sa II Nil Par
c. 28 1 Sa (praeter SGHx; s.I. SJ) II : S
(praeter SE; S H a c ' ; SG'*P C ): Simp (XXXVI
11): II 3 om. SiC [4] II Nil II ] II
] Simp (XXXVI 13) II SiC>Pc: [.]3 SzC a c II
: in ACSiJ Vahaec verba capiti 29' coniuncta sunt
{ch. 29 1 In each enterprise consider the things that c o m e first

a n d the things that follow it, a n d then approach the enterprise itself.
Otherwise you will at first come to it full of enthusiasm, because you
have not considered any of the things that come next, but afterwards,
when there a p p e a r some disgraceful things, you will give up. 2 Do
you want to win an Olympic victory? So d o I, by the gods, for it is a
fine thing. But consider what precedes and what follows, a n d after
that begin the job. You must discipline yourself, follow a diet, abstain
f r o m cakes, train u n d e r compulsion, at a fixed time, in heat, in cold;
you are not allowed to drink cold water, n o r wine, when you feel like
it; in short, you must turn yourself over to your trainer as if h e were
your physician; then you have to e n t e r the match, sometimes you
have to throw your h a n d , twist your ankle, swallow lots of sand,
sometimes be whipped, and on top of all that, you will have to lose.
3 W h e n you have considered this, if you still want to, you can undertake to b e c o m e an athlete; otherwise you will turn back like children
do, who at o n e time play wrestlers, at a n o t h e r time gladiators, then
blow trumpets, then act a play. In the same way you too will at o n e
time be an athlete, then a gladiator, then a rhetorician, then a philosopher, yet you will d o n o t h i n g whole-heartedly; but like a monkey
you will imitate everything when you see it, a n d you will be pleased
now with this, now with that. For you have not u n d e r t a k e n anything
with circumspection, having considered it from all sides, but r a n d o m ly a n d half-heartedly. 4 In the same way, when some p e o p l e see a
p h i l o s o p h e r a n d hear s o m e o n e speaking as well as Socrates speaks
( a n d who can speak as h e does?), they want to be p h i l o s o p h e r s
c. 29 /([/{5. 1|][/{ 4 20-21 -)/ t { / I / A 8 ) { s .

1)])(ss. l-4)//Si(5zGJ)///Tt{ss. 5-7}
c. 29 s. 1 1-2 - aff. Mel., Loc. comm. I 10 (col. 800D)
c. 29 = III 15,1-13; s. 2 7-12 - sim. Ill 22,52
10
15
20
|c. 29 ' ,
,
. ' ;
, . , ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, , , , ,
, , '
. ,
, - , ,
, , ,
. , ,
, , ' .
, '
.
(
;) .
c. 29 (= III 15,1-13) totum caput om. TSzC Par; silentio praeterit Simplicius;
habent ACSz Nil Vat, Eb habet 29 1 " 4 , Tt habet 29 5 ' 7 ; caput interpolatum esse
censeo; textum cledi qualis exstat in fontibus Encheiridii. in ACSib 29' capiti
praecedenti coniunctum est; cetera in duo capita divisa sunt: 29^~4 et 29r'~7. in Vat
totum caput lino tenore scriptum capiti praecedenti coniunctum est. in Nil textus
in sex capita divisus est: 29'; 29 2 ,4-6; 29 2 ,6-29 4 ; 29 5 " 6 ,22-27; 29 6 ,27-30; 29 7 , cui
adiunctum est c. 30.
s. I 2 ] (praeter ) Szj Mel.: om. Vat II 3 ] [| APC:
CSzJ, et legisse videtur A A C II om. II M/M II 4 A C Q S Z ' Nil
Val: : ci. Wolf:
Schweighuser e Wolfii versione Diss III 15 II ] II s. 2 4
M/M II 5 bSiG (et Nil Vat suo more) II 10 II
bSib Nil Vat : ACSzJ ( Szj' s '): Upton e
Diss II bSiG Nil Vat: ACSzJ (a p.c. Szj'): Upton e Diss II 11
Nil II '] ' II ] Vat II 12 ] :
ACSzG: Szj: Vat II s. 3 17 SzG Nil Vat: ACSzJ:
ed. Paris. 1540, quod Schweighuser ex eins apographo Bb [Par. gr. 2123]
recepit: ci. Reiske II 18 SzG Vat: ACSzJ M/ll s. 4
SzG:
19 Vat II 20
: : : (ex ortum) Nil:
[= ] (ex ortum) Vat:
Wolf in margine e Diss II ] II 21 om.
themselves too. 5 Man, first consider the nature of the undertaking,

next e x a m i n e your own constitution, w h e t h e r you can bear it. You
want to do the pentathlon or be a wrestler? Look at your arms, your
thighs, see what your loins are like. People are n o t all suited for the
same activities. 6 Do you think that, when you are d o i n g those
things, you can eat in the same way, drink in the same way, b e c o m e
angry a n d irritated in the same way? You will have to go without
sleep, work hard, be away f r o m your own people, be despised by a
slave, be laughed at by everyone, in everything get the worse of it, in
h o n o u r , in office, in court, in every affair. 7 Consider these things,
whether you are ready at the price of these things to secure tranquillity, f r e e d o m , calm; otherwise, do not even think of it; d o not, like
children do, be at o n e time a philosopher, then a tax-collector, then
a rhetorician, then a procurator of the Emperor; these things do not
go together. You must be o n e m a n , either good or bad; with your
own abilities you must either work on your governing principle or on
external things; improve either internal things or things outside; that
is, play the role either of a philosopher or of a non-philosopher.)
ch. 30 O u r duties are in general measured by relationships. H e is
your father: it is your duty to take care of him, to yield to him in all
things, to put u p with him when he abuses or beats you. "But he is a
bad father." Nature did not bring you into relationship with a good
father, did she, but with a father. Your brother does you wrong? Well,
maintain your position in relation to him, and d o not consider what
h e does, but consider what you will have to do, if you want to keep
your choice in accordance with nature. For o t h e r people will not do
c. 29 /([/{5. 1)][/| 4 20-21 - ) / t ( S / E / A 0 ) I s .
1)])(ss. -4)//Sib{SiGJ)///Tt|ss.
5-7)
c. 30 AC/Sz0(SiGJx)Iab 2 /7Tt'TSzC|ab 2 )
c. 30 resp. Simp. XXXVIII 3-4, XXXIX 3; fort. resp. P1eth., Virt. A 2 (3,9-16 T.); 1
Tct- aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XXXVII 1); 2-4 -
alterum resp. Olymp., in Grg. 24,3 (130,17-19 W.); 4-6 6- resp. Olymp., in Grg.
24,3 (130,19-21 W.)
s. 5 24-25 - sim. III 22,51
c. 30 cf. omnino II 14,8; II 17,31; II 21,12; III 2,4; III 3,7-9; III 11,5-6; III 21,5; 1
- sim. III 2,4; IV 12,16; 2-7 - cf. III 18,3; 2-4 alterum cf. II 10,7.10; 3 sim. III 12,10;
= I 12,22; 3-4 - alterum cf. I 12,28; III 3,5; 3 - sim. III 20,11; cf.
IV 1,43; 4 sim. III 24,11; 4-7 - cf. I 15,1-5; II 10,8.12-13; III
10,19; 6-7 - cf. IV 5,5; 7-8 - cf. IV 5,28
25
30
35
, ,
, .
; , ,
.
, ,
, ; , ,
, ,
, , , ,
, . , , , ,
, ,
, ,
-

- .}
c. 30 .
, ,
, . .
, ,
;
, ,
. ,
s. 5 23 ] (sic) Tt II om. Tt II 24 om. Tt II 25

Tt II TtSiG l1V Nil Vat: ACSzJ II ] Tt II s.
6 26 alterum] Tt II TtSiG Nil Vat : om. ACSzJ:
Schweighuser ex SiR [Par. gr. 1959] Il 27 om. Tt II Tt II Tt II , om. Tt II 28-30 alterum om. Tt
Il 28-29 SiG Nil Vat: om. ACSzJ:
Schweighuser e Diss II 30 alterum om. Nil II s. 7
31 [...) A (rasura): CSiJ II 32 prius om. ACTtSzJ II
ASiG Nil Vat : C.S'zJ: Tt: vel vel ci.
Reiske II Tt II ] Tt II om. Tt II 33 om. Tt II 34 ] Nil II prius om. Mill 35
CSiJ: Tt II scripsi: Tt Nil Vat : SiG:
ACSiJ II 36 TtSiG Nil Vat: om. ACSiJ
c. 30 1 om. S (praeter SGHJx) Par II 2 om. SiC II 3
Tt TSiC Diss Par: Nil: ACSz Vat II 4 om. Tt II
] SiC II ] , (sic) Wolf (potius , , ut solet
Epictetus; ita Meibom, Upton, Heyne) II ] Tt II 4-5
] T u v (sed ex , nisi fallor) II 5 om. SiC [5] II
] Tt II ] ACSiJx: Simp (XXXVII
127) II 5-6 om. SiC II 6 ] Tt II ] Tt II ]
(sic) SiC II prius] Tt: SiC II ] SiC II 7 ' Tt
TSiC Nil: Par: ACSi6 Vat II om. Vat II Tt
you any h a r m , if you d o not want it; only then will you be h a r m e d ,
when you believe that you are h a r m e d . In this way, therefore, you will
discover the appropriate actions to expect from a fellow-citizen, f r o m
a neighbour, f r o m a c o m m a n d e r , if you get into the habit of looking
at relationships.
ch. 31 1 With regard to piety towards the gods you should know
that the most i m p o r t a n t thing is to have the right o p i n i o n s a b o u t
t h e m , namely that they exist and administer the universe well a n d
justly, a n d to have set yourself to obey t h e m a n d to s u b m i t to
everything that h a p p e n s to you, and to follow it voluntarily, because it
is being b r o u g h t about by the highest intelligence. For in this way you
will never blame the gods n o r r e p r o a c h t h e m for neglecting you.
2 You can only realize this if you take away good and evil f r o m the
things that are not u n d e r our control, and place them exclusively in
the things that are u n d e r o u r control. For when you believe that any
of the things that are not u n d e r o u r control are either good or bad,
you will inevitably blame and hate those who are responsible, when
you fail to achieve what you want and fall into what you do not want.
3 For every living being by nature flees and avoids what it considers
to be h a r m f u l and all that produces it, and pursues and admires what
is useful a n d all that p r o d u c e s it. T h e r e f o r e it is impossible for
s o m e o n e who believes that he is being h a r m e d to enjoy what seems
to d o him h a r m , j u s t as it is impossible to enjoy the h a r m itself.
c. 30 AC/.Sz6(SiGJje)Iab 2 /7Tt'TSiC|ab 2 )
c. 31 AC/([nV/In][r/A/T(EA)])//Si&(SiGJx)(ab 2 |TSiC(ab
2 )
c. 31 s. 1 resp. Simp. XXXIX 3, XLIII 2; 1-2 - aff. SA/a[ BD (CEFGHJx)]
(XXXVIII 1-2); 3-5 - fort. resp. Pleth., Virt. B 4 (8,13-15 T.); 6
prius fort. resp. [Ant.] 72 (14 Ath.); s. 2 7-8 - prius usurp.
[Ant.] 87 (16 Ath.); 9-11 - resp. Simp. XVII 6-7; s. 3 1 1 - 1 3 cit. Simp. XIV 46-48
8 - cf. III 20,16; 9 cf. III 20,11

c. 31 s. 1 1-5 - cf. I 12,4-7; II 14,11; III 26,28; 2-3
' sim. I 12,7; II 16,33; fr. I 22-23; cf. III 26,18; 3
cf. I 12,7; 4-5 - cf. I 12,24-26; III 26,29; fr. IV 8-13; 4 '
cf. I 12,17; IV 7,7.9.20; 5 sim. I 12,23; III 5,9; IV 3,9; cf. I 12,25; 6 - cf. I 6,42; I 14,16; I 16,6; I 27,13; II
19,26; III 10,13; IV 7,9; IV 10,15; cf. III 24,113; III 26,28; s. 2 7-9
- prius cf. I 12,27; I 22,18; I 25,1-2; II 22,26; 9-11 - cf. I 22,15; I
27,11-12; III 4,6; 10 - alterum sim. II 1,31; s. 3 11-13 -
cf. II 22,15; IV 5,30; 14 sim. IV 7,11
, ,
10
, .
c.
31
, , ,
5
. ,
' '
,
10
, ,
,
,
, ' 15
8 bis deinceps Tt II ] Six Si C II

om. AzrM II 9 ] [4] SiC II (ter)J ci. Reiske (probante
Kronenberg (1909), 264) II prius] [4]
, ,
SzC II - Tt Nil, et ita legisse videntur fons codicis SzC (viele supra)
et Simp (XXXVII 291-319): - ACSib Vat2Pc ( ,
Par) II om. Vat 'dc2 II 10 Nil II ] SiC a c l
II TtSzG'*P c Nil: SzC: ACSz Vat II ]
Tt (= initium capitis sequentis)
c. 31 s. 1 1 Tt (vide supra ad 30,10) II om. SACDF II
SB II 2 SzC: per comp, ( vel ) II ] SzC II ]
[..1] SzC II 3 SzC II om. Nil II "Exspectaveram
" Schweighuser II 4 ] Nil II (= ) om. Simp
(XXXVIII 12-13.21.84-85.737-738) II om. Simp (ll.ee.) II 4-5 om.
Simp (ll.ee.) II 4 alterum om. SzC II 5 ] Szj Mill SzC II 6
SzC II SzC II II s. 2 7 TSzC [Ant.l Nil Par:
CbSib ( SzG'* sl ) Vat : ' A II SiG TSzC Nil Para Vat :
ACSzJ [Ant.] Par M II om. SzC Nil II Par, et
legisse videtur Simp (XXXVIII 86-87
' , ' ): A C S Z (
SZG'*s1, deleto) Nil Vat, et legit [Ant.]: SiC (nullo spatio vacuo) II 8
alterum om. SiC II 9 Mill 10 - om. II TSiC Diss II
1,31: () Nil: A C S Z Vat II 11 TSiC Simp (XXXVIII 31)
Nil Par: A'P c CSz Vat: A a c l (ut viel.) II ] Si C II s. 3 11
om. SiC [14] II om. Nil II 12-13 - om.
Vatac2 (ut viel.) II 12 om. Simp (XXXVIII 35) II 13 SiC II
ACSz Nil Vat, el legit Simp (XXXVIII 37; cf. XIV 48):
: om. TSiC II 14 ] Simp (XXXVIII 37) II 15 ]
II SiC II ] Simp (XXXVIII 39)
4 H e n c e too a father is abused by his son, when he does not give his
son a share of those things that seem to be good; this too m a d e an
Eteocles a n d a Polyneices, namely the fact that they c o n s i d e r e d
ruling a good thing; because of this, too, the f a r m e r abuses the gods,
a n d likewise the sailor, the merchant, the people who lose their wives
a n d their children. For where s o m e o n e ' s interest is, there is his piety
too. Accordingly, whoever takes care to desire and avoid as he should
do, takes care of piety at the same time. 5 But it is a p p r o p r i a t e to
everyone to make libations a n d sacrifices and to offer the first fruits
according to ancestral tradition, in a m a n n e r that is p u r e a n d not
slovenly nor careless, nor stingy nor beyond o n e ' s means.
ch. 32 1 Whenever you make use of divination, r e m e m b e r that
you do not know what will h a p p e n , but that you have c o m e to find
this out from the fortune-teller; yet you have come with knowledge of
its nature, if you really are a philosopher. For if it is o n e of the things
that are not u n d e r o u r control, it is inevitable that it is neither good
n o r bad. 2 T h e r e f o r e do not bring desire or aversion to the fortuneteller (otherwise, you will c o m e to him full of fear), but with the
conviction that everything that will h a p p e n is indifferent and nothing
to you, whatever it is (for you will be able to use it well, and nobody
will prevent you f r o m doing so)full of confidence, then, go to the
c. 31 /([/][//()])//5(.^)( :> 2 TSiC(ab

2
c. 32 AC/Si6(.SGJ)iab 2 |TSiCIab 2 )
s. 4 21 - aff. Simp. XIV 39-40
c. 32 s. 1 1-2 "- aff. SA/a[ BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXXIX 1-2)
s. 4 16-17 - cf. II 22,10; III 17,7; 17-18 prius sim.
IV 5,29; cf. II 22,13-14; 18-19 - sim. III 4,7; cf. II 22,17; 21 -
sim. I 27,14; cf. I 19,25; s. 5 23-25 - (Xen., Mem. I 3,3; de Socrate)
c. 32 cf. omnino II 7; s. 1 3 - cf. II 7,3; s. 2 5-6 - cf. II
7,10.12; 8-9 - cf. II 7,11
. ,

' ,

20
, ,
,
, .
,
25
.
c.
3 2 " ,
, , ,
' ,
, ( ,
),
, (
s. 4 16 ] II 17 om. Simp (XXXVIII 47) Par II

Simp (XXXVIII 48) II TSiC:
Diss: (+ Simp) ACSi Simp (XXXVIII 49) II 18 '
AC Sib (cf. Diss IV 5,29
): Nil: SiC: '
: : ' : Simp (XXXVIII 50-51)
praebet : Perottus vertit
persuasit, i.e. II SzG TSiC Simp (XXXVIII 52) Nil Vat: om. ACSiJ Par II
om. S i G a c l (ut viel.) Nil II 19 SiC II ] SiC II
prius] Vat II om. SiC [4] II 20 SiC II Nil II
( ) Nil II ACSiJ SiC:
Ni/M II 21 om. Si C II 22 ] Si C Nil II ] SiC: Nil W
ACSiJ II s. 5 23 ] SiC II 24 5 TSiC Simp
(XXXVIII 116) Vat : (lectio incerta) Para: ACSiJ: om. Par M II
] SiC II ] : Par II 25 prius] SiC: Nil II
] Simp (XXXVIII 150)
c. 32 totum caput om. Nil Par II s. 1 1 ] "mallem ; sic toto capite"
Reiske II 2 SACDFH et fort. ET (vix legibile) Il ] Vat II om.
TSiC II ] ACSiEJ II ] ACSiJ II 3 ]
SiC II om. Simp (XXXIX 22) II ACSiJ II om.
SiC II s. 2 5 prius om. SiC [2] II ACSi T S C , et legit Simp (XXXIX 1013.34-35): Vat II 6 ACSi Vat: TSiC II ]
SiC II 7 (= ) S.R. Slings (privatim): ' ACSiG TSiC Vat:
(absque ') SiJ (coniecerant Reiske et Casaubon; Simp
XXXIX 26) II ACSib Vat : : (absque ) SiC (quid
legerit Simp incertum [XXXIX 26-27]) II ASiG Vat II 8 ]
SiC II TSiC: ACSz Vat II om.
g o d s as to counsellors, a n d t h e n , w h e n you get s o m e advice,

r e m e m b e r w h o m you have taken as your counsellors a n d whose
advice you will disregard if you disobey. 3 Go to divination as
S o c r a t e s t h o u g h t p r o p e r , t h a t is, in cases w h e r e t h e w h o l e
investigation has reference to the outcome, and where there are n o
o t h e r m e a n s to obtain certainty a b o u t the matter at stake, n e i t h e r
f r o m reason n o r from any o t h e r technical art. Thus, whenever it is
necessary to share a danger with a friend or with your country, do not
ask the fortune-teller whether you must share the danger; for when
the f o r t u n e - t e l l e r tells you that the sacrifices have t u r n e d o u t
unfavourably, it is clear that this portends death, or the mutilation of
some part of your body, or exile; but reason requires that you stand
by your f r i e n d a n d share the d a n g e r of your country all the same.
T h e r e f o r e , pay attention to the greatest fortune-teller, the Pythian
Apollo, who threw out of his temple the man who did not help his
friend when he was being m u r d e r e d .
ch. 33 1 Lay down for yourself, at the outset, a certain character
a n d a pattern that you will maintain both when on your own a n d
when m e e t i n g o t h e r people. 2 Be silent for the most part, or say
only what is necessary, in a few words. W h e n , on rare occasions,
circumstances call for saying something, we will d o so, b u t a b o u t
n o t h i n g ordinary: not about gladiator-fights, not about horse-races,
c.
c.
32 A C / S I ( S T G J ) | a b
33'"1^1 A C / S 0 ( S G J )
2 )'TSIC(ab 2 )
jab 1 ov)TSC{ab 1 v|
s. 3 14-19 - resp. Simp. IX 17-19

c. 33 s. l-[3] aff. Stob. III 34,14 (SMA (seel A incipit in 6 () |; III
684,16-685,10 H.); resp. Simp. XLI 2-3; s. 1 1 - aff. SD (XL 1):
- aff. SA/a[ B (CEFGHJx) ] (XL 1); s. 2 cit. Olymp., in Org. 17,1 (96,1-4
W.); , 17,4 (99,18-22 W.); 5-10 prius cit. Simp. LI 32-37
9-11 - cf. II 7,14; s. 3 11-14 - (Xen., Mem. I 1,7-9);
14-15 - cf. II 7,3; 16-18 - cf. II 7,2; III 22,21-22; 18-19
'- cf. II 7,3; III 24,44; 19-21 - (cf. Ael., W i l l 44;
Simp. XXXIX 86-111)
c. 33 s. 2 4-6 - et 7-8 - cf. III 16,4

10
.
, '
15
,
'
.
20
.
c.
33
' ,

5
9 ] SzC II 10 SzC II (sic)

SzC II s. 3 12 ] SzC II 13 ] ' SzC II 14
SzC II ] SzC: Vat II 15 ] SzC'P c :
SiC a c II ACSi: TSiC: Vat II ] SzC II 16-21 - om. Vat (add. Vat2m) II 16
AC SzC: SiJ II SzC II 17 SzC II om.
SzC [8] II om. ACSiJ II 18 ci. Salmasius: SiG'* m K TSiC ( prius
ex ut vid. SzC 1 ): ACSi II 6 om. ACSi (habet SzG'* m K) II ] SzC II CSzJ: SzC II 18-19 SzC II 19 om.
ACSiJ II 20 ] Simp (XXXIX 88) II SiC
c. 33 s. 1-2 1-6 - om. Stob.A II s. 1 1 AC SE II ]
Nil: vel ci. Heyne: in lacuna scr. SC 1 II Stob. II 2
] SiC II ] II ] SiC II ]
Stob.S II s. 2 2 TSiC Stob. Nil Par: ACSi Vat II 2-3
Stob. II 3 ] SiC II om. SiC II 3-4 '-] ' ()
,
(sic Schenkl, sed suspicor vel - intellegendum esse^, ci. Reiske II 3 SiC II 4
ACSi ( S Z G ' * S 1 ) Vat: SiC Stob. II ]
Vat II ACSi TSiC Stob. Vat, et legisse videtur Simp (XL 44-45): om. Nil II
ACSi Stob. Nil Vat: SiC (de Simp nihil comperti est) II 5 SiC
Nil II ] Stob. II 5-10 prius]
, (
(sic) M a c l ; Hense) .
, ,
, |. Stob. II 5 TSiC Simp (XL
53) Nil: ACSi Diss Stob. Vat II alterum SiC Nil Vat?c2: ACSi
Vat2Pc ( Stob.)
n o t a b o u t athletes, not a b o u t f o o d or drink, the topics that are

discussed everywhere; a n d in particular do not speak a b o u t people,
blaming or praising or comparing them. [3] If, then, you are able to
do so, guide your own conversation and that of your c o m p a n i o n s to
appropriate topics; but if you find yourself alone amidst strangers, be
silent. 4 Do not laugh m u c h , n o r at many things, n o r without
restraint. 5 Avoid swearing an oath altogether, if it is possible;
otherwise, avoid it as far as circumstances allow. 6 Avoid b a n q u e t s
given by outsiders and by those who know n o t h i n g about philosophy.
But if sometimes the appropriate occasion arises, beware not to slip
into the behaviour of the non-philosopher. For you must know that,
if s o m e o n e ' s f r i e n d is dirty, it is inevitable that h e who is in his
company will get dirty as well, even if he himself h a p p e n s to be clean.
7 As to things that have to do with your body, take only what is
strictly necessary, like food, drink, clothing, housing, h o u s e h o l d
slaves; reject everything that is outward show or luxury. 8 With
regard to sex you should stay p u r e before marriage as far as you can.
If you indulge in sex, partake only of what is legitimate. Do not,
however, behave offensively or censoriously towards those who do
c. 33'-[3] AC/Si(SiGJ)[ab 1 ov)TSC[ab 1 v|

c. 33 4 " 5 A/ CWw/ /Tt
c. 33 6 A/CWw//Si(SiGJ)|ab 12 v)///Tt|12 -)T.SiC[ab
12 )
c. 33 7 A/CWw//St(SGJ) lab 17 )TSiC[ab 17 oov)
c. 33 8 A/CWw//S(.SGJ){ab 19 )'TSC|ab 19 )
s. 2 cit. Olymp., in Grg. 17,1 (96,1-4 W.); , 17,4 (99,18-22 W.); 5-10
prius cit. Simp. LI 32-37; s. 4 aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XLI 1); Stob. III
5,59 (MA; III 279,9 H.); cit. [Max.], Loc. comm. 64 (col. 997B); Simp. LI 12-13; s. 5
aff. .SA/a[ BD (CEFGHJx)] (XLII 1-2); Stob. III 27,12 (LS MA; III 613,7-8 H.); s. 6
aff. Stob. III 5,60 (MA; III 279,11-280,2 H.); cit. [Max.], Loc. comm. 64 (col. 997B);
fort. resp. [Ant.] 147 (23 Ath.); 12 - aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)]
(XLIII 1); s. 7 resp. Simp. XLVII 2, LVII 4-6; 16 - aff.
SA/ [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XLIV l ) ; s . 8 resp. Simp. XLVII 2; 18-19 -
aff. SA/a[ BD (CEFGHJx)] (XLV 1); 20-21 -]
, , , ,
, (= Simp. XLV 28-29) .SA ad instar lemmatis praebet;
, (= Ench 33^,20) .SB ad instar
lemmatis praebet, Simpiicii verba omittens
7-8 - cf. III 16,4; [s. 3] 8-10 v-oicimacf. III 16,1; gnom. Stob.
(C) 25; s. 6 cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 25; 13-14 - cf. III 16,6; 14-16
'- cf. III 16,1.3; s. 7 cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 17
,
. ,

10
[3]
, ,
. , , , ,
, . , ,
15
, -
, , , , ,
,

20
. ,
6 ] Olymp, (priore loco; habet altera loco) II ]

/ ] . SzC II 7 AC Sib Vat, et legisse videtur Simp
(XL 52: ): om. SzC Stob. NilU om. Stob. Il
] : om. SzC II Stob. Nil II 7-8
SiG Slob. Nil Vat, et sic legisse videtur Simp (XL 57-58.61-62) :
ACSzJ: :
SzC II 7 om. SzC Par II 7-8 non legisse
videtur Olymp, (bis) Il [s. 3] 8 C SzC Simp (XL 80, LI 35; sed
LI 36) Stob. Nil Vat : ASzJ: SzG T Par II ]
edd. ex ed. princ. Haloandri (1529), ubi Kaiomittitur (i.e.
Haloandri ingenio debetur) II om. SzC Stob. II 8-9
om. Stob. II 9 ] SzC: om. SzG II SzG Val, et legunt
SimpAB (XL 81): ACSzJ T.S'zC (sed prius post corr. ut vid. in A) Nil,
et legunt SzwzpCDEFGHJx (I.e.) II s. 4 10 ] [Max.] II 10-11
om. Stob. [Max.] Il s. 5 12 ACWw II s. 6 12-16 -]
( ) .
( Hense) , . ,
, ( A a c l )
(ultima tria verba om. [Max.]) Stob. [Max.] II 12 ] S (praeter SEJ, sed
S J l m S ; punctis ciel. S G ' V ) Vat II 13 om. Stob. [Max.] Il II
Nil: SzC: ACWwSz Vat, et legit Simp (XLIII 18):
Par II 1 4 ] : Stob. [Max.]: S zC 11
Par II 15 om. SzC [4] II ACWwSzJ SiC Simp
(XLIII 22 ) Par, et legisse videtur [Ant.]: SzG Simp
(XLIII 19 ) Nil Vat II 15-16 - om. SzC [Max.] Stob. Par II 16
II II s. 7 16 om. S II :
CWw SE II 17-18 -] - Nil II 18 ] SzC II s. 8 1 8
SA Vat: II 19 SzC II om. SzC II S Z G ' * S 1
TSiC Simp (XLV 23): ACWwSz Vat II 20 om. SzC [2] II SzC ac :
SzC'P c (etiam p.c.; incertum quid fuerit): C a c 1 II
alterum] [2] SzC
indulge, a n d d o n o t state time a n d again that you do not indulge

yourself. 9 W h e n s o m e o n e reports to you that so-and-so is speaking
ill of you, do not d e f e n d yourself against what is said, but answer, "He
obviously did not know my o t h e r faults, or h e would not have mentioned these only." 10 It is not necessary to go to the public shows
o f t e n . If sometimes the a p p r o p r i a t e occasion should arise, d o not
show clearly that you are c o n c e r n e d with anyone else but yourself,
that is, only wish to h a p p e n what is h a p p e n i n g a n d only wish the
winner to win; for in that way you will not be i m p e d e d . Abstain altog e t h e r f r o m shouting or laughing at anyone or being immoderately
excited. And after you have left, do not speak m u c h about what has
h a p p e n e d , except in so far as it contributes to your own improvement; for from such behaviour it becomes clear that you admired the
spectacle. 11 Do not go rashly or readily to public lectures by some
people; a n d when you go, maintain your dignity a n d equanimity, a n d
d o not b e c o m e offensive to others. 12 W h e n you are about to m e e t
s o m e o n e , especially o n e of the p e o p l e enjoying high esteem, ask
yourself what Socrates or Zeno would have d o n e in such circumstances, a n d you will not be at a loss to deal with the situation properly. 13 W h e n you go to see someone with great power, say to yourself
that you will not find him at home, that you will be shut out, that the
doors will be slammed in your face, that he will pay no attention to
you. And if it is your duty to go all the same, go and take things as
they c o m e , a n d never say to yourself, "It was n o t worth all the
trouble"; for that is the behaviour of a non-philosopher, that is, a
c. 33 9 /(//([/][//(//)])///.$(5|))1) 22 X)////TtTSiC(ab
22 )
c. 33AC/S(SzGJ)|ab 25 ei)//Tt{ab 27 )TSC(25-26 -)
c. 33 1 1 A/CWw//Si(SiGJ){ab 32 mpuv)///Tt'TSiClab 32 )
c. 3 3 1 - /([/][//(//) ])//Si(S'GJ)|ab 34 )-
c. 3 3 1 3 A/CWw//S(SzGJ)|ab 36 )///TSzC|ab 36 )
s. 9 imit. Chrys., Horn. in Ada Apost. XIV,4 (col. 118); 21-22 - aff.
.SA/[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (XLV1 1-2); s. 10 resp. Simp. XLVIII 2; 24-25 -
aff. SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XLVII 1); s. 11 31-32 - aff. SA/[BD
(CEFGHJx)] (XLVIII 1); s. 12-13 resp. Simp. LI 3; s. 12 33-34 - aff.
SA/ [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XLIX 1-2); s. 13 36 - aff. SA/a[B
(CEFGHJx)] (L 1): - aff. SD (L 1)
s. 9 21-22 - cf. III 18,2; s. 10 25-27 - cf. III 4,10-11; s. 11 cf.
omnino III 23; s. 12 cf. II 13,14.17.24; 33-34 - cf. I 30,1; s. 13 36-38
- cf. II 6,6-8; IV 7,20; 40 = II 6,23
25
30
35
40
.
, ,
,
.
. ,
,
.
.
,

.
-
, ,
,
,
. ,
, , , .
,

21 om. SiC Simp (XLV 29) II ] II
ACWwSzJ (in A fortasse aliquid erasum post ) II ] ACWwSzJ Vat:
SiC II s. 9 21 S (praeter SG) II 22 II om. SiC
[4] II 23 ] [3] SiC II ACWw<M.S'zEGJ SzC II om. SzC
[3] II om. WwTt II alterum om. ACWwSzJ II 24 (praeter )
SzC Vat II ] Chrys. II Tt II s. 10 24 om. AC SE II 25
( SzC) TSzC:
Par , SzG Vat ', ACSzJ II
] [2][5] SzC ( ex ut vid. SzC 1 ) II 26 ] SzC II
] SzC II 27 om. Tt (in voce incipiens) II 28 del. Reiske II
ACSz ( SzG1**1) Vat II 29 ] ci. Reiske II s. 11 31 Nil II Tt SG1**1 Nil Par, et legisse videtur Simp (XLV1II 7-8
): ACWw Sa Vat: SA II ] Mill 32 ] Nil II
] : Simp (XLV1II 12) Il s. 12 33
S (praeter SEJ l s l x) Nil Vat: : AC 5|' | ^
II ] II 34 ] vel ci. Reiske II
A C S Z Vat: Nil II om. Nil II ] Vat II 35 ]
ACSzJx II s. 13 36 om. SD II Tt II scripsi:
ACWwSzG'* sl J : () SzC /: /:
Tt (ex 33 1 2 ,34): Si G (seel SzG1**1) Vat II 37
] SzC II Nil:
ACWwTtSz ( S Z G ' * S 1 ) Vat: SzC II 38 SzC II 38-39
-] - Vat II 38 ] SzC II Nil II 39 TtSzG
TSzC Nil Vat: om. ACWwSzJ II M/M II 40 Diss Nil:
ACWwTtSz Vat: SzC II ] Tt II ed. Haloandri (1529): ci. Wolf
10
11
12
13
m a n who takes offence at externals. 14 In your conversations avoid

to s p e a k o f t e n a n d excessively a b o u t y o u r own d e e d s or
p r e d i c a m e n t s ; f o r to you it may be pleasant to recall your own
predicaments, but to others it is not just as pleasant to listen to what
has h a p p e n e d to you. [15] Take care, too, to avoid raising a laugh;
for this is a place from which you may easily slip into vulgarity, and at
the same time it is likely to diminish your n e i g h b o u r s ' respect for
you. [16] It is also risky to fall into foul language. So whenever
something like this occurs, go as far as to criticize the o n e who uses
such language, if the situation permits you to do so; otherwise, make
it clear that you are displeased by such language, by keeping silent
a n d blushing and frowning.
ch. 34 When you get the impression of some pleasure, j u s t as in
the case of o t h e r impressions, beware not to get carried away by it,
c. 3 3 1 3 A/CWw//Sz(SzGJ)(ab 36 )///^'TSiC[ab 36 )
c. 3315] AC/Si(SiGJ)(ab 42 o|//TtTSiC(ab 42 )
c. 33[ l f i l AC/Si(SzGJ)//Tt[46-47 -)T.SiC
c. 34 /([/][//() ])//Sz(Sz'GJ)|ab 2 ']/// 'TSiC
{ab 2 ')
s. 14 aff. Stob. III 35,10 a (SMABr; III 689,14-690,3 H.); 41-42 - aff.
SA/ [BD (CEFGHJx)] (LI 1-2); s. [15-16] aff. Stob. III 1,102 (A; III 51,10-19 H.);
[s. 15] 44-45 - cit. [Max.], Loc. comm. 64 (col. 997B)
c. 34 aff. Stob. III 17,19 (SMA [lectiones coclicis Br ex Ench interpolati non
citantur); III 494,5-15 H.); imit. [Ant.] 167 (26 Atb.); 1-7 "- aff. Eng.,
Theod. 86,30-87,3 L.; 1-2 "- aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (LU 1-2); 2 ' (sc. ) cit. Simp. VI 12
s. 14 cf. I 25,15; [s. 16] 46-49 - cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 25
c. 34 1-3 "- cf. II 18,24-25
.
.
,
.

.
. , , ,
.
c. 3 4
" ,
' , '
s. 14 41-44 -] ( ) ( )
( MI)C [ in rasiira] ) ,
, (acid, M l m K)
(add. Br.) . Stob. II 41 TtSG 1 *' 1 :
Par: (vel ) SACDEFH (N.B. falso
scripsit Hadot) Stob.: AC SH' s 'j'P c x
( ,SJac): .SB Vat:
.SG Nil II ] Nil II 42 om. Tt: in lacuna scr. SiC II 43 prius om. Nil II
43-44 - om. A Vat II 43 II post itrt
Tt II 44 Stob. II ] SiG Nil II [s. 15-16] 44-49 ]
( om. [Max.])
(hactenus habet et [Max.])
. j a
, ,
, , . , . Stob. Il [s. 15] 45 ACTtSzG'* m KJ
Stob, (bis) [Max.] Simp (LI 14) Vat: SzG Nil: SzC'P c :
SiC'C_ II Nil II ] Nil II post (46)
transp. Stob. II ] SiC II 46 ] Nil II TSz'C Stob. Nil: Tt
AC Sib Vat II [s. 16] 46 om. Tt II 47 Tt TSzC Nil Par:
ACSz Vat : Stob. II Nil II ] : om.
SzC II ] ' SzC II SzG Stob. Nil Par Vat : SzC: om. ACSzJ II 47-48
(sic) SzC II 48 ] Nil: SzC II alterum] A Nil Vat II ACSz Vat: Nil: om. TSiC Simp (LI
31) Stob. Par II Simp (I.e.) II 48-49 Stob. II 49
om. TSiC Par II ACSzJ II Stob. II
SzG SzC II SzC
c. 34 1-10 "Otav-] ,
, , ,
, ( S a c 1 ) . ( S) ' ,
, ' , (ita A a c , nisi forte fuit: A-P c :
SM) .
, ( )
, . Stob. II 1 "] A C T SEJ lm Kx m K:
: (lectio incerta) Eug.: () : SB II ^ ]
( ) Par II [Ant.] II 1-2
. [Ant.] Eug. Par II 2 ] [Ant.] II SACDFGHJ
(non ita SBE; deest Sx) Il ' ] SzC Nil
but let the matter wait for you and give yourself a little time to think.
Next think of both these moments: the m o m e n t that you will enjoy
the pleasure, a n d the m o m e n t that, having enjoyed the pleasure, you
will c o m e to regret it and blame yourself; a n d set against these how
glad you will be when you have r e f r a i n e d f r o m it and how you will
praise yourself. When, however, it seems to be the right m o m e n t to
take action, be attentive that its enticement and attractiveness do not
get the better of you, but set against it how m u c h better it is to be
conscious of having won this victory over it.
ch. 35 Whenever you do s o m e t h i n g with the conviction that it
should be d o n e , never try not to be seen while doing it, even if most
p e o p l e will j u d g e it unfavourably. For if you are not doing the right
thing, avoid the d e e d itself; a n d if you do the right thing, why be
afraid of those who will criticize you wrongly?
ch. 36 Just as the statements It is day and It is night can be
used for making a disjunctive proposition [either it is day or it is
night], but not for making a conjunctive one [*if it is day, it is night],
c. 34 AC/([nV/M][r/A/*(ELA)])//S(SiGJ){ab 2 ')/// TSiC

(ab 2 ')
c. 35 A/<^w//(Q[n*P/<M2][r/A/t(ELA)])///Sz(SiGJ){ab 3 |////
T.SiC(ab 3 )
c. 36 AC/Si0(SiG(totum caput)J(ab 3 o\kco))//TtT.SzC(ab 3 )
c. 35 1-3 "Otav- aff. .SA/[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (LUI 1-3)
c. 36 1-2 - aff. SA/ [BD (CEFGHJx)] (LIV 1-3)
4-7 - cf. III 25,1; 9-10 '- cf. II 18,22
c. 35 2-3 - sim. II 20,11
c. 36 1 - sim. I 25,11; II 16,2

, '
5
'
,
, '
.0
.
c . 3 5 " ,
,
. ,
- , ;
c. 36
3 ] ACSi Vat ( SiG 1 **'): om. SiC II ] II ]

SiC a c Eug. Nil Val : SiC>Pc II 4 ] SiC II Eug.:
: NMP II 5 Nil II 6 Tt: SiC 1 Pc
II ACqFASZ Par Vat : t Stob.: TSiC: Tt Nil
II SiC II 7 6TtSiG Nil Vat: ACSzJ: Slob. Par :
SiC II Slob.: SiC II TSiC Stob. Nil:
A'P c CSi Vat: A a c ' Simp (LU 43): Tt II 8 ] S i G a c l Vat II ] II Tt TSiC Simp (LII 44) Stob., et legisse
videtur Par: 5 Nil Vat II 9 TSiC Simp (I.e.) Stob.:
ACTt bSib Nil Par Vat II ] Nil: [Ant. ] II om. SiC II
TtSiG Vat II ACSiJ SiC Nil: : TtSiG Par Vat
II 10 Par
c. 35 1 om. S (praeter SBG) Vat II SCDFHJ ( SJ l m K):
SE II ] .SACDEFH1 m KJ ( liabent SBGHJ 1 m x) Vat: Nil
II ante transpos. Par II Tt .SB Nil II 2
SCDFH: S J a c l (. . . Sj'P c ) II 2-3
ACWw SBEGJx Vat: SACDFH Nil:
Tt II 3-4 - prius om. Nil II 3 II 4
Tt TSiC II ] SzC
c. 36 1 - alterum om. M/MP II ACSiG:
SB: Vat (cf. Simp LIV 18-19.29-30.33-34):
TtSiG'* m K: S (praeter SB; SH):
() Simp (LIV 8.12-13.26-27.30-31): S J a c l ,
probantibus Schweighuser et Koraes (acld. S j ' s ' ) :
SiG 1 ** 1 (coniecerat Reiske) II 1-2 - om. SB II 1 ] T t a c l (ut viel.) II
[..] S A a c l II 2 ] SD: SEFGHJx II ]
Vat II 2-4 - om. ACSzJ II 2 ]
SB SiG Nil: SC Vat II Tt Vat:
[4] SC
so too picking out the greatest portion at a b a n q u e t may be valuable

for your body, but it is worthless for preserving social feeling in the
way o n e should. So whenever you are having d i n n e r with s o m e o n e ,
what you should bear in m i n d is not only what the quality of the
dishes does for your body, but also how the quality of your behaviour
towards your host must be observed.
ch. 37 If you are u n d e r t a k i n g a role that exceeds your capacities,
you both disgrace yourself in that task and you fail to achieve what
you could have done.
ch. 38 Just as in walking a r o u n d you take care not to step on a nail
or twist your foot, so take care also n o t to h a r m your g u i d i n g
principle. And if we observe this rule in every action, we shall set
about every action more securely.
ch. 39 T h e measure of possessions for each m a n is his body, just as
the foot is the measure of the shoe. If you abide by this principle, you
will m a i n t a i n the m e a s u r e ; b u t if you step beyond it, you will
inevitably fall into a precipice in the end; j u s t as in the case of the
c. 36 AC/S0(.SiG(totum caput)J(ab 3 o\koa))//Tt'TS?C[ab 3 )

c. 37 AC/Tt
c. 3 8 AC/(q[/][//() ]) / / S J 6 ( S G J ) |ab 2 )TSiC[totum
caput)
c. 39 /([/][//() ])//Si6(SiGJ)|ab 2 priore]TSC[ab
2 priore)
c. 37 aff. SA/ [BD (CEFGHJx)] (LV 1-2; SD acid, (= 38,1))
c. 38 aff. Eng., Theod. 86,20-23 L.; 1-2 '- aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (LVI 12)
c. 39 aff. Stob. IV l,32 a ,13 (SMA; IV 2,783,6-12 H.); resp. Simp. XLIV 4; 1
- aff. SA/[BD(CEFGHJx)] (LVII 1-2); usurp. Clem., Paed.
3,7,39,1 (I 259,12-13 S.); - fort. resp. [Max.], Loc. comm. 13 (col. 804D);
Mel., Loc. comm. I 36 (col. 901C)
3-7 - cf. II 4,8.10; fr. XVII
c. 38 4 sim. III 21,12
c. 39 cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 17

, . ,
,
.
c.
3 7 ,
.
c.
3 8
,
.
'
'
.
c . 3 9 , .
, ,
3 prius om. Simp (LIV 34) II om. Si C II Tt Simp {I.e.) II

Tt II om. II ] Simp (I.e.):
Val II om. SiC II 4 prius T, et legit Simp (LIV 36): om. ACTtSi
SiC Nil Vat II TSiC Simp (I.e.): ACTtSi ( S Z G ' * S ' )
Vat : Nil II ] SiC II ] ci. Koraes (ex Simp LIV 40) Il ]
ACSiJ II ACSiJ: SiG ( SiG'* s '): SiC II
SiC ( prius p.c. SiC 1 ) II 5 om. Val II ACSiJ: SiC II
om. Nil II 5-6 -] (sic) Tt II 6 ]
SiC II 7 ACTtSz: Nil:
SiC Val (cum cockl. fere congruit Simp LIV 39-40
, ): ci. Koraes:
ci. Schweighuser
c. 37 1 ] SC: SD II 2 ] SA:
(sic) Nil
c. 38 1 Par II ] SC:
SD II ] SiC: Eug. II 2 TSiC SA II ] S
(praeter SE) Nil II ] [4] SiC II ]
: SiC (seel spatium vacuum ante ; vide acln. praeced.) II 3
] [1] SiC II : SiC: Nil II 4 ] [6] (sic) SiC II r S i J a c l
Vat II Par : [6] SiC: Simp (LVI 22):
Nil: AC bSib Vat
c. 39 1-6 -] , .
, ,
. , ,
. , ,
, . Stob. II 1 Par II S (praeter SBEG)
Clem. Nil: om. Stob. II : Par II 2 (praeter ) SiC Stob.
Par Vatac2: ACIUPSSz T VaPc: Nil II ACSzEJ SiC:
ParMP II ] SiC II ] SiC: Stob. II (sic) SiC II
om. Par II 3 ] Par II
om. SiC [5] II ] SiC II 3-4 -]
Stob. II 3 om. SiC II ] ParII ] ACSzJ
shoe, if you step beyond the foot, you will first have a gilded shoe,
then a p u r p l e one, then an e m b r o i d e r e d one. For there is no limit to
a thing once it has gone beyond its measure.
ch. 40 W o m e n are called ladies by m e n as soon as they a r e
fourteen years old. Accordingly, when they see that they have nothing
else, except sleeping with men, they start dressing u p a n d placing all
their hopes in that. It is therefore worthwhile to make them realize
that they are h o n o u r e d for nothing else than appearing modest and
self-respecting.
ch. 41 It shows lack of talent to spend excessive time on the things
that c o n c e r n the body, for instance m u c h exercise, m u c h eating,
m u c h drinking, m u c h defecating, having sexual intercourse. These
things should be d o n e in passing, your whole attention should be
devoted to your mind.
ch. 42 W h e n s o m e o n e does you wrong or speaks ill of you,
r e m e m b e r that he does or says so because he thinks that it is his duty.
T h e r e f o r e it is impossible that he acts on what appears to you, but he
must act on what appears to himself; accordingly, if his o p i n i o n is
wrong, the man who has been deceived is the o n e who suffers the
h a r m . For if s o m e o n e believes a true conjunctive proposition to be
false, it is not the conjunctive proposition that suffers the harm, but
c. 39 AC/(q[/][//() ])//SZ(SiGJ) (ab 2 prius)TSZC(ab
2 prius)
c. 40 A/CWw//Si(SiGJ)(ab 2 )TStC(tantum 2 []
praebens)
c. 41 AC/Si(SGJ)(ab 1 otov)'T.SiC(l-2 -)
c. 4 2 A C / ( e [ n V ^ n ] [ r / A / i : ( B : E A ) ] ) / / S i ( S i G J ) ( a b 1 )TSiC(ab
1 )
c. 40 1-2 - aff. SA/[ BD(CEFGHJx) ] (LVIII 1-2)
c. 41 1 '- aff. SA/| BD (CEFGHJx) ] (LXIX 1)
c. 42 1-6 "- aff. Stob. III 1,119 (MA; III 84,16-85,6 H.); 1 "Otav aff. SA/a[ BD (CEFGHJx) ] (LX 1); 2-3 - fort. resp. Pleth., Virt. B 7
(10,8-10 T.); 4-6 alterum imit. Simp. XXIX 21-22
c. 41 2-3 , , sim. I 6,14
c. 42 cf. omnino I 28,1-10; IV 5,1-12; 1-4 "- cf. I 28,10; 3-1 cf. II 13,18; III 18,5; 4-6 alterum cf. I 29,51
, ,
, ,
.
c. 40
,
, ,
.
'
.
c. 41 ,
, , ,
, ,
.
c. 42 " , ,
, ,
.
,
4 ] (sic) Nil II ]
Simp (LVII 15; cf. Par.; et
Stob.): om. SiC [6] II ] : SiC: Simp (LVII 15):
Nil: Stob. II ] NilW 5 ]
SiC Vat II (bis)] ' Nil II ] SiC II 6 ] II
(deest ) Stob. Par Vat : TSiC: ACSi6 Nil II om. Par
c. 40 1 ] ' SDF: ' SHJx: SC II
1-2 om. SCDFH (post transp. SJx) II 1 ]
ASG ( SG'* s l ) II 3 ACWwSiJ II 4 ] Nil II 5 Nil Vat :
ACWw Si II 6 ] ACWw Si
c. 41 1 AC: SG ( SG 1 sl ): SC: SE II prius om.
Par II 2 (ter)] Nil II 3 ] Vat: Par:
'dc2
ci. Upton: om. Nil II 4 Nil II om. Vat
c. 42 1 Nil Vat: SACDFHJx (cf. Parti ) : AC
SEEG Stob. II ] AC SBEG Stob.: II ] AC SB EG:
Stob. II 1-2 ] ParII 2 [2]
SiC II : SiC II om. SiC [3] Stob. Par II II 2-3-]
; ; Stob. II 2 om. SiC II 2-3
II 3 om. SiC II om. SiC [6] II ] Stob. II
] SiC II ACSi6 Nil: Stob.:
SiC Vat II 4 -] ; .
; . Stob. II Stob. NUM., et legisse videtur Par :
A C0Si0 SiC NilP Simp (LX 12; sec! constanter : LX
11.13.18.23.26) (cf. Diss I 28,10 ,
' ): Vat II SiG Vat: T u v S i C
Nil: ACSiJ II 5 ] Stob.A
the m a n with t h e w r o n g o p i n i o n . So when you start o u t f r o m these

considerations, you will be gentle with the m a n who abuses you; for
o n each occasion you must say, "So it seemed best to him".
ch. 43 Everything has two handles, o n e by which it can be carried,
o n e by which it c a n n o t . If your b r o t h e r treats you unjustly, d o n o t
take the m a t t e r by the h a n d l e that h e treats you unjustly (for by this
h a n d l e the matter c a n n o t be carried), but rather by this o n e , that h e
is your b r o t h e r , that h e was b r o u g h t u p with you; a n d t h e n you will
take it by the h a n d l e by which it can be carried.
ch. 44 T h e s e statements are incompatible: "I am richer than you,
so I am s u p e r i o r to you"; "I am m o r e e l o q u e n t t h a n you, so I am
s u p e r i o r to you". T h e s e are m o r e compatible: "I am richer than you,
so my p r o p e r t y is superior to yours"; "I am m o r e e l o q u e n t than you,
so my e l o q u e n c e is superior to yours". But you are n e i t h e r p r o p e r t y
nor eloquence.
ch. 45 S o m e o n e bathes quickly: d o n o t say, "He bathes badly", b u t
"He b a t h e s quickly". S o m e o n e drinks m u c h wine: d o n o t say, "He
drinks badly", but "He drinks m u c h " . For before knowing his motives,
how d o you know that it is bad? In that way it will n o t h a p p e n to you
that you receive convincing sense-impressions of s o m e things a n d
give your assent to others.
c. 42 (([/2][//() ])//Si(SiGJ) {ab 1 )'TStC(ab

1 )
c. 4SAC/([n*/M]s[r/AIV/t(aLA)])//S(SiGJ)iab 2 )///Tt'TSiC
ftantum 2 )
c. 44 AC/St(SiGJ)|ab 2 altero)TSiC]tantum 3 -)
e. 45 AC/Sz6(SiGJ)(ab 2 ivei|//Tt{ab 2 )TS C(ab 2 )
c. 43 aff. Stob. III 1,99 (A; III 49,16-50,2 H.); 1-2 - aff.
SA/a[ BD (CEFGHJx)] (LXI 1-2); 2-5- libr cit. Olymp., in Grg. 24,3
(130,19-21 W.)
c. 44 1-2 - prius aff. SA/D(CEFGHJx) (LXII 1-2): 1 - aff.
SB (LXII 1-2)
c. 45 1-2 - aff. SA/] BD (CEFGHJx) ] (LXIII 1-2)
6-7 - cf. I 28,10; IV 5,9; 8 = I 11,31; sim. II 13,18
c. 44 cf. omnino III 14,11-14; fr. XVIII; gnom. Stob. (C) 15
c. 45 1-2 - sim. IV 8,2; 3 - cf. IV 8,3
, ' 6 .
'
.
c. 4 3 , ,
. ,
( ), '
, , ' .
c. 44 ,
, . ,
,
. .
c. 45 , '
, - , '
, , ;

, .
6 A S i G T S i C Simp (LX 20) Nil Vat: ACtSiJ (lectio

incerta) Simp (XXIX 21, luinc locum imitans) Stob. II ] SiC:
Stob. II 6-8 - om. Stob. II 6 om. SiC Nil II ] SiC II 7 ' SiC II '] SiC: om. (praeter ) II T l l v SiC Nil:
ACSi Simp (LX 28) Vat II om.
c. 43 1 ] Stob. II ] Tt T u v II ] - Stob. II 1-2 - Nil II 2 ]
(sic) Tt: Nil.:
Nil II om. Vai a c 2 II Stob. II TtSiG Vat II 3 - om. Stob. II
] Tt II Tt II 4 om. Stob. II ]
Olymp. II om. Stob. II ] Nil II ] Stob.
II 5 om. ACSiJ
c. 44 1 ] SCDFHJx II SB Nil Par II AC T SBEGJx
Vat: om. SACDFH Nil Par II 2 prius om. II prius]
Nil II , om. SiE SiC II
alterum om. Parll 3 : Par II ACSiT: om. Nil
Vat II 4 Nil II 4-5 - om. Nil II 5 (bis)] Vat 2PC II
] ParM Vat II om. ParM Vat: Para
c. 45 2 om. Si C [4] Il 3 Nil II Tt Nil: ASiG: CSiJ:
TSiC Vat ( vel legit Simp LXIII 10.13.18; cf. IV 8,3
) II om. Tt II ACTtS: TSiC Nil Vat II ]
Tt II ] / 4 ] SiC II Nil: ACTtSz SiC Vat, et
legisse videtur Simp (LXIII 16-22): om. II ] ACTtSi: ' Simp
(LXIII 20) II ] SiC II 5 ACTtSz II ] Tt ' Simp (LXIII 21)
ch. 46 1 Do not call yourself a philosopher on any occasion, a n d

d o not talk m u c h a b o u t philosophic principles in the presence of
non-philosophers, b u t practise what follows f r o m the philosophic
principles. For instance, at a b a n q u e t do not say how people should
eat, but eat as p e o p l e should. For r e m e m b e r that Socrates h a d
e l i m i n a t e d o s t e n t a t i o n so completely that p e o p l e c a m e to him
b e c a u s e they w a n t e d him to b r i n g t h e m i n t o c o n t a c t with
philosophers, and he took them along; so little did he care that h e
was being i g n o r e d . 2 And when a discussion arises a b o u t s o m e
philosophic principle a m o n g non-philosophers, keep silent for the
most part; for there is a fair risk that you will spew out immediately
what you have not digested. And when s o m e o n e says to you that you
know nothing, a n d you are not hurt, then you may be convinced that
you are making a b e g i n n i n g with your task. For sheep, too, do n o t
bring their food to the shepherds to show them how much they have
eaten, but after they have digested their food within themselves, they
p r o d u c e wool and milk outside themselves; you too, therefore, do not
show the philosophic principles to the non-philosophers, but show
them the deeds that result from the principles as digested by you.
ch. 47 W h e n you have b e c o m e a d a p t e d to simple living with
regard to your body, do not make a show of it; and when you drink
water, d o not say on every occasion that you are drinking water. And
if ever you want to train yourself to e n d u r i n g physical discomfort, d o
it by yourself, and not in the presence of outsiders. Do not e m b r a c e
statues; but on occasion when you are very thirsty, take a m o u t h f u l of
water a n d spew it out, and do not tell anyone.
c. 46 A/<^w//(Q[nV^][r/ArY/T(EEA)])///Si(S2GJ)|ab 2 )
TSiCltantum '2-3-]
c. 47 AC/Si(SiGJ){ab 2 ''TSiCltantum 2-3 '-)
c. 46 s. 1 1-2 - prius aff. SA/D(CEFGHJx) (LXIV 1-2); 1
- aff. SB (LXIV 1); s. 2 10-13 - aff. Stob. II 15,39 (L; II 191,18192,2 W.)
c. 47 resp. Olymp., in Grg. 17,3 (99,2-6 W.), I. 4-5 -' libr redclens; fort,
resp. Byz. 186 (196 W.); 1-2 '- aff. SA/a[ BD (CEFGHJx)] (LXV 1-2)
c. 46 s. 1 1 - = III 21,23; cf. III 26,7; IV 1,113; IV 8,15; 1-2
- alterum cf. III 21,4; III 24,118; - prius cf. II 19,8;
II 21,17; 3 - alterum cf. IV 8,17; 3-6 - cf. III 5,17; III
23,22; IV 8,22-23; 5-6 - = III 23,22; IV 8,22-23; s. 2 7-8 - cf. I
29,32; 8 - sim. III 21,1; cf. I 26,16; 8-10 - cf. III 2,9-10; 9
cf. IV 8,23; 10-12 - cf. II 9,18; 12-13 alterum cf. III 21,3
c. 47 2-3 '- sim. III 14,4-6; 3-4 - et 4-5 -' = III 12,17; 4
- cf. III 12,2.10; IV 5,14
c . 4 6 ' ,
, ,
, ' .
5
'
,
,
.
' ,
10
, ,

, ' ' .
c.
4 7 " , -
' ,
, ,
.
5
c. 46 s. 1 1 ] Par II 2
] SACDFHJ ( , post hanc vocem deficiens; deest SB): Par II prius SACDFHJ
(deest SB) Vat: ACWw SEG Nil: (absque ) Par (
Simp LXIV 44) II - r A r y S t G
TSzC Vat, et legisse videtur Simp (LXIV 17-19): om. ACWwtStEJ Nil Par II xTSiC
Val : PATySiG (ceteri desunt) Il 3 om. Par Val II 4 II
] Nil II ] Vat II
] II 5-6 - om. II 5 om. ACWwSi II
] Diss (III 23,22; IV 8,22) II ' [= ]
(sic) Nil II Diss (//.er.), et legit Simp (LXIV 38):
ACWwSz Nil: Vat II Simp (I.e.) 116 ]
Diss III 23,22: Diss IV 8,23: () Nil
Il s. 2 7 Schweighuser ex [Par. gr. 2122]: () vel () Vat (scriba voluit
vel ) : ACWwSz ( s.l. SiG 1 *) T Nil ( non legisse videtur Simp
(LXIV 24) ) II Vat II (sic) Nil II 8 Simp
(LXIV 5.27) Nil Vat: ACWwSz II 9 om. Vat II ] Vat II 10
I W T A r y S z G Nil Vat : : ACWwtSzJ: Simp (LXIV 49) Par II
om. Va a c 2 II ] Simp (LXIV 57) II 11 Stob. II
] (sic L; Wacbsmuth ex Ench) Stob.
II ] ' : : om. Simp (LXIV 58) Stob. Vat II M/MP II 12 ]
SimpA (I.e.) Stob.L ( Wachsmuth ex Ench) Vat: om. Simpa II ] Stob. II
om. Stob. II 13 Stob.L ( Wachsmuth ex Ench) II '
' ] ' Stob.: '
Nil: ' , Vat
c. 47 1 ] M/MP II ] Nil Vat II om. Nil II 2 om. SiC II 3
T uv M/MP: SiC Vat II Nil II 5 ] Olymp.
ch. 48a [1] T h e position a n d character of a non-philosopher: he

never looks for benefit or h a r m f r o m himself, but f r o m external
things. T h e position and character of a philosopher: he looks for all
benefit and harm from himself.
ch. 48b 2 Signs of s o m e o n e who is making progress: h e censures
nobody, he praises nobody, he blames nobody, he makes reproaches
to nobody, he says n o t h i n g about himself as t h o u g h he were something or knew something. W h e n he is h i n d e r e d or h a m p e r e d , h e
blames himself. And when someone praises him, he laughs to himself
at the o n e who praises him; a n d when s o m e o n e censures him, h e
does n o t d e f e n d himself. He moves a r o u n d like p e o p l e recovering
f r o m a disease, taking heed to disturb n o n e of the parts that are getting well, before they have recovered completely. 3 He has removed
f r o m himself every desire; as to aversion, he has relegated it only to
the things that are not in accordance with nature a m o n g the things
u n d e r o u r control. In regard to everything h e exercises choice without straining. If he makes the impression of being foolish or stupid,
h e does not care. In a word, he keeps guard over himself as over an
enemy lying in wait.
ch. 49 W h e n s o m e o n e gives himself airs because he is able to
u n d e r s t a n d a n d explain Chrysippus' books, say to yourself, "If
Chrysippus had not written obscurely, he would have had n o t h i n g to
give himself airs about." As to me, what d o I want? T o u n d e r s t a n d
n a t u r e a n d follow her. T h e r e f o r e I seek who is the o n e who can
c. 48a ///([/][/( l e g i b i 1 i s ) / t ( S L A ) ] ) / / / S i b (SiGJ)
jab 2 )TSiC(ab 2 )
c. 48b /([/][/( legibilis)/t(S/L/Ae)])//Si(SiGJ)
///Tt| 2 l-6 -)TSiClom. 2 2-3 -)
c. 49 A C/te[IW/^][ATY])//Si(SiGJ)|ab 4 )'TSiCltantum 4 )
c. 48a [s. 1] 1-2 - aff. .SA/[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (LXVI 1-2); 2-4
- imit. [Ant.] 87 (16 Ath.)
c. 48b s. 2 3-5 - imit. [Ant.] 90 (17 Ath.); 3-4 - fort. resp.
Byz. 180 (195 W.); Vind. 13 (291 M.)
c. 49 1-3 "Otav- ( Simplicius) aff. SA(CGHJ) (LXVII 1-3):
1-3 "- aff. SD(F) (LXVII 1-3): 1-2 "- aff. SB (LXVII 1-2): 1-2
"- aff. SE (LXVII 1-2): 1-2 "- (+ ) aff. Sx (LXVII
^2)
c. 48a [s. 1] cf. I 29,4; III 19,1; IV 8,25
c. 48b s. 2 1 , 2-3 - alterum, 3-4 - sim. II
1,36; s. 3 6-8 - sim. I 4,1; III 22,13; IV 4,33; fr. XXVII; 7-8 cf. III 12,7
c. 49 cf. omnino I 4,6-17; I 17,13-18; II 9,14; III 23,16-17
10
c. 48a [1]
, ' .
-
.
c. 4 8 b - , ,
2
, ,
. , .
, ' -
, . , , ,
3
-
' . .
, . ,
.
c. 49 "
,
, ' . ;
.
c. 48a [s. 1] 1 ] Nil: Par II ] SCDFH II 2

et 4 Par
c. 48b hoc caput capiti praecedenti coniungit Simp II s. 2 1 (non
ita ; illegibilis) Nil II ] SiC II om.
Par II alterum] SiC II 2-3 - om. SiC II 2 ]
Vat II 2-3 - om. Nil II 2 Tt II Tt II 3 prius Par Vat :
AC bSib: om. Tt (desunt SzC Nil) II Tt II alterum om. Tt II tertium om.
QTt Par II Tt (sed alterum partim erasum, ut vid.) II 4 [Ant.] II
' ] ' [Ant.] II
] [Ant.] Nil: om. Par II ] SzC II 5 SzC II Mill 6 ] [3] SzC: : [... II s. 3 6 c. 50,2 om.
Nil II 6-7 (sic) Par II 7 ] SzC: Szj Par Vat II
SzG Diss. (I 4,1): A C r (sec. Heyne, nunc non iam legitur) Szj: P C
T u v SzC Par Vat II ] ' SzG Par II ] SzC II ] SzC II
8 (sic) Par II 9 ] II ] Simp (LXVI 65) II
: A a c l II A C Q F S Z G : Szj Vat Par ( SzJ l s f ): om. A t SzC (
illegibilis)
c. 49 (deest Nil) 1 om. SACDFH II 2 om. SACDFH II
SFGH ( SG 1 * sl ): SD II 3 SCDFH (desunt SBEx): II
] SACFH: SD: SG ( habet
SJ; desunt SBEx) II (coniecerat Koraes): AC SGJ Vat :
SAH: [5] SC (desunt SBDEFx): ci. Schweighuser II 4
] SzC II T a c l II 5 ] ci. Koraes
explain it to me, a n d when I hear that it is Chrysippus, I go to him.

But I do not u n d e r s t a n d what h e has written: so I seek s o m e o n e to
explain it to me. And u p to this point there is nothing to be p r o u d of.
W h e n I have f o u n d the interpreter, though, it remains to me to p u t
into practice what I have learnt; this is the only thing to be p r o u d of.
However, if I admire the mere act of interpretation, what else have I
b e c o m e b u t a philologist instead of a philosopher, with the only
d i f f e r e n c e that I interpret Chrysippus instead of H o m e r ? No, when
s o m e o n e says to me, "Explain Chrysippus' work to me", I would
s o o n e r blush when I fail to show acts that are in a c c o r d a n c e a n d
harmony with Chrysippus' lessons.
ch. 50 Stand fast by the principles you set before yourself, as if they
were laws, as if you would act impiously if you were to transgress any
of them. Do not bother what someone may say about you; for that no
longer is yours.
ch. 51 1 Until what m o m e n t are you postponing to deem yourself
worthy of the best things, and not to transgress in anything the orders
of reason? You have accepted the philosophic principles; you have
conversed with those with whom you had to converse. What kind of
teacher are you still waiting for, that you should put off improving
yourself until his arrival? You are not a boy any more, but already a
full-grown man. If you are now neglectful and light-hearted, a n d if
c. 49AC/(Q[IW/4>][ARY])//Si(StGJ){ab 4 ]TSiCltantum 4 ]
c. 50 AC/Si5(SiGJ)(ab 2 |TSiC]ab 2 ]
c. 51 AC/(Q[IW/L>][ArY])//St(SiGJ){ab 2 mi|///Tt'TSiCltantum 2
-)
13-14 - resp. Simp. XII 46-47
c. 50 1-2 "- aff. SA/a[ BD (CEFGHJx)] (LXVIII 1-2)
c. 51 s. 1 1-2 - ( Simplicius) aff. SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (LXIX
1-2)
9-14 v- cf. I 29,56; II 16,34; II 19,6-19; 10 - sim. II 9,14; 12

cf. III 21,7
c. 51 s. 1 3-5 - cf. I 29,35; II 16,39; 6-8 v- cf. II 18,31; 6-8
- cf. IV 12,2-3.20-21
' . '
. .
,
. 10
, ' ;
' ,
.
c. 5 0 " , ,
, , -
.
c. 51
; - .
,
5
; , ' ,

7 Vat: ACSz II 8 : SzG

Vat: ACSzJ ( Diss I 29,56) II 9 AC bSib:
Vat II om. II ACSz: Vat II 11 ] II 11-12
- om. Vat II 11 II ] U [Par. gr.
2124] (probat Koraes) II 12 AGATySz II prius om. II alterum om.
ACSzJ II : Vat (' Vat^) :
ACbSib II 13 Vat
c. 50 1-2 "- om. M/II 1 SA Para Vat: SBJ lm K
ParM: AC SEGHJx: SCF: SD II om.
SCDF II 1-2 (sic) :
SG'*P C Vat: AC S:
, S(i)C II ]
SC(semel)G'*P c ( S G a c ) : SD: SF II 2
5 G l * s l T S i C V a t ( i t a f e r e e t P a r . gv OTV): om. AC Sib II Simp (LXVIII
12) Vat, et ita fere Par ( ): SzC: ' ACSz Nil II 3
] SzC II Nil
c. 51 s. 1 1 ] SADFHJx (deest SC) Il ] Tt II 1-2
] SA: SDFJx: SC II 2
Nil II SzC Vat: Nil: ACSzTt (unde
ci. Wolf): Simp (LXIX 9) II T Vat II 3 T Nil Vat, et
legit Simp (LXIX 13): AC6TtSz6 II Nil Vat:
A C ^ T t S z J T , et ita legisse videtur Szw/>(LXIX 11-14): pASzG II
(non ita ) Szj II TtSzG T Nil Vat: ACSzJ
Simp (LXIX 14) II 5 ] : om. Simp (LXIX 15) Nil II
Simp (LXIX 16) II 6 ] Simpa (LXIX 17): SimpA Nil: Par II
Tt II Tt Simpa (I.e.): SimpA II om. Tt II
ACTtSzJ : SzG Nil Vat : Simp (LXIX 18) ParM:
Para II TtSzj' s l : ACSzJ: SzG Nil:
Vat: Simp (I.e.) Par
you are always making o n e delay after a n o t h e r a n d fix o n e day after

a n o t h e r after which you will pay attention to yourself, you will fail to
make progress without realizing it, but you will continue to be a nonp h i l o s o p h e r both living a n d dying. 2 T h e r e f o r e take the decision
right now that you must live as a full-grown m a n , as a man who is
making progress; and all that appears to be the best must be to you a
law that c a n n o t be transgressed. And if you are c o n f r o n t e d with a
hard task or with something pleasant, or with something held in high
r e p u t e or no repute, r e m e m b e r that the contest is now, a n d that the
Olympic games are now, a n d that it is no longer possible to delay the
match, a n d that progress is lost a n d saved as a result of o n e defeat
a n d even o n e m o m e n t of giving in. 3 This is the way Socrates
b e c a m e what h e was, in everything p e r s u a d i n g himself to pay
a t t e n t i o n to n o t h i n g b u t reason; a n d even if you are n o t yet a
Socrates, you must live as if you wish to become a Socrates.
ch. 52 1 T h e first and most necessary subject in philosophy is that
of applying philosophic principles, for instance the subject of not
c. 51 /([/][])//St0(SGJ)(ab 2 )///TSiC(tantum 2
-)
c. 52 (([/][])//5(5.})^ 2 oov)TSiC(2-9 -)
s. 2 11 usurp. [Ant.] 136 (22 Ath.); s. 3 12-14 -
imit. [Ant.] 136 (22 Ath.)
c. 52 s. 1 1-2 - aff. Sa [BD (CEFGHJx)] (LXX 1-2; deest A)
s. 2 11-13 - cf. I 29,33; 12 - cf. II 18,28; III 25,2-3; 12-14
- cf. II 18,22.31; s. 3 14-16 - (Pl., Cri. 46b) cf. III 23,21; 1617 - cf. I 2,36
c. 52 s. 1 1 - = I 4,12
' '
, , '
10
, -
.
,
' ,
.
15
- ,
.
c . 5 2
, -
7 Simp (I.e.) Nil Vat : ACTtSz: II ' ] Vat W

Par II Tt II 8 Tt II ci. Koraes II s. 2 9
] (...) Par :
(sic) Nil II 10 Tt Nil Vat, et legisse videtur Simp (LXIX
26-28): ACSz II ] Tt II 11 (ter)] Simp
(LXIX 32; sed prius et alterum ex coniectura, vide Hadot) Il Tt II
alterum] Tt II om. Vat II 12 ] ACSzJ II ]
AC.SiJ: om. II alterum Tt Nil Vat : om. ACbSib Par II 13 Tt
(sed per Tt') Vat (coniecerat Koraes): SiG:
AC.S'zJ Nil II ] ACSz (non ita ) Il 13-14 ACTtSz
Nil Vat, et ita legisse videntur [Ant.] ( ) et Par
( () ); cf. Diss II 18,31 ' :
mavult . Carlini (privatim): Simp
(LXIX 40, cf. LXIX 37-38): ci. Meibom:
(vel ) ci. Heyne II 14 alterum Simp (LXIX 40) Nil
Vat : A C S Z : om. Tt II -] - Simp (LXIX 41)
II tertium Simp (I.e.) [Ant.] Nil Vat: ACbSiG: Szj (quid Par in fonte
suo legerit incertain) Il s. 3 14 ] Nil II 15 ] Nil II 15-16 Nil, et ita legisse videtur
Simp (LXIX 49-53): Vat:
ACSz : Tt:
(vel ) ci. Meibom II 16
om. Tt II Tt'P c ([.Jo a.c., ut vid.) II / ] Nil II 17
ACSz' Simpa (LXIX 54): Tt: om. SimpA Nil Vat II Tt
c. 5 2 totum caput om. Nil Par 11 s. 1 2 AC S B E G J Vat :
S C D H J L M K (desunt S A F X ) Simp (LXX 13) II oiov om. Simp (I.e.) II
] , Simp (LXX 13-14) II
A C S z Vat: S Z C : Simp (LXX 14) II alterum om. SzC
lying; the second is that of demonstrations, for instance, "Why o u g h t

o n e to avoid lying?"; the third is the one that confirms and articulates
the first two, for instance, "Why is this a demonstration?" For what is a
demonstration, what a consequence, what contradiction, what truth,
what falsehood? 2 So the third subject is necessary because of the
second, a n d the second because of the first; but the most necessary
one, where o n e o u g h t to rest, is the first. But we d o the opposite: for
we spend o u r time on the third one, and devote all o u r attention to
it, but we altogether neglect the first one. And so we d o lie, but we
readily explain how it is demonstrated that one should not lie.
ch. 53 1 O n every occasion we must have ready the following
thoughts:
"Lead me, oh Zeus, you and Destiny,
wherever you assign me to go;
for I will follow without hesitation; but if I do not want,
because I am bad, I will follow all the same."
2 "Whoever has complied well with necessity,
is a wise man in our eyes, and he knows the things of the gods."
c. 52 <([/][])//(5^{:> 2 )TSiC(2-9 -|
c. 53 A/CWw|bis)//Si(SiGJ)|ab 2 "T
c. 53 s. 1 1 - aff. Sa[BD(CEFGHJx)] (LXXI 1; cleest A); 2-5 " aff. Anon., De srentiapol. 202 (51,9-11 M.), fartasse ex Ench pendens: vide A.
Carlini, SIFC III 13,2 (1995), 217-220; hos versus iaudat etiam Vettius Valens, Anth.
VI 9,13 (= Vett.(l); 250,15-18 Pingree); , VII 3,53 (= Vett.(2), 259,20-23 P.);
libr vertit Sen., Ep. 107,11; resp. Corp.Herm. 12,6-7 (I 176 Nock-Festugire); 4b-5
- hos versus laudat etiam Vett., Anth. V 6,12 (= Vett.(3); 210,14 P.)
4 sim. I 17,1; 5-6 prius sim. II 24,13-15.19; s. 2 8-10
- cf. III 2,6
c. 53 s. 1 1 sim. III 10,1; III 24,103 (et saepius); 2-3 " = IV 1,131; 2 "- (Cleanthes SVFI 527) = II 23,42; III
22,95; IV 4,34; s. 2 6-7 "- (Eur. fr. 965 Nauck)
,
, 5
, , , ,
; ,

, ,
,
10
. ,
, .
c. 5 3 " ', , ,
' ' -
, .
" ' ,
' ' .
3 ] II om. SiC II om. SiC II SiC II ]

SiC II 4 SiG'* s l Simp (LXX 16): AC0Si0:
Vat: SiC II ] SiC II SiG, et legit Simp
(LXX 16): ACSiJ: : Vat: SiC II 5
om. II SiC II alterum quintum om. SiC II 5-6
, om. Simp (LXX 17) Il s. 2 6 ] Simp (LXX 23) II 7
] Si C II II 8 ] SiC II 8-9
SiC II 9 om. SiC II ] ' SiC II ACSiJ SiC (ov Sij' s ')
II SiC II 9-11 - om. SiC II 11 SiG'* s l Simp
(LXX 32) Vat (cf. Diss II 24,13): ACSi
c. 53 s. 1 1 ] Vat II ACWw SEGHJx ( S G ' * S ' )
II ed. Pans. 1540: SCDF Vat (cf. Par ):
A S G a c l * : CWw SBEG1 *PcHJx: II 2-3 '
, ' Vat2mK II 2 ' ] Vett.(1) II
Diss (vide Schenkl Add. et corr. ad II 23,42) Vett.(2), et habuit fons Vett.(l):
ACWw Si Vat: Anon.: Vai 2m R II Vett.(2): ACWwSi: om. Anon.
Vat et Vat2 II ' Diss, (constanter) Veit.(2): ACWwSi T Anon. Vat2mK II
ASiG Diss (ter), et legisse videtur Par ( ): ' Va^mg
Veit, (bis) ( coniecerat Meibom; potius ): ' Anon.: ' : CWwSiEJx Diss II
23,42 II 3 Vat II '] ' Anon. II ] Ww (semel) Vett.(1) II 4 '
] .: Vett.(1) II ' Vett.(2): ACWwSi Vat II
] Vett.(1): Vett.(2) II . Vett. (bis) Vat: ACWwSi II 5
] Vett.(2) II ] Vett. (ter) Il s. 2 6
'] ' ACWw II ed. Pans. 1540: ACWwSi T l l v Vat II
] ACWw ( Plu., Mor. 116F, quod recepit Nauck) Il 7 ' ed.
Paris. 1540 : ACWwSi T Vat
3 " B u t , o h C r i t o n , if it p l e a s e s t h e g o d s in t h i s way, it m u s t h a p p e n in
t h i s w a y . " 4 " A n y t u s a n d M e l e t u s c a n kill m e , b u t t h e y c a n n o t d o m e
any harm."
c. 53 A/CWw|bis|//S(5tGJ){ab 2 "|'
s. 3 8 - aff. Simp. LXXI 31-32; s. 4 8-9 - aff. Simp. LXXI 41-42
s. 3 8 - (Pl., Cri. 43d) = I 4,24; -= I 29,18; III 22,95; IV 4,21; s.
4 8-9 - (Pl., Ap. 30cd; cf. K. Dring, Sokrates bei Epilctet, in: Studia Platonica,
Festschrift H. Gundert (Amsterdam 1974), 195-199) = I 29,18; II 2,15; III 23,21
' ' , , , .
" , .
s. 3 8 ' om. Diss Simp (LXXI 31) II ] ACWw:

SiJ 1 ( Szj' s l ; add. ' et SjJ l m K): (sic)
Vat II Vat II prius] A C W W S G J 1 s ' ( SiJ 1 ) II et Diss I
4,24; III 22,95: Diss I 29,18; IV 4,21 II s. 4 9 SimpC (LXXI 42) Diss
(II 2,15; III 23,21) Va<2mK: SimpB: A C S m / ; D E F G H J X (deest S i m / A )
Diss (I 29,18) [cf. Simp LXXI 44 BDH:
C: E F G J X ]
subscriptio . .
. - : (cf. [Max.], Loc. comm. 42 [PG91,
924a]) : C (ut vid.): :

EPICTETI
ENCHEIRIDION
LECTIONES VARIANTES
MINORES
c. I s. I 2 om. Si G II SiH ac 1 II 3 om. SD a c l E II ]

SE II om. SH II s. 2 5 SiJ lsl II s. 3 8 ] SiH
II 9 om. S?J II s. 4 15 ' ] SiH acl II 16 StJ II s.
5 20 ] A acl
c. 2 s. 1 1 ] SCx (et Par) II om. Sx II 2 ]
SiH II 4 : ex SiG'*PC II 4 et 5 (bis)] SiG acl *
Il s. 2 8 ] SiH
c. 3 1-2 om. II 2 om. II 4 ]
SiH II 5 ] 1*1: SiG II ]
c. 4 3 C II 4 SiC (sed p.c., ut vid.) II 10

] SiH
c. 5a 2 om. SiF II 6 ] (ut vid.) SiH acl
c. 5b 1 ] Ww 11 2 Ww (priore loco) SiFH
c. 6 1 SH II 3 om. SiJ acl II 4 om. SiG (add. SiG lsl )
c . 7 1 [2] SC, add. SC1*1 II SJ* II 2 ] SiH:
SiF II 6 ] A ac ut vid. (rasura) Il 8 post itrt 3-4 C, linea delevit C1 II 9 ] (nisi
fallor) SiG 1 *sl
c. 9 1 ( '/2mg) || 0 SFHJ ( SJ 1m K ets1 )
II om. Sx II 1-2 - om. II 1 ] SC (priore loco) II 2 ]
CSJ l m II - om.' a c l II 3 SiH acl II II 4 t
c. 10 1 '] ' SF II SG acl * II 2 ] SH: SF:
SG ac (corr. SG 1 * vel SG 1 ) II 4 SiG^ 1 * II ] SiJ II
: ex ut vid. SzJ1
c. 11 1 ': p.c. SC II 2 prius] SiG a c l * II 3
: p.c. SJ1 II - om. A, add. in fine paginae A1 II 4
] II 5 ' om. SiH II ]
c. 12 s. 1 2 ] , 1 * 1 II ] |..]] SiG ac , (per
comp.) SiG l s l , deinde per S i G ' V II ]
SiG ac , SiG1**1 II 4
II 5 : p.c. SiC II s. 2 7 ante add.
II alterum] (sic) : [.]] SiH acl II 8
om. TA acl II ] II prius]
II 9 ] II ] II 10 ] SiG acl * II ] [..]| SG acl * II :
rasura post A
c. 13 1 ] SE II 2 ] SH (sed p.c., ut vid.) II 3
] SiF II 5 prius] SzJ
c. 14a [s. I] 2 SG acl * II om. SGac1*, (sic)
add. SG 1 ^ 1 II ] Sx II prius om. SiH II 5 om. SiG
c. 14b [s. 2] 3 SiH
c. 15 1 II ] SG ac (corr. SG1 vel SG1*) II 2 ]
SiF II SiF II 3 II 6 SiC acl II ] (sic)
II om. 11 ] p.c. 1
c. 16 1 SE II 2 ] SiJ acl II 3 ' om. SiF II :

ex SiG1 Pc II 4 SzJacl II : alterum ex SiG1!10 II 6 ]
Szj II om. Szj II 7 om. C a c l
c. 17 1 .SC II 2 .SC II prius om. SiF II ] :
Sz'F II ] A acl II 3 II 4 ]
c. 18 1 : SG'l )C (nescio quid ante fuerit) II : <>'PC
(altero loco) II 2 om. (scholion A l s O l s l ) II 3
prius] Ww II 4 ] (altero loco) II 4-5 ]
II 5 II ] (priore loco):
(altero loco) II ' om. II 6 '] ' SzHJacl
c. 19b [s. 2] 1 "] II om. t II
SE II 2 C SE II 3 ] SiG1**' II om.
II ] SzG1*!50 ( SiG ac ) II om. II 4 ]
C II 6
c. 20 1 om. Sx II SF II 2 SG acl (ut vid.)
c. 21 2 SiH ac 1 ut vid. II 3 ] (nisi fallor) SiC acl
c. 22 1 SC II om. .SF II 2 ] SiF II 4 om. SiG II
SiG: S z G ' V : SiG1 *mK II 6 om. SzG acl
c. 23 1 II 2 ] 1*1 II 3
c. 24 s. 1 1 ] Sx II 2 om. SiF II om. Si II 3 II
prius] (sic) II ' om. (spatium vacuum in ) II
SiG II om. II 4 ] II [..] A a c l II om. II 6 ]
II om. II ] (post erasum, ut
vid.) Il s. 2 8 om. II 9 ] SzJacl II 10 om. SiG II ] II
(sine accentu) II 11 ] II ] II ]
SzG (= Simp XXXII 96) II 11-12 -] '
'
SiG (= Simp XXXII 9699; - add. S z G I l s. 3 13 om. II 14 prius alterum
om. Szj II ] II om. A a c l II : supra - SiJ1 II
15 ] II 16 II om. II SiG* II
17 om. II om. II s. 4 19 om. II post add.
SzG* (= Simp
XXXII 133) II 21 om. II 22 ]
Szj II 23 om. II 24 II s. 5 25 II 27
II om. (supra add. '-^1*1, 1 * 1 , ut
scholion)
c. 25 s. 1 1 prius om. 0 a c 1 II ] SG'*sl II SD II 3 t II 4 om. II (sic) SiG* II
4-5 -] SzG* Il s. 2 6 SzG* II om. SzG* II
Szj; acc. acut, supra et supra SiJ ls ' II II 7
II s. 3 9 ] SzG* II 10 ]
II ] Szj II 12 om. II s. 4 13 (
[sic] ' 1 ; ' P c ) II 14 II 15 SzJ acl II 16
II ] II
] SiG* II 17 ] t:
SiG* II ]
( p.c. 1 ) II ] tSz'G*1'1: om. II 18 ] SiG*:
SiG* lsl :n II ] SiG* II 19 Szj II ]
SiJ II infra add. ' SiG*1'1
c. 26 4 om. O a c l II 5 om. t II 6 om. II 7 om. S a c l II 8 ]

c. 27 ] II om. SE II 2 ] Sz'G
c. 28 1 II 3 ooiom. ; 1 II SiG a c l *
c. 29 s. 1 1 om. MPac1 II II 2 (sic) II s. 2
4 ] : II 5 ] II 6 ]
II ] ' C: SiJ II 7 ] SzJ II 9
II s. 3 12 ] II 13 ] A II 14 ] ,
: SiG acl * II II alterum] II 15
II 16 prius] II 18 ] II s. 4 20 om. II
] II 22 om. SiG a c l * (ut vid.) Il s. 5 23 [..] SzJacI II
s. 7 33 ] SiJ
c. 30 1 (sic) SF II 7 om. Sx
c. 31 s. 1 1 om. SC II 2 SiG a c l II ] SiG'P c vel S t G ' V II 3
om. II 4 II ] t II s. 2 7 ] CSzJ II 9 om. II
] 11 II 10 - om. II s. 3 11 om. II ]
CSJ II 13 : aliquid erasum supra in SiG II [.1 SiG acl
II 15 - om. II om. II ] : t II s. 4 17
om. A II 19-20 om. II 20 om. A a c l II |.1
acl
II alterum] SzJ II
A acl II 22 ] II s. 5 23 A
] II 24 SiG: SiG'*mK
c. 32 s. 1 1 om. SJx II 2 om. SzJ II s. 2 5 om. SiJ acl II 6 ]
SzJ II s. 3 15 - om. A, add. in margine A1 II
SiG acl * II 19 SiJ
c. 33 s. 1 1 .SH II SE II s. 2 4 ] SiJ ( p.c.
SiJ1) Il [s. 3] 8 illegibile in A II om. SzJacl (add. in margine) II s.
5 11 illegibile in A II s. 6 13 SiFJx II 16 om. Ww II s. 7 16
] Ww II ] S (praeter SEx; SG'* sl J lm S) II s. 8 19
SEFHJ ( .g l s l ) II s. 9 21 SJac: Sj'P c :
SH: Sx II 22 SCDFHJ acl II 23 ]
II ] II ] SzJ acl : II
II om. II s. 10 26 SzJ, add. SzJ lsl II 29
CSzJ II (nisi fallor) C'/ 2 P C II s. 12 33 ] t II om.
II post (sic) vocis deficit SC II 34 II ]
II 35 ] vel ( vel p.c.) II ] t II
II 36 II s. 13 36 om. SC [7] Il [s. 16] 47
SiJ II 48 SiG ( SzG'*s') II 49 SzG acl
(ut vid.)
c. 34 3 ] SiG ( SiG Isl ) II : II 4 II 6
t II 7 II 8 II 10
c. 35 1 SFHJ ( SJlmK) II II SH II 3 om.
11 4 SiJ
c. 36 1 om. SC II 2 ] S II 5 om. SiJ
(add. SiJ luv in marg.)
c. 37 1 SCE II post aliquid erasum in SG, utvid.
c. 38 1 W acl II ] SF acl II 2 ] Sx:
dcl
SF II ] SC acl (altera loco)
c. 39 1 ] II 3 ] II 4
om. II 4-6 - om. II 5 SiG, SiG'* sl
c. 40 1 ] SJx II 2 ] SiE II
]
II ] S Z G
SZJ,
add. post
S J 1 S I II
5 ]
(>SG'*S1)
c. 41 1 prius] SH II om. SG II 3 SzG acl

c. 42 1 ] II ] SJ acl II alterum] |1 II
2 Sz'E II 3 alterum] II 4 prius om. CSzJ II post add.
SzJlsl II II 5 - om. Sz'Gacl*J II II 8
]
c. 43 2 ] II ] Sz'Gacl* II
c. 44 3 SzEJ
c. 45 1 Sx
c. 46 s. 1 1 II A Sx II 2 t II 3 ] Ww II 4
om. II ]
II G Sz'Gacl ut vid. Il s. 2 9 ] :
A' II Ww II 10-11 ]
(om. ) II 10
] "1*?: om. II 11 A II
CSzJ II Szj II 12 ] SzGacl II 13 ' ] II
' om. II Ww
c. 47 5 Szj II Szj
c. 48a [s. 1] 1 -SE II 2 om. SJx II ' om. W acl
c. 48b s. 2 1 -] - A a c l II 2 ] II
II 3 ] II ] ^ 1 II s. 3 7 II 8
: SzG II 10 om. A a c l
c. 49 2 SCH II om. SF II 3 SzGacI* II 6 '] SiG II
9 om. A II 11 om. | || 12 II ] II
13 om. CSzJ II CSzJ II Szj II om. A a c l
c. 50 totum caput om. A ac , add. in fine paginae A1
c. 51 s. 1 1 om. SC II SE II 7 ]
SzGac 1 * II 8 ] ArySz'Gac1* Il s. 2 9 om. II 12 om.
SzG II s. 3 17 om.
c. 52 1 om. SEFHJ (in SJ non rubricatum) Il om. SFH II 3
post duae litterae erasae in A II 8 ] II om. A II
] C a c l II 9 om. II 10-11 -]
II 11 , ] ,
( ; ante om.) II om. SzG acl *
c. 53 s. 1 2 ] Ww II 3 Sz'Gacl
EPICTETI
ENCHEIRIDION
LECTIONES VARIANTES AD REM
ORTHOGRAPHICAM
PERTINENTES
c. 1 s. 3 9 Yy acl II 11 : ex SiJ1 II 12 : p.c. SiJ1

II s. 4 13 : o fort. p.c. Yy1 II 14 prius Sib Nil Par: ' ACYy
Vat II 14-15 Sib Nil Par: ' ACYySiJ Vat II s. 5 20
: p.c. Sij'
c. 2 s. 1 4 Nil Par II 5 [..] C a c l : Yy410' II 9[.]
SHac 1 II 11 [..] SiH a c l
c. 3 2 II 3 ] II 4 n V a c l S J a c l
II SiC II SiC II Yy V a c l II 5 Yy II
SiG
c. 4 1 SG a c l * II Sx Vat II 2 Sib Vat II SiH
II SE a c l Vat II 3 : ex SiH1
c. 5a 1 Eug. Sil 3 II SiE acl II 4
SGJ (non ita SiH) M/Il 5 II SiJ
c. 5b 1 II II O a c l II 2 SiC a c l II 3
- Si Olymp. (1) Nil Par : '-' ACWwxT: -' (lectio
incerta) SiC: '- Vat: - Olymp.(2)
c. 6 2 S -SC Nil Par: ' AC Vat II 3 ' SiC Stob. Apost. Vat II 4
Si II SiH acl
c. 7 2 : prius p.c. C 1 II 5 SiH II AC T II 6
SiC Vat 11 7 SiC II 8 v SiC Stob.
c. 8 1 Stob. II SiJ acl
c. 9 1 II 2 Hierocl. II 4 ' Stob
c. 10 2 II SiC Nil II 3 II 4 Sib Nil Par II 5
SiH
c. 11 1 ' II SEF II 4 II : 1 Pc II
ATt II 5 TSiC Diss (constanter) Olymp. SimpBCO (XVIII 3):
Stob.: ACSi SimpAb (XVIII 3) [Ant.] Nil Par Vat
c. 12 s. 1 2 prius TSiC Nil Vat: AC0Si0 Par II SiH II :
p.c. 1 II v alterum Tt TSiC Nil: AC0Si0 Par Vat II 3 II
II II 4 II TtTSiC Nil Par Vat:
AC0Si0 II s. 2 6 AC Stob. Nil II ] :
II 7 ( 1*1) 11 9 AC 11 10 : '
c. 13 3 II 4 Tt
c. 14a s. 1 1 ] : CTt Mill 3 SiGH (non ita SiJ) Il 4
SiGac 1 * Il ']'(...] SiC a c l : ^ Vat 11 5 AC TSiC Vat:
TtSi Nil Par II ante alterum habebat SiH, linea delevit SiH1 II 6
[..] SH a c l
c. 14b s. 2 3 SiC
c. 15 1 () II 3 : prius ex SiJ1 II 4 Tt II
prius: ex 1 II 6 Tt II Tt: II 8
SiG acl (ut vid.)
c. 16 1 () II ] SEF dcl II 2 SJ
c. 17 1 () II Stob. Il Procop. ( ) II 2 tertium]

Nil Par II 3 II Tt II 4 Tt II Tt SiC Nil II 5
Si Nil Par Stob., ' Vat
c. 18 2 II 3 ACWwTtSi Diss (I 25,23; III 18,3; III
22,106 [ubi fort, p.c., vide Schenkl]): Diss (I 1,10; II 13,11; III
22,106 ante corr., ut vid.; Ill 23,32; IV 7,18) Nil Vat (desunt TSiC Par-, cf.
[II 1,30.31.33; II 23,43; III 5,15.17; III 21,8] et [IV
1,140]! II 4 : p.c. Tt 1 II 5 ] Tt II II 6
c. 19a s. 1 1 () II Tt
c. 19b s. 2 1 ()pa II 2 II 4 :
SiJ II II 5 : ex SiG'*Pc II Sib SiC
c. 20 1 SzH acl II 2 Tt a c l II 4 : ex SzH'Pc II
5 (sic) Tt
c. 21 SG a c l * Il 3 : prius p.c. Szj1 II Tt
c. 22 2 : o prius SG'P C II :
SiH acl II 3 Nil ParMPA II II 4
)rius] ' SiC II : ' 0 ( a.c., ut vid.) II 7 : ex Szj1 II
: supra add. 1 II TSiC II
c. 23 1 SA II 3 Simp (XXXI 15.27)
c. 24 s. 1 2 ] II 5 TSiC Vat II s. 2 10 SiJ II ]
II s. 3 11 II II 13 II 13-14 II 14 ' II
( !1 | ; alterum fort. p.c. 1 ) II 15 II ]
(sic) II 18 Tt II s. 4 19 II 21 ]
( AC) II (deest ) SiG* Nil Vat : ' ACSiJ II 21 II
ACSzJ II 22 SzG*'Pc II ] II 23 II s. 5
26 ' ACS^J II 27 post una littera erasa in
c. 25 s. 1 2 SzJacl II ' Vat II 3 (nisi fallor) SiJ II 4
T Nil Par II 5 alterum] <:1 II s. 2 6 II 9
CSiJ SiC II s. 3 10 ] Sz'Cacl II II 11 II II
'] ' II II 12 II 13 II s. 4 13
( A l s l e l s , H l s l ) II StJ acl II 14 SiJ II 15 TSiC Nil:
' A C S Z Vat II alterum: ex (nisi fallor) SiC'P c II 16
c. 26 2 : ov s.l. SzC1 II : per scriptum SiG'Pc II 3
II 4 : ex (ut vid.) 1 II 6 : '' II ' II 7 ] II II
8 11
c. 28 1 : SEF Jcl II 2 ] Szjacl II
Nil: Vat : SiG ( SiG'*'sl) Il 3 ' t II II
II 4 |.] SiCac1
c. 29 s. 2 7 t II 9 II 10 ] ' II 11 '] '
SzJac 1 II s. 3 12 II 13
II 13 II s. 4 21
SiG II s. 7 30 SzG II 32 SiJ II 35
SiG acl
c. 30 3 Tt II 4 SiG II 5 SzC II 7 : p.c. Szj1 II
SiG Par II 8 Tt (semel) II 10 ] SzCacl
c. 31 s. 1 1 ' SFII SF II 2 S II 3 M/MP II
/ SiJ: [.] SiC a c l II 4 II 6
alterum] ' II 6 II s. 2 9 A a c l II II 10
SiC acl II Szj SiC M/MP II s. 3 13 ' II 14 post
aliquid deletum in Szj 1115 : ex ut vid. SiC1 (i.e. a.c.) II s. 4
18 II 21 post aliquid erasum in , ut vid. II 22 ] /

: spir. et add. p.c. SiJ1 II s. 5 23 ] [..] SiC acl II 24
II 25 alterum] '
c. 32 s. 1 2 ' SiC II s. 2 5 A II 9 [.3 SiC acl II 10 :
per SiG1 Pc II s. 3 15 II Til 18 ]
SiC 11 SiC
c. 33 s. 1 1 () II S Stob. Vat: ACSEJ Nil II 2
Stob. II 4 : partim erasum SiC II 9 SiG II s. 4 10
] Ww II prius] ' T Vat II s. 6 12 Ww II Stob.
[Max.] II 13 ] |.J SiJ acl II 15 : ex SzC1 II ] [.] SzG
(nisi fallor) Il s. 7 16 SiC acl II 17 CWwSiG , et legit
Simp (XLIV 73, praeter SirnfCO) Vat*Pc: ASzJ SiC Nil Vatac'2 II s. 8
18 SF: SH acl II s. 9 21 : SF II
22 TtSiG Nil Vat : ' ACSiJ II 24 SiC II s. 10 27 II s.
11 32 [..J Ww a c II s. 12 33 II ( ) II 34 Nil Vat: ACSi: II 35
II s. 13 36 : ex SJ1 II 39 ^ 1 : SiJ,
supra (bis) et del. SiJ1 II [J SiC acl II 40 ACWw :
TtSi SiC Nil Par Va Il s. 14 42 SiE acl II SzEacl II 43 T
Nil II 46 ] SiJ acl II 47 Nil Par II 49 SiJ acl
c. 34 2 .SA (praeter SE) Il S Eug. Nil: ACTt
SCGHJ Vat II Stob. II 4 v] [..] A a c l 116 SiJ acl II 7 Tt
TSiC: ACSi Nil Vat II : p.c. SiC1 II 8 : p.c. Tt 1 II 9
TtSiG T Vat II :
c. 35 2
c. 36 1 SG a c l (priore loco) II 4 : p.c. SiC1 II 5
: p.c. C 1 II : Szj'PC
c. 37 1 S Nil Par Vat: ACTt T SG II 2 ACTtSG Par
c. 38 1 A a c l II : p.c. SC1 (priore loco) II ] p.c. A1
(nescio quid ante fuerit) II 2 II 3 SiG acl II ' ACSi
Eug. Vat : SiC Nil II ACSi Eug. Vat: TSiC Nil
c. 39 2 prius] C (SiE) TSiC II SzEJacl II alterum]
TSiC II 4 SiC II SiGac1*: / T
c. 40 3 T
c. 42 1 ] SiJ acl II alterum: Szj'PC II : 1!50 II 2 ]
p.c. in ( a.c., ut vid.) Il ' II 3 ] Nil: Stob. II 5
SiC Stob. NilVat: AC0Si0T II 6ACS Vat II [..] SiG acl
c. 43 1 () II 3 ' Tt Stob. Vat: ACSz Nil II 4 |.3 A a c l II
5 Stob.
c. 44 2 prius SACDFH Nil Par Vat: ACSBEGJx (deest
ET) II alterum Nil Vat: ACSi II 3 SiG acl * ut
vid. Il 4 T Nil Par Vat: ACSi II 5 T Par Vat.
AC Sib II ' T u v
c. 45 1 alterum: supra add. supraque illud duo puncta SG1 (non
intellego) II 4 Nil
c. 46 s. 1 1 T Vat II SCH II SG a c l II 2
alterum: add. SiG'*Pc II 3 A II 4 II II s. 2 7
^' II 9 II ' II 13 SiG
c. 47 1 [3 SJ acl II SG II 2 |1 SzJacl II 3
Nil Vat: ACSi Par
c. 48a [s. 1] 1 : <J>'PC II A a c l SCDFH II 2 AAOSz'G

II A
c. 48b s. 2 3 Tt ( Tt l s l ) Il 4 [..] SzJ acl II 6 ] II
[.] Tt ( Tt l s l ) II s. 3 7 TSzC Vat: ' ACS II [.]
SzJacl II 8 : II ] II
II 9 SzC 1110
c. 49 2 SJx II ACSHJ : : ,,:
SACDFG Vat. [ SE (desunt SBx) II 3 ] / SA II 4
A acl II 8 ' II [..] SzGacl II 9 prius] ' II '
II 10 [.] SzGacl
c. 50 1 () II 2 AC S: TSzC (altero loco) Vat II 3 T Vat:
' ACS) ( Nil)
c. 51 s. 1 2 : SACDFJ ( SJlsl) Nil II 4 ' II 5
II ' II ' Tt Par: AC S Nil Vat II 6 /
: II 7 : p.c. 1 II 8 ] A II :
' II ] CSzJ ( SzJlmK); post scripsit
, (= 1. 9-10) ,
linea del. 1 II Vat II s. 2 9 SzG II 12 Tt II 13 II s. 3 15
c. 52 s. 1 3 : ex ut vid. SzG'*Pc II 4 Sz'Cacl
c. 53 s. 1 3 ] Ww (altero loco) Il s. 3 8 ACWw Szj II
s. 4 9 : fort. p.c. SzG1
PART TWO
[NILUS]'ADAPTATION
CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM
Venetus Marcianus gr. 131 (coll. 471), s. XI

Parisinus gr. 1220, s. XIV; N.B. lectiones quas P'PC et P 2 a
Par mutuati sunt in apparatu non notantur
q u a e ratio inter codices MP intercedat incertum est: aut P ex M

derivatus est aut uterque codex e fonte c o m m u a i fluxit.
Hic illic citantur:
H
Hafniensis deperditus, a M. Meibom collatus
H'
in locis hoc siglo notatis Meibom silet de lectione codicis H
Vaticanus Ottobonianus gr. 25, A.D. 1564-1565

R
editio Romana, a n n o 1673 curante J. Suarez in lucem emissa
V
Vaticanus gr. 1434, s. XII-XIII
W
Vaticanus gr. 653, s. XIV
Studiosi in apparatu critico laudati:
M. Meibom, in editione Encheiridii a. 1711 in lucem emissa
M. Piscopo, La tradizione manoscritta della Parafrasi del Manuale di
Epitteto di S. Nilo, Helicon 9 / 1 0 (1969-1970), 593-603
O.J. Schrier (privatim)
J. Schweighuser, Epicteteae Philosophiae Monumenta V, 95-138
C. Wotke, Handschriftliche Beitrge zu Nilus' Paraphrase von Epiktets
>Handbchkin<, WS 14 (1892), 69-74
Schweighuser 1 = Schweighuser in textu
Schweighuser N = Schweighuser in notis
Xac
XPC
X ante correctionem
X post correctionem
Xacl
XmK
Xs1
'1
1
X
X
X
X
X
()
<>
litterae vel verba ita inclusa delenda sunt

litterae vel verba ita inclusa a d d e n d a sunt
litterae vel verba ita inclusa non iam leguntur
ante correctionem, a prima manu correctus

in margine
supra lineam
infra lineam
in textu
EPICTETI ENCHEIRIDION
AD CHRISTIANORUM USUM ACCOMMODATUM
SANCTO NILO ANCYRANO FALSO ATTRIBUTUM
c. 1 ' , ' . '

, , , ,
' , , , ,
. [2] ' , , ' , ,
, .
c. 3 ,
', , , ,
,
, , , ,
, , ,
, , ,
.
c. 4 , ,
,
,
'
.
c. 5

, ,
titulus R: : deest in , ubi autem in

capite paginae legitur II 1 3-4 om. M a c (add. M 2 ) II 2 4 II M a c : (sic) MPC II 3 3
: [.| M a c l II 6 '] (fort, a.c.) II ] ' 1
II 4 1 MP: Scliweigliuser ex '1 II 2 scripsi:
Schweighuser ex (ut falso opinatur): MP:
Schweighuser^ ex Ench II 5 ] Schweighuser^ ex Ench II ]
Schweighuser ex H ( 0 ) R II 6 ] II 5 2 II 3

' ' .
' , .
c. 6 ,

, ,
,
' ,
.
c. 7 '
' .
' ,
' ,
. , ,
' .
c. 8 '
,
. ,
. ,
- . [9]
,
, ,
, , , , ,
,
- , .
c. 10a ,
, , , , .
, , ' ,
.
4-5 ' ] ' vel
' vel ' ci. Scliweighuser^ II 6 2
Schweighuser ex R: M: II ] 6 Schweighuser^ ex Ench II 4 ] II
5 : fort. p.c. 1 II 7 4 ' II MP: ciel. Schweighuser ex R II -
Schweighuser N ex Ench : - MP: - Schweighuser ex R II 4-5
] Schweighuser ex R II 8 3 ] P a c l ut vid. II
5 ] Schweighuser ex II 9 7 M II 11 II
post lacunam statuit Schweighuser II M II 10a 2 6 ]
Schweighuser ex PPCHR II 4] Schweighuser^ ex Ench II
] P a c 1
c. 10b ' '

-
.
c. 11 .
,
,
. ; ,
,
.
c. 12a
, , , , ,
, ,
,
, () .
c. 12b ,
, ,
, .
c. 13 ,
, .
, , .
, .
c. 14 '
.
,
, - ,
. .
c. 15 , '
. ; . ; . ; .
. , ; '
10b 1 ] M a c ' / ^ II 2 ]
ac2 n
priusj M a c 2 H i l l
] Schweighuser^ ex Ench II 2 ] ' / ^ ' II 12a 7
Schweighuser ex R: MP II 13 2 : erasum in II 4 post
lacunam statuit Piscopo II 14 4 P a c l II 5 II R
(probat Schweighuser^) II 15 1-2 - MP: - ':
- Schweighuser ex R II 2 alterum] II 3
: M'PC II 4 M II Schweighuser ex H ( 0 ) R MP II ]
fort, legendum ' II ' om.
, ,
.
c. 16 ,
,
, '.

.
c. 17 " , ,
. , .
, ,
' ' .
c. 18 ,
.
, .

.
c. 19 "
,
, , , '
. ,
. [ 2 0 ]
'
. ,
' , .
c. 21 .

, ,
, .
, , ,
,
17 1 M II 2 alterum] [.] P a c l II 4 ] M a c 2 II 5
II M a c l II ] ^ 1 II 18 1 edd.: MP II
II ] addita linea supra (= ) M a c 2 II 2 erasum in
II II 19 1 ] p a c l II 20 6 > :
, P'PC: , P a c : ; ci.
Schweighuser N II 8 om. P a c l II 9 ] [. P a c l II 21 1 om.
II 2 II 3 ] M a c l : P a c 1 II 6 edd.: MP
, ,
.
c. 22 "
,
, '
(
), .
, , ,
.
c. 23 , '
, , , -
, -
, , . ,
- .
c. 24 ' ,
, ' , '
.
, - , ' .
c. 25 ' , .
c. 26 "
. ' ,
-
, ' ,
' .
c. 27 ,
. ,
.
- , .
22 4 P a c 1 II 6 II 7 MP: Schweigliuser ex RII 23 1

' civ] fort, legendum II 2 : parva rasura post in M II 3
II 4 P a c l II 25 1 om. P a c l II 26 5 ] II 27 2 in rasura 1
II 3 M a c l II 4 om. P a c l II 5
10
c. 28
' ,

.
c. 29 ,
,
; , ,
. , ,
, .
c. 30 '
, .
,
.
c. 31a , . (
), ' ,
. ; . ;
, ,
;
; ; ,
' ,
' , ;
;
c. 31b ' .
,
. '
, ,
. ,
28 1 ] (sic) ci. Schweighuser^: inalim II 2 om. II 29 1

II 30 1 : M II 2 MP: Schweighuser ex Ench II 3
] P a c ' II MP: ci. Schweighuser: ci. Wotke II II 31a 11
] Schweighuser ex R II -^5 ]
Schweighuser ex : ci. Schweighuser^ (ex R) II <6 ]
: Schweighuser ex (ut falso opinatur) II 31b
P a c l II 2 post
add. Schweighuser ex R, fort, recte Il "3 ' scripsi: MP II
] M a c l II 9 5 : M II ( P l s l ) II 9 8 ]
M a c l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
; , ' ,
.
c. 31c , ' ,
. , ; ,
. ;
, , ,
, ; .
]".
;
. ,
, ;
[32a]
; ,
,
,
' .
, , ;
, ' .
c. 32b ; ,
. ,
,
, .
. ' ;
- ,
, ,
, .
31c 1() 2 ] - 3 P a c l II 1 '4 -] - Schweighuser ex
Ench II ] Schweighuser ex R et P a c l II
scripsi:
MP: Schweighuser (error typographicus) II 6-7
MP: Schweighuser (fort, vel S c h w e i g h u s e r N ) : fort,
() II 18 O.J. Schrier (privatim): MP:
Schweighuser ex R: Schweighuser N II 8-9 ]
II 1 4 10 del. Schweighuser^ ex Ench II edd.:
MP II MP: Schweighuser N ex Ench II 32a 1 11 ] [.]
P a c l II 4 17 alterum] P a c l II 32b H4 pacl || 9 5 P a c l II
] / II 6 ] : Schweighuser ex H(0)R II post
alterum add. Schweighuser ex R
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
10
10
10
;
, .
c. 33 ,
, , ,
, ,
. , .
' ,
. . [ 3 4 a ] ,
.
c. 34b , ,
, , , ;
c. 34c ' ' ,
, ,
.
c. 35a ' ; ,
.
.
c. 35b , , ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
, ' , . , ,
, , ,
, , .
, , , ,
33
] , vel potius vel Schweighuser^
ex Ench II 48 ] fort, Meibom: fort, Schweighuser^ 11 34b -1
II 34c 33 ] M II 35a 11 M II 35b -3 ] (sic)
M II 3 5 PPC II ] Schweighuser N ex Ench II MP:
Schweighuser ex Ench II 6 ] Schweighuser ex H II
II 4 7
1
2
4
1
2
4
5
15
10
15
' ,
,
, ' .
, ,
(
;), .
c. 36a ",
, . , ; ,
, . .
, ,
, ;
c. 36b , , ,
, , , , , ,
.
c. 36c ,
, , , -
, , ,
,

. [37] . - , , ,
. .
, , ;
,
, . , , . ,
, ,
.
,13 ] Schweighuser N ex Ench: II (>15

] Nf ac ' II 36a '4 : ex M'PC II -5 ] [.] P a c l II 6
] Schweighuser ex R II 36b ^2 MP: Schweighuser^ II 36c ^5 ] ci. Schweighuser^ II 6
scripsi: MP: Schweighuser II 37 2 ]
Schweighuser ex H ( 0 ) R II 14 P a c l II om. II 4 16 alterum]
2
3
2
3
10
c. 38a
,
, ,
'
.
, , '
' ,
, ,
,
.
c. 38b ,
,
. ,
.
,

.
c. 38c ,
, , , , .
,
. ,
.
c. 39
. [40]
' ,
,
, ,
,
38a '2 alterum MP: (sec. Meibom) II 3 R: MP II 5

] fort, legendum II - 6 ] Schweighuser ex R II 8
] II ^10 II Schweighuser: MP II 38b
4
1 M: om. : Schweighuser ex ? II 3 ] [..]] P a c l II "4
II fi5 ] Schweighuser ex H ( 0 ) R II (l 7 II 7-8 addub. Schweighuser II 38c 7 2 M II y 5 ] P a c l ut
vid. II 39 1 ] ci. Piscopo II 40 5 ]
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
. [41] ,
' , .
c. 42 .
[43] , , , ,
. [44]
, . , ,
,
.
c. 45 ,
, , , , .
c. 46 ,
,
, .
[47] .

.
c. 48 " ,
, ,
.
c. 49 " ,
, ,
, .
, '
.
7 : : Wotke ex Ench II
ci. Wotke: ci.
Piscopo II 41 8 MP: Schweighuser ex 119 MP:
Schweighuser ex R II 42 1 prius] ' II 44 5
MP'PC: [.]] P a c : Schweighuser ex H ? R II 7 Schweighuser ex H ( 0 ) R : MP II 45 2 , ] om. Schweighuser cum
R et (ut falso opinatur) II ] II [.] P a c l II 46 1
scripsi: MP: Schweighuser cum R et (ut falso opinatur) II 2
in rasura M1 (nescio quid ante fuerit) II 47 4 :
Schweighuser II 4 8 1 (sic) II 2 P a c l II om. II 49 1
II 2 : ex (ut vid.) M'PC II 4 Schweighuser ex
H ( 0 ) R MP II M
c. 50 '
.
,
.
c. 51

. [52] .
, ,
,
.
c. 53a " ,
, ' , .
, '
' ,
-
.
c. 53b ,
, '
.
c. 54 " , ,
. ,
; [55a] ...
, ,
,
.
c. 55b " ,
,
. [56] -
50 1 scripsi: MP II 51 2 MP: Schweighuser ex H(O)RII 52 5

] P ac1 II Schweighuser ex H(0)R: MP II 6 ] [.] P a c l II 53a 1 ] II 2 M :
II 4 scripsi: MP: ci. Schweighuser II
5 ] II 6 MP: ci. Schweighuser II 7 M II 53b 3
MP: Schweighuser ex H(0)R II 54 2 om. P a c l II 3 post
add. , - Schweighuser ex H(0)R II 55a
4 lacunam statuit Schweighuser II 55b 1 ] P a c l II 56 3 ] P a c ' ut vid.
10
, ,
.
c. 57
,
. ' , .
c. 58 , . , ,

, , , ,
.
c. 59
,
, ,
.
' '
.
c. 60 ' ,

,
. [61] ()
, .
,
, , .
, , ' .
' .
57 2 P'P C : : P a c 1 (ut vid.) II ] P a c l II 2-3

- om. P a c l (add. in marg.) II 3 ] :
in rasura M 1 II 58 2 ] Schweighuser (error typographicus?) II
P a c l II II 59 3 ] II 4 ] [..] P a c l II 60 1 [. P a c l II
2 : prius ex M'P C II 61 '4-5 Schweighuser ex
Ench: M a c : M ' ^ p c p || 2y {> scripsi:
() MP II ] II Schweighuser II 3 8
P a c l ut vid.
1
2
3
4
10
c. 62 , ,
. ,
( ),
, , '
.
c. 63 - ,
, .
- ,
, .
c. 64 - , '
. , '
, , ;

, . [65]
' , . , ' .

'
, . [66a]
, .
c. 66b ' ,
,
,
, ' .
c. 67 " () , ' ,
, ,
. .
62 2 : : HORVW: ci. Schweighuser N (omittens
ante ) II ] P a c l II ] ex P a c l (i.e. primo scripsit) II 3
edd.: MP II 4 MP: Schweighuser ex R II 63 1
Schweighuser ex Ench II 4 post add.
Schweighuser ex H(0)R om. cett. Il alterum] |[..]|
P a c I II 64 3 om. P a c l II 65 8 ] P a c I II 10 MP:
Schweighuser ex Ench II II 66a ' 13 II 66b2 4
Schweighuser ex Ench: MP II ^5 S c h w e i g h u s e r ^ ex Ench II 67 1
Schweighuser ex Ench: : II 3 Wotke ex Ench: MP:
Schweighuser ex H
10
15
[68]
, ' .

.
c. 69 ,
, , . ,
' ,
. ,
, . ...
c. 70 ... ' ,
. [71a]
,
; - . ,
; ,
,
' '
, , '
.
, - , .
, ,
' ,
.
c. 71b
-
, . [72]
, .
6 8 6 II 8 ^ 1 II 69 '2 post lacunam statuit

Schweighuser II 2 2 ] P a c l ut vid. II ] ^ 1 ut vid. II 3
post lacunam statuit Schweig MP: Schweighuser ex Ench II
huser (quae amplectitur etiam capita 48^, 49, 50 (init.) Encheiridii) II 71a *3
II MP: Schweighuser ex R: fort, II 37
] Schweighuser II 8 Schweighuser ex Ench: MP II
1 2 - MP'P C : - P a c : Schweighuser: fj,
Schweighuser^ II ^13 MP: Schweighuser ex Ench II 15 ] ci.
Schweighuser
1
2
3
1
2
4
5
{c. 73 6
,

.}

,

.
73 habent P 2m RRW: om. cett. II 1 ante add.

W II P 2m RW II om. P 2m RW II 1-2 priiis- om.
P 2m K II 2 P 2m KW II 4-5 - om. P 2 m K
PART THREE
THE PARAPHRASIS
CHRISTIANA
CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM
codices familiae primae ():
V
A
Parisinus gr. 1053, s. X exeuntis vel s. XI ineuntis

Venetus Marcianus gr. 127 (coll. 390), s. XIII
Atheniensis 521, s. XIII (deficit post 56 f \10 )
fons communis codicum V et

fons communis codicum A et
fons communis multorum codicum, ex quo pendent duo stirpes: et ; ut de codicibus ex pendentibus certior fias, vide
catalogum codicum (pp. 199-205) et stemma codicum (p.
212)
Cas
editio princeps M. Casauboni, anno 1659 in lucem emissa
familia altera:
M
Florentinus Laurentianus 55,4, s. X
Comm
Commentarius anonymus in Par, nondum editus (Comml

lemma indicat)
studiosi in apparatu critico laudati:

M. Casaubon, in editione principe anno 1659 in lucem emissa
J. Gronovius, in editione A. Berkelii a. 1683 in lucem emissa
C.G. Heyne, in editione tertia Encheindii a. 1783 in lucem emissa
F. de Nicola, in opere nondum in lucem emisso
J. Schweighuser, Epicteteae Philosophiae Monumenta V, 10-94
Casaubon N = Casaubon in notis
Casaubon mK = Casaubon in margine
370
X
ac
XPC
X
ac1
XmK
Xs'
X"
X1
[4]
(1
<>
0
T H E PARAPHRASIS
CHRISTIANA
X ante correctionem
X post correctionem
X ante correctionem, a prima manu correctus
X in margine
X supra lineam
X infra lineam
X in textu
spatium vacuum quattuor litterarum
litterae vel verba ita inclusa addenda sunt
EPICTETI ENCHEIRIDII
A M. CASAUBONO PRIMUM EDITA

10
c. 1 ' , ' . '

, , , ,
' , , , ,
. ' , , ' , , ,
, ,
', , , ,

, , ,
, , ,
, , .
c. 2
, ,
, . ,
'
.
c. 3
,
, '
titulus ante add. (-- ) C a s II

] II ( habet Cas) II V I I I 11
MP Cas CowimM^P^: Commcett II
om. M II II
II ] II
prius om. M Cas II fi9 M Comvb altero
loco: Comit priore loco II 10 ] Comm II
Cas II 7 11 om. Comm II 2 2 Cas:
II
post habet '
Comm II om. M II
om. Comm II 3 ' 1 M II M II 2
] : II 2 3 ] : om. Comm. II ]
Comm
1,2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
1
2
10
' . '
, .
,

, .
c. 4 ,
'
, .
' '
. -
' , '
, .
, ' .
c. 5 '
,
. ,
. ,
. ,
.
c. 6 " ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
. ,
()
.
' , ,
, - ,

, .
4 ] II 4 5 ] II 7 : V Cas: II 4 ' 1
] II 2 ; VA Cas: : :
MU et fort. Q (vix legibile) Il
] vel M II 3 5 ] M II 7
: Cas II 4 7 : V Cas (etHIKQS ) II 5 J1 ] M II
2 ] Comm II om. II % Cas II 3 5 Cas:
MPV II 6 1 2 MV Cas Comrrl : II 3 4 ] V:
M II ] dubitanter ci. Casaubon:
dubitanter ci. Schweighuser II 4 7 () supplevi II 8 : Cas:
(sine accentu) V
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
10
c. 7 , !
, , .
, , '
, .
c. 8 '

.
c. 9 .
,
,
. , ;
,
.
c. 10 "
,
,
, ,
, ,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,

.
c. 11 ,
, .
c. 12 , ,
. , . '

, .
7 * 3 om. PVCasll 3 3-4 om. PV Cas II 4

II 8 2-3 - om. M II VA II 9
] II 2
II
PV Cas: A II 10 1 1 ci. Schweighuser N
II : Cas: om. MPVA II 2 : ci. Schweighuser II 3 ]
Cas: Casaubon m K II M Il *3 ] Cas II 4
] Schweighuser ex M, ut falso opinatur II *4 et 3 4
] M II 4 6 M: PV Cas: :
: 11 fi9 II 7 1 0 om. Comm ^ 11 11 2
II 1 2 * 3 om.
1
2
3
1,2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
10
c. 13 '

,
, ,
, .
.
c. 14 , ' .
; . ;
. ' .
;
, .
.
, .
,
.
, , ,
.
c. 15 ,
,
, .

, .
c. 16 () .
. ,
, .

. ,
,
, ' ' -
14 4-5 ,4-7
- et - LXX Jb. 1,21
13 ' 1-2 ] : Cas II 2 3

II 4 ] M II : A II 14
1
1 II 4 4 ] Cas II -'6 Cas: MP II 6 7 V Cas:
: M II 7 9 II 10 alterum] II 15 '2 ] M II
V: M Cas: : A II 3 II ^5
M II 16 ' 1 () scripsi: II om. M II 2 2-3 ]
MA II 4 7 ] Schweighuser N
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
10
. ' , .
, -
, ,
, ,
, ,
.
c. 17 ,
. ' , .

.
c. 18
,
,
. ,
- , '
.
c. 19 ,
.
c. 20 '
.
,
' , .
c. 21 .
- , -
, - ,
. ,
, , -
16 5 ,9 . Matt. 7,3
16^,13 hoc dictum attribuitiir Socrati, Archytae, Platoni, anonymo: vide D.L. Ill
39; Antonius Melissa, Loc. comm. II 53 (PG 136, col. 1133D); Phot., Ep. I 1027-1028
Laourdas-Westerink; Plu., Mar. 10d; , 551ab; Sen., De Ira I 15,3
s
8 om. MA II : V Il ^"711 - om. M II 7 12 prius]
II M II "13 om. M II II : :
Cas: ci. De Nicola II 17 11 : ci. Heyne II 18 '2 alterum
om. II 20 2 II 21 11 : Schweighuser ex M, ut falso
opinatur II
M II 3 ] (sic, ut vid.) M II om. M II ''3
M II 4 ] II 4 4 : V*Pcy:
: Cas et ita V ac (ut vid.)
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
() , , .
c. 22 "
,
,
,

, , .
.
c. 23 .
, ,
, , ,
. ,
.
c. 24 " ,
, '
, ,
, . , '
' .
c. 25 ' ,
.
c. 26 "
,
. '
, .
, ,
;
, ' , 21 4 ,6 . Luc. 22,30
21 ,7-8 Ep. Rom. 8,17
6 () add. Schweighuser N II r>7 II II 22 ' 1 :
Cas II 2 : : V: Cas II 3
(non ita
Cas: : II II
Cas) II 23 1 1 M II 2 2 om. PV Cas II 3 4 M II 5 PV ac2 II 24 1 1
II 2 2 P a c l ut vid. Il 4 ] Schweighuser N II
Cas: II ^ 5 ] Schweighuser^ II
: PacYCas: PI)CV II '] MA II 25 1 1
] II II II 2 II 26 '2
Cas : MP II 3 : : MV : Cas II
M^PC II 7 Cas II Cas
1
2
3
4
1,2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
, '
.
c. 27 6 ,
. ,
, .
,
.
c. 28
' ,
, .
c. 29 ,
,
,
; ,
,
. ,
,
, .
c. 30 ,
.
,
.
c. 31 , . -
, ,
; ; ;
' , .
, -
; ' ;
s
8 II 27 '2 M II ] Schweightiser N II
. II
] Cas: V: : II % ]
(non ita Cas): Casaubon N II ] : om. Cas
II ] : Cas II ] VA : II
29 3 7 ] Cas II 8 ]
II 30 *2 MVADO: : Cas II 31 1 1 (sine accentu) II
MV II *3 II 4 om. II ^4 om. II ''6 ] vel
CasaubonmK II 7 Cas: : VHJKO:
xUSDN (desunt AI, 7-8 - omittentes) II om. M
5
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
15
20
25
30
35
; '
, ;
; ' , .

, .
, ,
.
- ;
, .

. '
,
- .
; () ,
. ;
, - ,
.
, ,
; , .
,
, ' .
'
.

, ,
, ,
,
,
13
7
1 0 alterum om. II ] M II 8 1 2 : MVA Cas:
II MA Cas: II ] : om. M II MV (ut saepius) II 1314 - alterum] M II 1 2 j g ] II : PV Cas:
om. M II ] M II 20 MA II | 3 2 2 : P a c (add.
P l m K , inserendum post ): : Cas II 22 ()
supplevi II Schweighuser N II 14 23-24 11 24
: PV Cas: A II Cas: V: A II
] Casaubon m K II 1 S 25 PV Cas II 26-27
] Schweighuser^ II 1 6 27 ] M II 1 7 28 M II 29
MV Cas: () : A (nisi fallor) II II ^ Cas: '
: : ' V: : II '^30 M II 19 31 om. all 33
om. P a c (add. P ' m K ) II 2 ( , 34 ] II 2 1 3 5
] : Cas
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
40
10
15
20
;

.
; .
, ;
.
c. 32
, ,
, - ,
'
.
, ,
;
' ,
,
, ,
,
. ,
;
- , , ,
,
, .
,

, ,
-
, . om. V II Cas: (- ) :
M II 38 M II 39 om. II '] V: II
] MA II 39-40 II 2341 ]
M II ] V (sed V , l c l ):
: II ] M II *2 Cas:
II ] Cas II 43 om. M II 32 1 3 ] M II 23
post laciinam statuit Casaubon II 4 ] M II " II
M II 4 8 et 1 : V; P 1m K litteris maiusculis
(= glossema)
II 9 in voce ' novum caput incipit M II ] (non ita Cas) Il 10
: M: PVe Cas II Schweighuser: II fill
om. M II ] II 12 Cas 11^13 Schweighuser^ II ] II 14 prius : V II
] : Cas II ^15 alterum om. M II 17 MA
Cas: (sic) : V: II , 0 2 0 M II '*22
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
25
, ,
,
.
c. 33a
. ,
. ,
, ,
,
, .
,
, .
c. 33b " ,
.
c. 33c
, , , .
c. 34 .
, , , . .
, ,
.
, , , '
', .
. '
, .
33a 5 ,7-8 cf. [Maximus Confessor], Loc. comm. 28 (PG 91, col. 880B), Antonius
Melissa, Loc. comm. I 73 (PG 136, col. 989C)
34 4 ,4-5 LXX Ex. 20,12; LXX Deiit. 5,16; . Matt. 19,19
23 scripsi: MPV ( Cas):
A: Casaubon m K II PV: : Cas II 33a 2 2
] :
Cas: II ]
Cas II 34 : II om. M II 4 5 M II 5 7 ]
II 7-8 ] M II 8 : : (vel ) Schweighuser^ II 33b novum caput incipit M (sed capids
numerus deest): capiti praececlenti coniungit II ( l l ] 6 PV: 6
Cas II 2 om. II 33c novum caput incipit M: capiti praececlenti coniungit II 7 1
II Cas II 2 ] :
V II om. PV Cas II 34 34 : 1 Pc: V Cas:
A II 5 7 : V II6 7 Cas:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1,2
3
4
5
6
7
10
15
c. 35 ;
, ,
. ,
, .
,
.
c. 36
,
,
,
.
, '
' ,
' , ,
,
.
, ,
, .
,
,
,
.
c. 37
,
.
c. 38
,
.
37,1 cf. e.g. . Matt. 5,23; Ep. Eph. 5,2; Just., Dial. 27,5;
cf. e.g. . Matt. 26,9-11; Flav. los., Ant. I 247
38' ,1-2 Ev. Matt. 6,7; 6,25; 6,31
38*,2 Ev. Matt. 6,10
38*,2-3 Ev. Matt. 6,8; 6,32
35 ' l om. M II 2 ] Cas: vel Casaubon nl K:
Schweighuser N II *3 II 4 om. M II 36 ' 2 M II *3
: Cas II 4 om. M II 4 6 M II 7 ] Schweighuser N
II ^9 om. M II M II fi12 ] : A II 7 1 4
om. II 8 1 6 V II 37 1 om. M II 38 *2 -]
M II Cas: : A (deficit M) II om.
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
1
2
c. 39 , '
, ,
,
, .
,
, .
c. 40 .
c. 41 -
,
. , ,
.
c. 42
.
c. 43 ,
,
,
.
c. 44 ,
,
,
,
,
, ,
.
c. 45
. ,
,
, .
.

,
. ',
.
39 22 II 4 5 MA II ] V: Cas (et IJKQ, ) II 5 6

II 40 1 ] : A II II 41 % ] M II 42 2 2
scripsi: PV: : : Cas II 42 22 - 43 ' 1 . M Cas: . PV: . :
, II 44 '3 ] fort, () II om. M II 2 4-5
II 3 6 : supra M1 II 45 4 7 ]
1
2
3
4
5
1,2
3
1,2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
10
c. 46 -
.
c. 47 "
, , ,
;,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
c. 48
.
, .

,
, , ,
- ,
.
c. 49 " ,
, '
, '
, ,

.

.
c. 50 " ,
,
. ,
46 11 ] : V: ' : Cas II M II 47 1 2
alterum] M II 3 PV: A II *4 om. M II ] M II 4 7
M II 5 8 ] Cas II M II 9 om. II 48 11 ]
II VA II *2 II 3 4 : V II ] II 5 ] : V:
: ( ) : _[: U : :
Cas: C a s a u b o n I I 6 ] Gronovius:
Casaubon"1!? II 4 6 om. II 7 Cas: II 49 '2
M II 4 : II Cas: A (nisi fallor):
: : Ve II - 4 ] II M II 5 M II
alterum om. II ^7 ] : om. II 50 '1 om. M II 2
1,2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
10
- ,
;
c. 51 " ,
,
.
c. 52 ,
.
c. 53
, .
'
.
c. 54 , . , ,
.
, ,
, ,
.
c. 55 ,
,
,
.
c. 56 " ,
, .

; . '
. , ,
, . ,
,
, ,
,
, ,
11511 Ve Cas: : (sic) :

: II : A II 2 ]
: A II 52 2 V dC (iit vicl.)e Cas:
'^ II Cas: : II 53 '2 M II 54 22
MP Cas: V: : II % om. M II 56 12
scripsi: MP: Cas:
V: ( ) ASZ: : U: J: Q II ^4 alterum] M II
M Cas II ^9 M Cas II 10 post vocem deficit A
1
2
1
2
3
4
1,2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
15
20
, , , , ,
,
. ,
' , ,
, .
, - ,
,

.
c. 57 - ,
, (
). -
, .
. , ' '
.
c. 58
, , ,
, . [59]
' , ' .
, ' .
, ' . ,
,
,
, .
c. 60 ,
, , '
, ,
.
60 3 ,4
lEp.Timoth.
4,12
s
1 2 ] II II 9 1 6 ] Cas: om. V II 57 '2 M II 2-3
alterum adcl. Schweighuser: om. (lacunam indicaverat
Casaubon) II
(bis) M II prius] II s 4
Casaubon m K: M: Cas II 5 ] () Casaubon"1!* II
58 '2 M II [59] 4 4 post lacunam susp. Schweighuser II
]
II fi7 ] PV2PC Cas: V ac II 60
2
2 in voce novum caput incipit M II ^3 ] Cas
10
11
12
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
10
c. 61 To . ,
,
,
, .
c. 62
, .
,
.
c. 63 ,
, ,
.
c. 64
' ,
.
c. 65 , ,
, .
, . ,
' ,

, .
, . '
.
, . , .
c. 66 ,
, ' ,
. , ,
,
, ' . [ 6 7 ]
, ,
.
61
: MPV Cas II 62 ^3 alterum om. M II 63 1 ]
M II 3 ] M II 64 22 Cas II om. Cas II 3 ] ' M II 65 11
M II
prius] Schweighuser ex M (ut falso
opinatur) Il *3 II 5 PVDN Cas II 6 P a c ,
P' Pc II 6 M II 66*2 ] PV: Cas II 3
: Cas: VK II % om. II 4 II
4
5 M II [67] 6 in voce novum caput incipit II 7 om.
1,2
3
4
1,2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
10
c. 68 " , ,
, . ,
-
.
c. 69 ;
; , ' ,

,
,
.
,

{}
{}.
,
. , , '
, .
c. 70
, ,
, ,
, .
, '
, .
c. 71 .
, , ,
, -
69' ,1 cf. e.g. Ep. Rom. 8,8

69 fi , 10-12 2 Ep. Timoth. 4,7
71 *,2-3 cf. . Matt. 10,21-23
68 1 1 : V II 2 ] :
V: Cas: : II 69 ' 1 ]
M II *2 om. M II 3 3 : Cas: II 3-4
] : V II 4 (desunt JSZ):
II 5 ] PV: : II 6 M II 4 7 ]
: Schweighuser 1 ^ II "9 Casaubon" 1 : II 10
Heyne: II 7 1 2 ] : V II 70 >2 P'P C Cas: MPac II
*3 ] Cas II 3 4 MP Cas II 4 5 om. II 6 ]
M II 71 1 1 M, rubro addito s.l. a prima manu (ut vid.) II
: : V Cas II 3 : MPV Cas
1
2
1,2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
1
2
, ,
, .
71 3 ,5-6 . Matt. 10,28a
5 ] ( V) II II : Cas II subscriptio '

LECTIONES VARIANTES MINORES
titulus ] II 1 5 7 II 8
V II 8 Cas II fi8 ] V II 2 2 3 V II
A (add. signa transp. A 1 ) Il Cas II 4 om. A a c l
II ] II ] A II 5 MPVA: edd. II 3
1
1 V II 2 ] V: II om. A ut vid. II
] V II 3 5
4
o m . A II 6 VA II 7 V II VA (sed A 2 P C ,
incertum quid ante fuerit) II 4 1 1 II ] II 2-3 - II
om. Cas II 6 - om. A II V II o m . Cas
II 7 A II 4 7 A II 8 Cas II 5 1 1 V II 2 om. A
II o m . A II 2 3 - 4 o m . A II 4 o m . A a c l II 5
] A II ] A II ] V:
(sic) A II 6 '1 A II 2 2 II 3 4 ] V II 5
V II 4 7 A II prius om. II V II 8
] A II ]
All ,9 ] A l l 10 om. A ut vid. II 12 om. A ut vid. Il 7 a 2
II 2-3 om. Cas II 4 Cas II alterum
om. Cas II 8 1 : II 2 V II prius]
II 9 '1 V II 2 1 II 3 Cas II om. II
A II 3 4 ] A (nisi fallor) II 5 Cas II ] A II
10 2 3 om. A II 4 Cas II ] V Cas: II
] Cas II 5 7-8 II 7-8
-] - Cas II 8 ] ( A l s l ) II 6 1 0 II 7 11
] V II V i l l i 1 VII
Cas II om. A II 2 om. A II 12 2 4 II 13 2 2 A II 2-3
II 3 : Cas II s 4 II 6
V
14 1 1 II 2 2 om. V II ] : A II
V II s 3 VA II ( n o n ita D N ) II 4 ] A l i o
] V II 4 5 II ,6 A II 7 () () II 6 8 ] V II ] Cas II 9 V: Cas
11 7 1 0 V II VII 15 1 3 A II 3 5 ] II 6 ]
' II 16 2 2 Cas II 3 A II
V A II 4
VAUV II 5 ] II 4 7 om. II 5 8 ] V II
Cas II fi9 om. Cas 1110 V: (sic) Casauboni c o d e x ,
Casaubon in textu II V II om. Cas II
Cas II 11 ] A II 7 1 2 ] Cas II 8 1 3 :
Casaubon II ] II 17 '2 V II ] II
Cas II 2 3 ] V a c 2 II ] V
II o m . V II post (1. 4) transp. V II 3 5 Cas II 18 2 3
] V a c 2 II 3 5 ] : Cas II om.
II 19 1 V a c 2 II 20 1 '] ' A II 4 V II 21 1 1 ] Cas II
2
2 V a c 2 II 3 4 ] (nisi fallor) II 5 7-8
II 8 ] V: om. Cas II 22
' 2 supra aliquid erasum in V II 3 A II

] V a c * II
Cas II alterum om. Cas II 5 V Cas II A 1 Pc: A a c II
2 3 2 2 ] II 4 ] A II
] A II ] A II 2 4 1 1 o m . A II *2 ]
A II ' ] Cas II 26 1 1 ] Cas II
2
4 V'pcy: V J c l II ] V a c 2 II 3 5 V d c 2 II ] vel
V a c 2 ] V 2 P C II 6 II 4 6 ]
II 5 8 post (1. 9) transp. V II 27 '2 om. Cas II 2 3 om. V II 4
o m . Cas II 28 3 ] Cas II 29 1 1 ]
V a c : V ^ II 2 om. Cas II 3 A:
Cas II 2 5 V II V II s 6 om. Cas II 7 V II
30 ' l Cas II 2 3 A 11 ] A II 4 Cas 11
31 1 1 II 2 ] A II 2 3 II V Cas II ]
A II 4 V II 4 5 ] Cas II 6 om. A II V:
II 5 7 ] II 7-8 - om. A II 7 1 0
Cas II 8 11 ] V II 12 ] A II 9 1 3 om. V II 14 o m . A II 15
II 1 2 19 ] Cas II V II 1 3 22
II 1 5 2 6 ] A II 1 6 2 7 Cas II V II 7 2 9
Cas II : II 1 9 31 V Cas II 33 V II
] Cas II 2 ( , 34 ] V II ]
Cas II 35 A II prius o m . Cas II 37 o m . A II 2 2 3 9 - 4 0 ] II 40 Cas II 2 3 4 0
] II 2 4 4 2 (sic) II 32 1 1 om.
Cas II V II 2 4 ] II om. II alterum]
II 3 5 ] A II 4 7 ] II
A II 8 ' A (add. signa transp. A 1 ) II 8-9
] V II s 9 ] A II 10 Cas II alterum om. A II 11
A II 7 1 3 A II 14 A II ] II 15
] V II ] Casaubon" 1 (15-16 -
omittens) II 16 o m . A II 9 1 7 ] Cas II 18 V II 1 ( , 19
V II 1 >21 v V II | 2 2 2 ] D N ( n o n ita ) II 24
] V II 25 Cas II 33a 1 1 A II 2 3 ]
II o m . V II 4 5 ] V II V II V a c I (nisi fallor) II
] Cas II 6 ] II 5 8 II 34 3 4 prius om. Cas
II alterum] A II 4 5 om. A a c l II ] II
,6 ] II ] (nisi fallor) A II 7 A II 7 9 A
II 35 1 1 om. Cas II 2 ] II 3 5 Cas
36 1 1 capiti praecedenti coniungit V II om. A II 2
II 3 5 om. II 4 5 ] A II 6 om. Cas II 5 8
V A l s l II 9 ] II 6 1 2 Cas II VA'P C II 14
prius] A II 15 A II 37 2 II ] II ]
II 3 ] II 38 1 1 ] A II 2 2 ] AJx II ] A II 3 ] Cas II 39 4 5 om. Cas II
40 o m . A II alterum om. A II 41 1 1 Cas II 2 1 V II 2
] II 3 3 om. Cas II 4
A II o m . V II II 42 ' l
] V : A II ] II '"21 ]
V II 4 3 1 1 ] A II 2 4 om. II 44 ' 2 ] V II
2
3 A II
o m . II 6 II 6-7
( IJK) II 7 A II 45 2 2 A II 3
] II 3-4 ]
' ( D O ) , ' -
, ( ) ,
, ( ) ,
( ) II 3 om. II 3 4 om. A II 5
om. II V II 4 6 A II 7
] II 46 1 1 II ] II II 2 2
Cas II 47 1 1 A II 2 3 alterum] V II 4 alterum
o m . A II V II 4 7 A II 5 8 om. V II 9 Cas II 48 1 1
Cas II 2 2 ] II 3 3 om. Cas II 6
A II 4 7 ] : A II : A II A II A II
4 9 '1 ] V II 2 o m . A a c l II 4 : V II 2 4
] II ] : om. A II 3 6 o m . V a c 2 || 7
om.
50 1 1 ] V II 2 4-5 II 51 1 ] [,] V II
2 om. Cas II 52 1 1 ] ' A II (sic) V ( fort, p.c.) II 53 1 1 ]
A II 2 V II 2 3 A II 54 '1 A II 3 4
A (add. signa transp. A 1 ) II 5 V II ] Cas II
om. Cas II 4 6 ] A (nisi fallor) II 55 1 1 [..|
yac2 2 ] 0 ^ 0 V o m Cas Il 2 ] A II s 3 A II 4 V II 56 1 1
] A II ( J) II 2 om. Cas II 3 4 V II 5
] V: ' A II 4 6 ( n o n ita S) II A II 5 7 II fi9
om. A II om. II 10 V: V^P 0 II 8 1 4 V II
9
1 4 om. II 15 ] Cas II V II 16 om. V II 1 0 17
o m . Cas II 1 1 1 8 ] II ] II ]
[..| V d c 2 II 57 2 3 ] : (desunt
J U ) II 4 - alterum om. Cas II 3 4-5 -] - II 6
V a c | / 2 nisi fallor II 58 1 1 ] V II 2 3 ] V II
[ 5 9 ] 3 3 om. Cas II 4 4-5 - om. Cas II fi7
] Cas; '
: (sic) vel . (sic) . . Casaubon m K II II V II 8
o m . V II 9 II 60 '1 V II 2 2 ] V II 3
V II II 3 3 om. Cas II 61 3 3 Cas II om.
Cas II 4 ] II 4 4 alterum (i.e. post )
o m . V II 5 V II 62 s 3 om. V II 64 2 3 V II 65 1 1 ]
V II 2 2 om. Cas II 4 6 ] V II 7 V II fi8 Cas II
9 ] II 66 2 2 om. Cas (add.
post Casaubon m K) II [67] 4 8 post aliquid erasum in V II
o m . Cas II 6 8 1 1 Cas II 2 3 om. V II ] V II 69
2
2 ' ] ' II 3 3 ]
II ] II 4 ] (sine spiritu) V II
Cas II 5 om. II 4 7 V II ] Cas II 8 II 5 9
V d c 2 (ut vid.) II >11 } II om. II 7 0 2 2
e j 11 3 ] Cas; Casaubon m K II ] Cas:
(nisi fallor) V, add. aliquid s.l. V 2 II 4 4 om. Q U II 5-6 prius
om. V II 5 prius] II om. Cas 1171 1 1 V II 2 2
(sic) Cas: II s 4 V a c 2 II 6
o m . Cas II post add.
(= . Matt. 10,28b)
LECTIONES VARIANTES AD REM ORTHOGRAPHICAM
PERTINENTES
1
: V JC (nisi fallor): V*PC II 5 6 II 7
A II A II A II 8 A II fi8 A II
10 A II 11 A II ] II 2 1 1 II 3 4
II (sic) V II 4 5 V II 6 V II Cas II 3
23 II 3 5 II 4 6 VA II 6-8 - evanuit in A,
iterum scripsit A* Il 6 : V: A* II 7
VA* II 8 M II V: A II 4 1 1 :
V II 2 A Cas: (rasura) II M II M II V II
II 3 A II : V II 3 6 II 7
II 4 8 M II V II 5 ' 3 A Cas II
M II
II 4 M II 3 5 II 6 1 1 II 2 3 II 3 3
M Cas II 4 7 ( P l s l ) II 5 1 0 Cas II 7 3 3
Cas II 4 A II 5 II 8 2 V II 9 2 2
] 6 A II 3 II II 4 A II 3 5 Cas 1110
1
1 V II 2 PV II Cas II II 3 5
11 4 6 PVA Cas II 5 7 M II 8 V Cas II ' Cas II 6 9
A II 7 1 0 II 11
12 1 1 ' II M II 2 II 2 2 : V II ' II 4 ' Cas
II 13 22 V II 3 II 3 4 Cas II 5 II 6
II 14 1 1 Cas II 22 II 3 3 M II
II 4 5 A l l 5 6 Cas II 7 A II Cas II fi8 ]
A a c l II 7 1 0 [ J V a c l II 11 : A II 15 ' 2 et 3
] : Cas II 2 Cas II 2 3 II 4 : in ras. II 3 6 II 16 ' 2 Cas II 2 3
II 3 5 II 4 5 Cas II 6 Cas II 7
Cas : (sic) A l l s 8 : [ . ] P a c l :
Cas II 7 1 2 V II II 17 1 1 Cas II V II
2 A II 2 3 PA II ' P a c l II 3 5 ' Cas II V II 18 1 2
] II ] Cas II 2 3 Cas II 3 4 II 5
V*PCA II M II 6 ' P a c l II V II 19 1 II 2
V dC 2 II 20 1 A l l 1-2 ] (sic)
' A a c l II 2 II 3 . . ] P a c l II 21 3 4 Cas II
] A (nisi fallor) II 8 . II 2 2 1 1 II ]
[ , ] P a c l II 2 II
II 4 6 : :
ac
1
acI
V 2 II 23 1 V
II
prius] II
II : (sic) A II 3 A II V II II 24 1 1
A II A 11 *2 II 4 Cas II 3 5
II 2 6 '1 V a c 2 || 2 V a c l II II 2 4
Cas II 3 5 ] V a c l ut vid. II 6 A
2 7 ' 2 P a c l II 2 3 V: : Cas II 4
: Cas II 3 6 V II 28 3 ] V: ' II
P l s l A II 29 ' 2 : [.]:[[.]] V a c 2 :
M II 3 II V t II 3 8 A II
A II 30 2 4 . ] P a c l II 31 2 3 II 5 6 '< Cas II
7 V II fi8 P'P C (incertum quid ante fuerit) Il s 1 2 MV II
1()
16 MV II 1 1 1 8 : fort, ex V 1 II 1 2 2 0 : '
PV Cas II 21 II 3 2 2 II 1 4 2 4 II 25
II | 5 2 6 P a c l II | 6 2 7 Cas II II 1 7 2 9
II Cas II 1 8 31 MA II 9 3 2 ] V a c 2 II : spir. et acc.
V2PC (nescio quid ante fuerit) Il II 2 ( ) 33 ' II 34 II
21
3 5 ' II " 3 7 II A (nisi fallor) II 38 Cas II
Cas II Cas II 39 M II 2 3 4 0 Cas II 2 4 4 2
V Cas II A II 4 3 II 32 1 1 II 2 II
2
5 V II 4 8 [ . ] P a c l II 5 9 A II 10 V II 6 1 1
V II A II II 7 1 3 ] Cas II 14 II
II 8 1 5 A II 16 A II 9 1 7 :
Cas II 18 Cas II " 2 1 II Cas II 1 2 2 4
: P'P C II 33a '2 A II 3 4 : Cas II 4 5
II 6 II 33b fi2 Cas II 33c 7 2 Cas II
| . . | V d c l II P a c l A
3 4 : A II 2 1 II 3 3 II 4 5
II 6 II II ' PV Cas II PV II 7 :
e x V'P C II fi8 V II 35 ' 3 ] P a c , P'Pc (vel vice versa):
A II 2 3 A II 4 Cas II ' Cas II II 3 5
(bis) M II 36 1 1 II 2 ] V d c 2 (ut vid.) II 3 5 VA
II ' P Cas II II 4 7 VA II 5 9 II II
II : V II II 6 1 0 II 11
II 12 MV II 7 1 3 A II 3 7 1 V II 3 8 2 3
II 39 2 3 [ . ] V d c l II 5 6 ' II 40 A II V II
41 1 1 [ . . ] P" cl II 2 2 II 4 3 ' 2 II 2 3
: V
4 4 1 1 M II A II Cas II 2 PVA II 2 4
A II Cas II 3 5 : in ras. V 1 II 6 V ( V 2 ! 30 et prius
e x V 2 ) II 45 2 2 A II 3 II II 4 Cas II 5
: e x V'P C II 4 6 A (nisi fallor) II A II 7 : Cas
II II A (sic) II V II ,8 ' Cas II 46 1 1
II (sine accentu) II 2 1 | . ] P a c l II 2 II 47
'1 ( P 2 m K ) II 2 II Cas II :
V: A II 2 3 II 3 5 II 4 6
M II II : A II 4 7 II 5 8
A II 9 II ] II 10 Cas: P a c l (ut
vid.) II 48 2 2 ] II II 3 4 Cas II 4 6 V
(sed V 2 * 1 ) II ] |[...3 V d c 2 II 7 M II 8 II
49 1 1 ( P l s l ) II 2 4 Cas II 3 6 A II 50 1 1
II 2 II 2 3 : P l s l II 4 II A II 51 1 Cas:
A II II 3 : M II 52 2 Cas II
5 3 1 1 V a c 2 II 2 II II 2 3 A II 54 1 1 A II 2 2
A II 3 PV d c 2 A II A II 55 3 3
56 1 1 A II 2 3 A II II 3 5 ' II 4 6 II
5
7 Cas II ( s.l. M 1 ) II 9 (ut vid.) V a c 2 II
7
1 1 II 8 1 3 II 9 1 4 II 15 II II
, P l s l II 11 18 II 57 3 5 P a c l II II ']
Ve: ' Cas II 58 11 MP II 2 2 ] Cas II [59] 3 3 VPC
Cas II 5 5 Cas II 60 2 II *2 [..] V a c 2 II PV II 3
] V (sed fort. p.c. V 1 ) II 61 II 2 2 II 3 3
II 4 5 II 62 11 II P a c l II 2 1 II 3 3
II 63 1 ' II II 3 II 64 >2 ' Cas II
65 2 2 Cas II 5 8 V II 6 9 II 66 2 2 ' Cas II 4 5
II 6 V a c l II [67] 4 7 : 2 ex V'PC II 8 II
Cas II 68 2 3 II 69 2 2 (sine accentu) II 3 3
: Cas II 5 V II 4 8 Cas II 5 9
Cas II 6 10 II 7 12 Cas II 13 P a c l II 70 2 3 Cas II 3 4
P a c l II Cas II 4 4 Cas II ' II 71 2 2 II
3 Cas
PART FOUR
THE ADAPTATION OF VATICANUS GRAECUS 2231
CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM
Vaticanus graecus 2231, s. XIV (A.D. 1317-1338)
V ac
VPC
V ante correctionem
V post correctionem
y ante correctionem, a prima manu correctus
V in margine
V supra lineam
V infra lineam
V in textu
yaci
m
V fi
Vs1
V'1
VI
Studiosus in apparatu laudatus:

S.R. Slings (privatim)
{}
<>

litterae vel verba ita inclusa addenda sunt
ENCHEIRIDION CHRISTIANUM
IN CODICE VATICANO GRAECO 2231 REPERTUM

10
c. 1 ' , ' . '

, , , ,
. ' , , , ,
. ' ,
, ' , , , . ,
, , , ,

, ( ) , , , , , , , ,
.
c. 2 , , '
, '
, ' '
.
c. 3

, , ' ' -
' , .
c. 4 ,
.
, . ,
' ,
1 1 3 : in hac voce novum caput incipit rubricator

: in hac voce novum
caput incipit rubricator II 6 : in hac voce novum caput incipit rubricator II
7 scripsi: V
2
3
10
10
, '
' .
' ,
- ' ,
, . ,
' .
c. 5 '
,
. ,
. , - .
c. 6 " ,
, ,
, , , , - ,
. ' , , f ]" , ,
-
.
c. 7 ,
, ,
- ,
, . , , ' ,
.
c. 8 '
- -
' .
c. 9 . ' , - '
, ' .
; , ' , -
.
a correctore in rasura scriptum esse vicletur, sed fortasse scriba spadum
vacuum reliquit; nescio quid ante fuerit 115 2 : rasura inter p et , ut
vid. Il 4 : prius ex V1 II : ex fecit V1 II 6 7
corruptum II 10 : ex V1 117 3 ] ' 2*?
c. 10
,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
,
, ,
.
c. 11 ,
, .
c. 12 , ,
. ,
. '
, .
c. 13 '
.
,
, ,
. .
c. 14 , '
. ; . ;
. .
, ; ' , , .
c. 15 ,
,
, .

.
c. 16 " , ,
,
10 1 : ex (ut vid.) fecit V1 II ] fort, corrigendum II 5
: add. v ' P c II 8 scripsi: V II 11 1 scripsi: V II
: in rasura V* II 12 1 : in rasura V 2 II 13 4 :
in rasura V2 (- a.c., ut vid.) II 14 2 post (quod erat ultima vox f. 63 v )
add. infra lineam , V 2 II 16 hoc caput capiti praecedenti
iunxit rubricator
.
, ,
, ' (
) ' .
c. 17 ,
.
c. 18
, .
'

f .
c. 19
,
, , ,
. ,
.
c. 20 '
.
,
' , .
c. 21 . ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
,
' , ,
'
.
c. 22 " , , , , '

( ), .
, ,
- .
18 1 : in rasura V1 (nescio quid ante fuerit) II 4-5 aut prius aut
delendum II 21 1 add. s.l. V1 (ut vid.) II 8 ' ] '
V 2m K
c. 23 . , , -
,
, , - . ' ,
'
.
c. 24 ' ,
, '
, ' , ,
.
, , '
' .
c. 25 ' , .
c. 26 "
. ' ,

, ' - ,
' .
c. 27 ,
. ,
.
-
, .
c. 28
' , - .
c. 29 ,
, ,

; , ,
. , , -
23 2 : V a c l II 28 1 () V II post add. V*
II 3 : spatium vacuum (an rasura?) duarum litterarum inter (sic) et II
: ex (ut vid.) V 1 II 29 1 : in rasura sex litterarum scripsit
(nisi forte V 1 fuerit); ex , nisi fallor II 3 scripsi: V
10
15
20
25

, .
c. 30 [ ] , .
,
.
c. 31 , .
( ), ' ,
. ' ; . ;
, ,
; ; ; ,
' ,
' , ;
; . , . '
, , .
, ;
, ' , . ' , ' ,
. , ;
. ;
, , ,
, ; .
| ".
;
.
, ;
30 1 ante aliquid erasum in V II : V2PC, in rasura

magna scriptum; haud dubie ergo prima manus scripsit II 3 ante
add. V 2 s l II 31 '7 : ex V 1 II ^13 ' scripsi: II 14
scripsi: V II 4 2 3 scripsi: V II 24 corruptum; M / e a d e m habet
10
15
c. 32 Ei
, ' ,
, .
' .
, , ; ,
'
, ; . , , '
,
. . '
; ' , , ,
,
, .
; ,
.
c. 33 . | [ ] t ,
. , ,
, .
,
' . ' , ', .
.
c. 34 " ,
.
c. 35 , , ,
, , ;
' , -
32 1 1 ] supra lineam et in rasura V* II ante add. V* II 4

] fort, legendum
] / V II scripsi: V II
II 3 10 vix sanum, fort, legendum II 33 2 post rasura unius litterae V;
haucl dubie fuit; ergo aut aut delendum II 4-5
: in rasura V' II 35 '3 : ex (ut vid.) V'
10
15
20
25
30
35
, . ' ; ,
.
, , , , ,
, , , , ,
, ,
, , , , ' ,
. , ,
- , ,
, , , .
, , , , - '
.
, ' .
, '
( ;)
, , , . , ; ,
, - .
, ,
, ; , ,
, ,
, , ,
, , . ,
, , -
, ,
, , - ,
-

.
c. 36 .
, ,
, . .
39 : ex 1 II 4 15 : p.c. V 1 II -^23
' ( V)] ' V2mK II 8 38 scripsi: V II 36 1 () V
10
10
15
20
, ,
;
, ,
. ,
, .
, ,
.
c. 37
,
, ,

.

, '
' ,
, , ,
, , [ ].

, .
,

, , ,
. ,

, .
,
.
4 scripsi: V II 9 post add. supra lineam

V 2 (ut vid.) II 37 1 3 : V 1 P c ; nescio quid ante fuerit II 210
: ex V1 (ut vid.) Il 11 scripsi: V II 12 post (quod in
fine lineae positum est) V* in rasura unius lineae scripsit
/ / (linea
sequens incipitur in , a prima manu scriptum): ergo suspicor scribam
verba per
homoioteleuton omisisse; textus qualem edicli non iam legitur II 4 16 post
add. (in fine paginae) '
V* II ^20 ] ' V*"1
10
10
c. 38 " ,
, ,
, , ,
' ,
, ,
,
, , , , ,
, . '
, '
.
, .
c. 39 .
' ,
,
, , , , , . ,
, .
c. 40 ' .
c. 41 " , , , ,
.
c. 42
,
. , , ,
.
38 '1 ] ' V 2 m II 2 ] ' V 2 m K II 2 7

S.R. Slings (privatim): ' V II 1 scripsi: V; post has
voces add. V2mK u
12 ' vix sanum: V 2 P C II 14
post add. ,
, . '
. .
.
: V 2m K II 39 2 4 fort, delendum II 5 post alterum add.
V 2 (per lineam)
1
2
c. 43 ,
, , , ,
.
c. 44
.
,
.
c. 45 ,
,
, .
c. 46 .
, ,

.
.
,

.
c. 47 ,
.
c. 48 " ,
,
,
.
c. 49 " ,
, ,
, .

.
c. 50 .
... .

.
43 2 ] V 2 P C II 44 1 scripsi: V II 3
alterum: in rasura V 1 II 4 scripsi: V II 45 2 scripsi:
V: add. post V 2 s ' (sed prius non deletum) Il 46 1 () V II 47 1
() V II 48 2-3 ] ' (sic) V 2 m S II 49 1
() V II : fort. leg. II 50 1 scripsi: V II 3 ante
aliquid desideratur
10
. , ,
, .
c. 51 " ,
, ' , ' .
, ' , '
.
,
,
.
c. 52 " ,
,
. ,
, ;
c. 53 , , ,

, , , .
,
, ,
.
c. 54 ,
.
c. 55
,
. ' ' ,
.
c. 56 , .
[[] , ,

7 alterum scripsi: V II 51 3 : fort, legendum II : v 2 s l
: prius et alterum V'P C II 8 suspectum; pro fort,

legendum II 52 1 () II 53 1 ( ) II 6 scripsi: V II 54
1 () V II 55 2 : ex V1 II 4 scripsi: V II 56 1 :
fort. p.c. ' ( a.c.?) II 1-2 , : ita scripsisse videtur prima
manus; . erasum, s.l. additum, in rasura scriptum a V 2 ;
igitur aut aut omisit ; vestigia autem accentus gravis cernenda sunt, qui
in voce positus fuisse videtur II 3 p.c. V' (nescio quid ante fuerit)
, ,
, ,
.
c. 57
,
, ,
.
' '
.
c. 58 ,
, , ,
. ,
|] .
c. 59 " , ,
,
, . ,
, .
' .
c. 60 , ,
. ,
( ), '
, , ' .
c. 61 ,
, . ,
,
[] . [].
c. 62 ' , '
, - ' , '
, , ;
57 1 () V II 58 4 ^ scripsisse videtur prima manus; erasum;

II 59 8 scripsi: V II 60 2 ante
s.l., in rasura scripsit
add. V 2 (extra lineam) II 3 alterum] V 2 P C II 61 1 () V II 5 (bis)]
V2PC

, .
c. 63 ,
, ,
, ' .
' {} '
, .
c. 64 () ,
. ,
,
,
,
' , .
c. 65 " , ' ,
, ,
.
'.
c. 66 , ' .
c. 67 -
.
c. 68 - , ,
, ,
. , .
, ' -
, . , , ,
-
63 4 : ex ' II '] ' V 2m K II : s. 1. V 2 (ut

vid.) II 5 delevi; supra duo puncta scripsit V 2 , quae vocem
delendam esse indicare videntur II 64 1 scripsi: vel (in initio
lineae) V: rubricator ergo primant litteram addere neglexit; incertum utrum
an scriba voluerit II 2 : tertium ex (ut vid.) V1 II 3 (sic) V l s ' II
: prius ex 1 II 4 post add. 2 II 5 : fort, corrigendum II
65 5 : in rasura V 2 II 66 1 (^ V II 67 hoc caput capid praecedenti
iunxit rubricator II 2 ] V 2 P C II 68 hoc caput capid praecedenti iunxit
rubricator II 1 V II 4 ] Vac^ (ut vid.)
10
10
10
15
' . . , . , .
c. 69 " ,
, ' . ; .
' . ' . .
, -
. ,
; '
,
.
c. 70 " , ,
, ,
.
c. 71
; .
,
; , ,

' , ,
. ,

. , , '
,
. ' ,
', ' .
69 1 () V II ] ' V 2 m s II 3 ex V' II 4 scripsi: '

V II 5 ] y 2 p c II 8 : alterum ex (ut vid.) ' II 11
] ' V 2 s l 1170 1 V II 71 3 14 ] '
10
c. 72
, -
,
, | " , , , ,
; ,
- , , -
,
. ,
, .
c. 73 - "
, '
, -
, . " '
, ' . ''
, , .
, .
73 11-2 "- cf. Simp. LXXI 11-13

72 *4 1'+: fort, restituendum II 73 ' 1 ]
yacl ( u t vid ) n scripsi: V II 1-3 -] ' '
' V* m K II 4 6 ] '
v2mj
2
3
4
INDICES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX VERBORUM EPICTETI ENCHEIRIDII
Numeri sectionum non indicantur; lectiones variantes non laudantur.

25 17
24 7, 8, 19
6 3, 6; 19b 3; 24 14 (bis); 25 2;
(29 34|; 30 4; 31 8,9, 17, 18; 32 4
21 3
4 10; 28 1
33 23
53 2
{29 27)
34 9
19a 1; {29 10); 51 12
30 5; 43 2, 4
32 7
30 5; 43 2, 3
25 7
5111
31 15
51 6
{29 13)
{29 15); 33 6
24 12, 16, 23, 26; 40 6
33 45
32 18; 51 2
'' 2 6; 31 7; 48b 7
40 5
18 1, 4
33 46
24 4; {29 4)
28 4
5a 5
31 11, 12, 13
31 5; 42 2
52 5
{29 1, 6)
26 8; {29 20); 33 44; 49 5
33 31
1 5
1 11
42 4; 52 5
1 13; 4 8, 9; 5a 1, 3, 5; 8 1; 11 1,
3; 12 10; 13 5; 14a 4; 15 4, 7 (bis);
16 3, 4; 18 2, 3; 19b 5; 20 1;24 7,
18; 25 9; 26 7; {29 5, 16, 18); 30 3,
4, 6; 32 2, 6, 18; 33 4, 22; 34 2, 9; 36
6; 41 3; 42 3, 6; 43 3; 45 1,2; 46 2,
3, 11, 13; 47 4; 48a 2; 49 6; 51 5, 8;
53 8
26 2
35 2
5a 5; 5b 1, 3; 9 4; 14a 4; 14b 4;
16 4; 17 5; 21 1; 24 3, 22; 26 2, 5
(bis), 8; {29 17 (bis), 25 (bis)); 30

7; 32 13; 33 23, 25, 43; 34 2; 40 2, 5;
45 4, 5; 49 10; 51 7 (bis), 15
1 6, 7, 9 (bis); 6 1; 11 5; 14a
3; 24 10
33 9
19b 2; 31 7
12 3
24 25; 33 32, 45
48b 9
14a 3
34 9
12 2; 13 5; 31 6; 51 6; 52 10
31 24
33 42
31 14
33 17
34 4
2 10; 3 4; 5a 3; 6 2; 11 5; 15 4; 17 1;
18 5; 24 23, 24, 25, 27; 26 6; 28 2;
33 24, 34; 49 3; 50 2
= : vide
51 1,13
34 3
1 9
33 3, 25; 52 1, 6, 7
2 9; 13 5; 14b 4; {29 7); 31 10;
32 4; 33 15; 39 3; 53 6
{29 7)
24 27
2 8; 32 21
37 1
7 2
52 7
15 1; {29 13)
{29 4)
32 12
47 4
33 11; 48b 8
^ 2 11
10 5
33 32
25 19; 30 3; 46 6
40 2, 3; 51 5
26 6
1 8; 3 5; 5a 1; {29 22, 34); 33
2,7
33 46
19a 1
24 15
13 1
7 6; 25 8, 18; 49 10, 11
(29 30)
34 6, 9
" 53 9
24 24
36 2, 4, 6
15 6; 24 7; 40 5
24 13, 18; 255; 32 11; 51 1,9
15 9
53 4
33 21
46 6
12 7; (29 31)
5b 1
114
7 9; 33 29
28 1
20 4; 39 5
36 2, 4
51 11
1 5
31 23
7 8; (29 29); 30 2; 33 11, 18; 48b
7, 8
32 11
() 33 41, 44
() 4 2
(29 28)
(29 7); 33 28; 34 6
13 3
24 27
25 8, 17
(29 9|
2 6; 3 2; 12 6; 18 6; (29 27); 30 9
(ter); 31 7; 40 1; 42 6; 46 2, 13; 48a
2
18 5; 32 1, 6
24 17, 26
52 11
52 3, 4, 5
16 1
1 1 2 (bis), 3 (bis)
3 5; 11 2 (bis); 12 3; 26 6,
7; 51 9
33 37
33 23
53 9
33 9
34 4, 5
51 14
11 1; 16 2; 23 2; 24 14; 31
20
33 22; 48b 5
41 3
33 35
4 3
33 48
24 27; 49 10; 51 15
1 17; 2 3; 14a 5; 27 1; 31
10
1 13; 4 1, 5; (29 6); 33 19; 34

8; 38 4
33 13; 44 2 (bis), 4 (bis)
24 16
23 2; (29 17|
3 1 5
23 2
47 1
48b 5
1 3; 15 5; 24 4; (29 291
3 3; 5b 2; 12 5; 40 3; 46 10
115
17 4
49 3
50 1
1 5
14a 6; 47 3
44 1
(adv.) 4 4; 38 4
37 2
12 7; (29 311
(29 3)
24 2, 5
24 1
2 9
2 3
22 1
1 13, 15, 19; 3 4; 5b 1; 9 2, 3; 10
2; 11 1,5; 12 10; 16 3,6; 17 5; 18 6;
19b 4; 22 6, 8; 24 9, 11, 17,22, 23,
24 (bis), 27; 25 3, 4 (), 9, 13,
15, 19; 26 7, 8; (29 2 (bis), 21); 30
6; 31 2,4, 12, 13, 15, 22; 32 2, 4, 6,
7; 33 15 (bis), 21, 37, 39; 34 2,6, 7,
8; 35 2, 3 (bis) ; 40 3; 42 2, 3, 8; 43
2, 3, 4; 46 5 (bis), 6, 13; 48b 4
(bis); 49 2, 6, 9 (bis); 52 3
vide
114; 14b 2
11 3; 46 4
(29 11)
12 4
1 13; 7 5, 8; 12 1
(29 4)
22 3
12 4
43 2
2 1 0
32 13; 47 2
33 18
41 1
25 3
4 3; 24 20
(29 10)
(29 23)
52 4
22 4; 51 1, 10
3 49 2
7 6
51 9, 17
1 12; 31 12
31 15; 48a 2, 3
1 11; 30 7, 8 (bis); 31 14, 15;
38 2; 42 4, 6; 53 9
33 27
24 19
3 32 20
7 3, 6
26 1
13 2; 14b 3; 23 1, 3; 24 15,
26; 25 9; (29 24}; 46 5; 49 4; 51 17
{29 24)
17 2 (bis)
33 6
46 12
33 19
1 12; 2 8; 3 4, 5; 4 7; 6 5; 9 3; 12 3;
13 3; 14a 2, 4; 15 8; 16 4; 17 4; 18 5;
19b 3; 20 4; 24 2, 20; 25 5, 12, 14;
{29 5, 18, 25); 30 7; 31 6, 11, 21; 32
3, 7, 16; 33 14, 23, 27, 30, 40, 42,
45; 35 3; 39 5; 42 4, 7; 43 3; 45 3; 46
4, 8; 50 3; 52 5 , 8
1 16; 31 9; 33 48; 44 5; 49 11; 51 17;
53 4
30 9
33 10, 44
7 9
31 19
4 3, 8, 10; 8 1 (bis), 2 (bis); 12
4; 15 2,4; 23 1; 24 27; 26 3; 27 2; 31
4,7; 32 16; 33 13, 20, 26 (bis), 29,
39,49; 39 4; 53 5 , 8
31 25
28 2; 31 5; 41 4
49 10
49 3, 6
{29 7); 41 2
7 6
3 4; 11 2; 14a 1; 15 5; 18 4; 26 6;
31 20; 40 1
46 9
32 7
1 1, 3 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 14 (bis), 20; 2 2 , 3 , 5 ,
7, 10; 4 10; 6 2; 7 3, 7, 9; 9 1, 2, 4;
11 4, 5; 12 5 , 8 (bis); 14a 5; 14b 4;
15 6; 17 5; 18 4; 19b 5; 21 2; 22 4
(bis), 6, 7; 23 3; 24 5, 10 (bis), 13,
15, 21, 22, 26; 25 3, 4, 11, 15, 16; 28
2; {29 2, 3, 10, 13, 14 (bis), 15, 16,
31, 32); 30 8; 31 7, 13, 23; 32 3,5,
11; 33 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 25, 27,
32, 44, 46, 48; 34 7; 35 4; 36 2, 4; 39
2; 40 3; 41 3; 43 1; 44 3, 5; 45 5;
48b 5, 7; 49 4, 8, 9; 50 2; 51 16; 52
7 (bis), 8, 10 (bis); 53 2, 4, 6 , 9
(bis)
1 13; 7 3; 15 1; 24 6; 25 3; 26 4; {29
6, 27, 34 (bis)); 31 22; 32 14; 36 4,
7; 46 3 (bis); 51 3; 52 3, 8, 11
24 13
33 22
5a 2, 4 (bis); 21 1
25 15, 18
52 2, 6, 7
7 5
49 11
32 17; 33 49
1 16, 17; 11 4; 24 3, 17, 20, 21
(bis); 31 18, 19 (bis), 20; 33 3; 52 6,
7
33 40
24 1
32 6; 35 1; 45 3
18 2
33 12
33 29
24 1
7 3
52 4
53 3
518
20 4
52 9
12 2
26 1
25 15
17 2; 51 4
7 6; 11 4, 5; 17 4; 24 10; 25 13,
14, 15; 32 14
36 1
313
{29 30)
15 8
312
1 22; 4 8; 5a 3; 33 23
22 8
47 4
5a 2, 6; 16 5; 20 2; 45 3; 52 2
13 2 (ter); 23 3; {29 25);31 15,
16; 33 34; 42 8; 48b 9
1 19
1 3; 33 18
18 4
14b 4
1 5, 6
17 1
12 9; 14a 5, 6; 19a 1; 19b 1;
24 3, 10, 12, 25; 25 4, 6; {29 21, 23,
26); 33 36; 37 2; 49 1, 13; 53 9
10 2, 3; 31 25; 33 18; 37 1
43 1
{29 27)
2 6
2 4
33 49
// 1 6, 8, 14; 2 4, 5, 8; 3 3; 4 2,
5, 7, 10; 7 6, 7, 8; 9 1; 10 2, 3, 4; 12
2 (bis); 14a 1, 5; 15 6; 17 2 (ter), 3,
4 (bis); 18 5; 19a 1; 19b 3; 20 4; 22
6, 7; 23 1; 24 21; 25 10 (bis); 28 3;
129 12, 17); 30 7, 10; 31 7, 9; 32 16;
33 8, 12, 14,21,47; 34 7; 37 1; 38 3;
39 2 (bis), 4; 42 5; 43 2; 47 2; 48b
8; 49 9; 50 2; 51 6; 53 4
/ 5a 5, 6; 5b 2, 3; 16 2;
24 22; (29 35); 42 3; 48a 1, 3; 48b 2,
3, 4, 7, 10; 51 15
10; 5b 1; 31 6; 48b 2, 3
10 3
18 3 (ter), 4 (bis), 5 (bis); 24 1,
13, 16, 18 (bis); 26 8; (29 5 ());
33 23; 44 1,2 (ter), 3, 4; 49 4, 12
(bis); 53 2, 8
10 5; 30 10
6 1; 7 1; 12 1; 13 1; 14b 4; 22 1; 23 3;
24 2, 11, 13, 22, 26; 25 1,2, 3,8, 16
(bis); 28 1; (29 2, 13, 23, 30, 31); 32
3, 5, 15; 33 9, 11 (bis), 25, 48; 35 3,
4; 42 3; 45 3; 49 2; 51 16; 53 8
(29 18); 33 31
3 1 4
1 1 (bis), 4, 9 (bis), 19,21,22
(bis); 3 2; 4 2, 8; 5a 4; 6 2 (bis), 4; 7
9; 9 1,2; 12 3 (bis), 5, 10 (bis); 13
3; 14a 2 (bis), 3, 4 (bis); 14b 1,3;
15 5 , 7 , 9 ; 16 3 (bis); 17 1,4; 18 6;
19a 1, 2; 19b 3, 5; 21 2; 23 3, 4; 24
2, 3 (bis), 4, 5, 6 (bis), 7 (bis), 10,
15, 19, 24; 25 2,7, 17; 26 1, 3,4, 6;
(29 5, 10, 11, 22, 23, 34); 30 2, 3, 8;
31 2 (bis), 17; 32 3 (ter), 4, 7 (bis);
33 2, 3, 8, 10, 14, 16, 19, 25, 40, 42,
43, 47; 35 1 ; 36 1 (bis); 39 6; 41 4;
43 3, 5; 44 1, 3, 5; 47 1; 48b 2; 49 5,
9; 50 3; 51 5, 10, 13, 16, 17; 52 1, 9;
53 3
' 32 3
14b 2; 19a 1; 22 5; 24 16; 25 2; 31 3;
32 12; 33 11, 14, 18, 24, 31, 45, 46;
48b 7; 51 1,4
, , 1 2, 3, 11; 19b 5; (29 33);
48b 9; 51 13
25 19
(29 10, 15, 16 (bis), 22, 33 (bis)(;
39 5 (bis)
26 1; {29 17); 32 13 (bis); 33 11,30;
47 2; 48a 1, 3; 48b 7; 51 6
33 6
3 1;4 7; 9 3; 10 1; 14b 1; 24
21; (29 1|; 31 24; 38 3, 4; 39 1; 42 7
32 20
32 12
34 2
31 21
43 3
1 16; 2 2; 5a 4; 7 5, 8; 12 10;
14b 1; 24 18, 26; 25 3, 8, 12, 16
(); 28 3; (29 21); 30 6; 31 2,
9; 42 4; 44 3; 46 6 (); 51 4;
52 9
2 2, 4 , 5 (bis); 31 22
1 2; 2 2, 3, 6; 32 5; 48b 7
17 5; 36 3
24 22; 37 2
15 2
^ 13 1, 4; 16 3; (29 35); 33 41
31 13
12 6
31 5
12 6
25 11
33 20
1 17; (29 31)
1 4, 6; 14b 3; 19b 5
7 10
40 4
4 6, 9; 24 12, 14
7 5
22 6; 50 1
12 2; 44 4 (bis)
52 8
9 3; 33 36, 47; 46 7
1 7; 5a 4; 33 27; 48b 3
4 8; 9 1 , 2 , 4
31 20
33 30
2 3 (bis); 4 3; 6 4; 7 1, 6; 12 4; 15 1;
16 1, 3; 19b 3; 20 3; 23 2; 24 3
(bis), 6 (bis), 25; 25 1 (ter); 27 2;
(29 8 (ter), 10, 29 (ter), 30 (bis));
31 8, 22; 33 9, 33, 34, 41; 36 4; 37 1;
38 1; 40 4; 41 3; 46 2, 3, 7; 51 2; 52
1,8
41 1
33 37
5111
5 1 1 4
33 12
13 1; 28 4
31 16
12 8; 21 3; (29 3|
4 3
23 2
25 13
33 13
43 2
33 37
33 2
42 4, 6
46 8
(29 35)
7 1
24 7
1 19
49 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11
129 3|
14b 2
23 1; {29 36; 33 12; 46 12; 47 4;
48a 2
2 1,2
25 7 (bis), 18; 33 7; 34 7; 48b
I , 4 (bis)
25 15
6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
49 12
22 3
33 30; 51 4
33 20
i 5a 2; 33 23; 46 10
1 19; 34 4
{29 36)
1 1 (ter), 3, 4, 5, 21 (bis), 22; 2 4, 7
(ter), 8, 9; 3 1;4 7; 5b 1; 6 1, 3, 5; 7
3, 8; 9 3; 10 1 (bis); 11 1; 12 10; 14a
2 (bis); 14b 4; 18 5; 19a 2; 19b 3, 6;
24 5, 6, 10, 18; 25 5,6, 14, 19; 26 5;
{29 2, 13, 18); 31 8 (bis); 32 4, 8,
II, 12; 33 2,4, 9, 10, 28,42; 34 1;
38 3; 39 2, 3; 40 5; 41 1, 2 (ter); 42
7; 47 2; 48b 8; 49 1,3, 6; 51 15; 53
1
38 1
15 3
48b 10
33 28
46 11, 13; 49 13
46 4
21 3; 22 1
{29 19)
1 18; 3 2; 4 5; 9 3; 12 7
12 1
11 5; 13 5; 30 2; 31 21, 22
30 1
33 47; 35 4
51 11
31 24
{29 12, 22, 30)
47 5
13 2; 53 7
{29 9)
7 4, 8; 50 2
10 1
41 4
33 46
315
28 1, 2
{29 33)
2 1
42 7
49 5; 53 4, 5
1 3, 4; 4 1, 2, 5, 7; 5b 1; 24 4, 10,
22; {29 1,6); 33 41; 34 8; 35 3; 38 3;
46 10, 13; 49 13
20 2, 3
46 11
33 48; 49 12
{29 2, 13, 18); 32 3, 9, 11; 33
38, 39; 46 5; 49 6
{29 26);41 2; 46 3 (bis), 11
24 5; 25 1, 14; 33 12; 36 4
36 7
{29 35); 46 11
16 7
33 14
' 31 17
13 5 (bis); 24 10; 36 5
24 5; {29 12); 51 1, 3
40 1
{29 20)
1 17
19b 2
1 18; 4 5; 16 3; 18 2; 26 3, 7; 40
1; 46 8
33 47; 34 7
48b 5
9 3; 10 3, 4 (bis); 30 10; 33
37; 49 8
8 2
31 1, 22
31 21
33 32
{29 6)
47 1
17 3
1 12, 16
1 11 ; 48b 9
22 5
1 11, 20; 4 6, 9; 6 3, 5; 10 2; 12 2;
13 4; 14b 2; 19b 4; 22 4; 24 8, 11
(bis), 20 (bis), 25; 25 5, 12 (bis), 18
(bis); {29 29); 30 7; 31 2; 32 13; 36
2, 3, 5; 40 4; 42 7; 43 1; 49 3; 52 11;
53 1
53 2
19b 4
33 35
8 1; 10 2; 49 5, 6
12 4; 14a 2; 51 9
31 12
1 21; 2 5 (bis); 3 1 (bis), 4; 5a 4, 5;
10 3; 12 4, 5, 9; 14b 1,2; 16 1 (bis);
18 3 (ter), 4 (bis); 19b 1, 2, 5; 20 1;
24 3, 4, 16; 25 1 (bis); 26 6; {29 24,
34 (ter), 35 (ter), 36 (bis)); 31 9;
32 5, 15, 17, 18; 33 3, 6, 7 (bis), 18,
26, 28, 34, 41; 38 1; 40 5; 42 1,2;
48a 2; 48b 3 (bis), 9; 49 10; 51 11
(ter), 16
{29 34); 38 2
33 1; 51 5,9, 12
34 1, 5
33 42, 43
15 3; {29 3); 32 2; 33 4
13 2; 14a 2; 48b 9
38 1
1 1 (ter), 3, 4, 5, 21 (bis), 22; 2 7
(bis), 9 (bis); 19b 3, 6; 22 3 (bis);
24 10, 11; 25 5; 31 8 (bis); 32 4;
48b 8; 52 8, 9; 53 7
21 2; 36 1; 51 7
1 2, 4
(= ) vide
15 8
51 14
22 8
34 8
(adv.) 53 5
(29 29|
2 5; 5a 2, 3; 21 1, 3; 32 17
32 8
22 7; 31 13; 33 31; 49 10
(29 17); 33 31
(29 19)
33 24
15 9; 53 7
1 15; 4 5, 8; 8 1 (bis); 9 2; 12 1, 9;
13 1; 14a 1,2, 3, 4,5; 14b 1, 2, 3; 17
1, 3; 18 5; 19b 5; 25 16, 19; (29 4,
13, 21, 30); 30 8; 31 10 (bis); 33 26;
47 3; 53 4
1 8; 15 6, 7; 22 5; (29 5); 31 1, 6,
19; 32 9; 53 8
25 15
30 10
46 2 (bis), 7, 12; 51 3
16 4 (bis); 24 1
25 10, 11, 12
25 6; 33 38
31 23
{29 9}
1 7
17 4; (29 36); 46 2, 7, 12; 48a 1;
51 8
33 12, 40
33 14, 45
32 16
23 3; 24 21; 33 45
7 5; 12 10; 17 3; 24 11, 14; 28 3; 40
5; 51 4
33 5
6 1,3 (bis)
25 5 (bis)
39 2
( 29 5)
7 1; 32 11; 34 1; 38 1; 39 3;
48b 5
33 19
33 16
31 24
(29 1, 5)
30 1, 10; 33 39; 42 1
48b 6
7 1
1 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 (bis), 14, 15 (bis),
17, 19 (bis), 20; 2 2, 7, 10, 11 (bis);
4 4 , 5 , 6 , 9; 5a 2; 7 2 (bis), 3, 6
(bis), 7; 8 2; 9 3; 10 5; 11 3; 12 4, 5;
13 2, 3, 4; 14a 1 (bis), 3; 15 5, 6, 7,
8 (bis), 9; 16 7; 17 3; 18 2; 20 4; 21
1 (bis), 3; 22 3; 23 3 (bis); 24 2, 6,
11, 12 (bis), 13, 15 (bis), 16, 17, 19,
20, 23,25, 27; 25 7, 13, 16
(), 17 (bis); 26 4 (bis), 5,
7; 28 3; (29 1 , 2 , 5 (), 6 (bis),
12, 15, 17, 18, 19,21,22); 31 2 , 3
(bis), 4 (bis), 8 (bis), 10, 11, 12
(bis), 13 (bis), 15, 16, 17 (bis), 18,
2 0 , 2 1 , 2 2 (bis), 23 (bis), 24; 32 7,
8,9, 10, 13, 16, 18, 19; 33 1 , 2 , 3 , 8,
12, 15, 26, 27, 28, 32 (bis), 35, 39,
40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49; 34
3 , 5 (bis), 6, 7, 8; 36 1,3, 6; 37 1,2;
38 2, 3; 39 3; 40 4, 6; 42 4 (bis); 43
4; 46 6 (), 8, 9, 10, 12
(bis); 47 3, 5 (bis); 48a 1, 3 (bis);
48b 10; 49 1, 4, 5, 7, 13; 51 2, 6
(bis), 7, 9 (bis), 10, 12, 13 (bis), 14
(ter), 16; 52 1, 4, 7, 9; 53 2 (bis), 7,
9
33 4, 13, 25
(29 33)
(29 20}
25 16; 46 6
14a 4 (bis)
12 5
11 4; 12 5; 16 3; 24 2, 3; 25 3; 27
2; (29 34); 30 3; 31 9 (bis); 32 5; 33
23; 53 5
5b 2; 33 22; 42 1 (bis), 3; 45 1,
2, 3
7 4 (bis), 7, 10; 12 8; 25 14; 40 2
40 4; 47 1
2 9; 6 2, 3; 10 3 (bis)
12 10; 17 5; 31 3; 32 8; 53 6
(= ) 1 21; 7 4; 13 2; 14a 3;
16 6; 33 15, 38; 35 2; 46 7; 47 3;
48b 3, 4; 51 11
1 20
10 4
4 6, 9; 6 5; 13 4; 15 2, 4; 21 2; (29
19); 30 6; 31 23; 34 4, 5; 39 3; 43 4;
47 1
19a 1
22 2, 6; (29 29); 48b 4
22 8
3 3; 26 2, 4, 5
45 4
26 1; (29 23, 25); 49 4
22 2
(29 11)
24 22
31 3
3 4, 5
(29 28)
19b 6
39 4
15 3
(29 8)
39 5
24 8
33 42, 43; 46 8
1 1 3
33 44; 48b 6
16 1
4 4; 12 6
36 4
12 2
(29 5)
18 1
40 5
15 2
27 2
2 11
7 2, 6
18 1
20 5
/ 12 3, 4; 44 2 (bis),
4,5
39 3
53 8
24 11, 12, 13
18 3
1 3; 39 1; 44 4, 5
7 4, 7
40 2
14b 1; 31 1
1 6
1 10; 7 7; 32 8; 48b 3
43 1, 3
33 3; 46 1
15 6; 25 9, 11 (bis), 12, 17;
34 1,3; 43 2, 4; 45 5; 48b 6
51 8
6 2, 3; 11 1; 15 9; 18 2; 22 3; 24 8,
9; 26 6; (29 20 (bis), 21); 33 4, 7, 22
(bis), 24, 39; 42 1,2; 45 1,2; 46 1,
3,9; 47 2,5; 48b 2; 49 2, 12; 50 2
44 5 (bis)
12 3
44 2, 4
1 2, 3; 16 5; 32 13, 18; 33 8, 49;
44 1; 46 7; 48b 9; 49 14; 51 2, 16
4 4; 20 1; 28 3; 30 3; 31 16,
19; 34 6; 42 7
10 4
(adv.) 32 9; 39 3
4 2, 5, 7; 45 1
5a 5
25 16
19b 2
(adv.) 7 9
17 2 (bis)
1 20; 21 2; 33 7, 33
24 3, 16, 17; 43 4; 44 3; 49 11
32 11, 15
32 1
32 2, 5, 16, 19
(29 11)
52 5
(adv.) 19b 1; 33 36
24 12
36 2; 46 8
26 5; 32 19; 36 3
51 5
114
1 18
53 9
4 1; 33 33; 35 2
1 8, 10; 31 6, 11; 48b 2
1 1, 2, 4, 13, 15; 2 1, 3, 4; 7 2; 22 4,
6; 25 2, 18; 28 1;(29 2, 14, 15); 31
12; 32 1; 33 8, 11,47; 35 3; 36 1,3;
39 2; 40 2; 41 3; 43 1; 45 4; 52 10;
53 9
16 5, 6; 33 20
36 3
32 17
2 11; (29 12, 18); 33 28; 51 7
33 8
31 17
15 2; 33 19
34 5
2 7; 26 5; 48b 8
() 31 13
1 13
39 1, 2, 6
() 11 5; 15 4; 16 5; 33 16; 49 7
2 2; 7 4, 5, 9; 8 1;9 1; 12 2,9, 10;
14a 2, 3, 4, 5; 14b 1,4; 15 3 (bis), 6;
16 2, 5, 6; 18 1 (bis); 19b 1; 20 4;
22 4; 24 1,4, 11, 14, 17; 25 3, 4, 6
(bis), 7, 8, 11 (ter), 16, 18, 19; (29
2 , 8 (bis), 13,31,32 (bis)); 30 3, 7;
31 7, 17, 24; 32 5 (bis), 15; 33 5
(bis), 6 (bis), 7, 10, 11, 13, 20, 22,
29 (bis), 31, 48; 34 2, 8; 36 5; 38 1,
2; 43 2; 45 1, 2; 46 3, 9, 12; 47 1, 3,
4; 49 2, 13; 50 2; 52 2; 53 4
46 1
7 8, 9; 30 6; 31 24, 25 (bis); 33 10
(bis), 20 (bis), 31; 46 1; 47 2
, , 6 1; 11 1; 12 9;
13 2; 19a 1; (29 3); 33 25; 47 5; 51 2,
15
5a 5; 11 1; 33 39; 35 1
1 16
51 16
(29 24)
5b 3 (bis); 14b 3 (bis); 32 4 (bis)
(29 17)
1 6, 12; 2 1; 3 2; 10 1; 15
1; 17 1; 20 1; 22 6; 25 4; 26 8; 32 1,
10; 33 42, 43; 34 4; 36 5; 42 1; 46 3;
51 12
31 11
33 14, 15
33 5
|29 14, 15)
(adv.) 15 7; 36 5; 40 3
1 8, 17; 2 4, 10; 4 9; 24 6; 31 8;
33 24, 26, 27; 48b 7; 49 9
14a 4
24 23
32 20
31 19
|29 5)
19a 2; {29 4, 12); 33 26, 27; 34
10
34 10
4 9 1 , 6
46 11
33 19
50 1 ; 51 11
2 5; 9 1
{29 14 (ter), 15 (bis), 32); 51 6, 12
36 1
31 21; 52 7
34 6
10 3; 16 1; 19b 1 (bis); 24 15; {29
17, 24); 35 2; 36 6; 40 2
{29 27)
2 1, 8, 9; 14a 5; 31 22
1 2; 2 1, 3, 7; 15 3; 32 5; 48b 6
31 2
35 3, 4 (bis)
51 7
33 11
42 6
2 10
1 2; 48b 8
39 6
, , 1 17, 20; 2 1, 2, 5; 5b 1; 12 9;
14a 6; 19a 2; 24 6 (bis), 11, 17, 25;
25 8, 13, 18; 26 1, 6; {29 13); 31 10
(bis); 32 12, 20; 33 1, 19; 34 4, 5; 37
2; 43 4; 46 8; 49 3; 51 3, 7
(adv.) 24 18
1 2, 4; 2 9; 25 14, 16; 33 29; 50 1
42 4
14b 3; 18 5; 31 21; 53 6
{29 25)
4 1; 5a 4; 6 2, 4; 12 8; 16 1; 18 1;
20 2; 26 2, 4, 7; 30 8; 31 10, 16; 32
I,9, 14; 33 33, 36, 47; 34 1; 35 1; 36
5; 42 1; 46 9; 47 1;48b3;49 1 , 7 ,
,, passim
25 10 (bis), 13
7 2; 19b 5; 24 13
6 3; 13 3; 20 2; 23 2; 26 3; 31 1; 32
2, 3; 33 14; 45 3; 46 9 (bis); 48b 3
30 4
{29 28)
33 17
33 17
' 26 7
12 6
{29 9); 45 2
1 7, 8; 25 11; 31 14, 18; 42 2
(adv.) 5a 2; 26 2; 33 17; 41 1; 46
3; 52 2, 3, 4
31 7; 33 11; 42 2
17 1; 36 4, 7
33 8
6 2
16 5
33 3
33 45
{29 16); 31 3
{29 4); 51 13
" 49 11
33 41
15 8; 49 13
{29 26, 27)
24 21
53 3
3 2; 4 2; 26 4; {29 22); 32 3, 7
12, 13
26 4; {29 10, 11)
1 6, 12, 18; 2 1; 3 3, 5; 4 5; 6 2, 3
(bis); 11 1 (bis); 12 7,9; 13 3; 15 1;
16 4; 17 1; 20 1,3; 22 3, 6; 23 2; 24
9; 25 3 (bis), 4; 26 3 (bis), 6; 28 2;
{29 25); 31 1; 32 1,6, 17; 33 14,21,
22, 31, 37 (ter), 38, 40; 35 1;40 2,
5; 42 1,7; 43 2, 4 (bis); 45 1 (bis), 2
(bis); 46 4 , 9 (bis); 47 2; 49 2, 5, 11;
51 12 (bis), 13; 52 3, 4, 11
1 1,3, 4,5, 10 (bis), 11, 13, 19,21,
22; 2 6, 8; 3 4, 5; 4 8, 10; 5a 1;9 1,
2, 4; 10 5; 12 2, 10; 13 3; 15 7; 16 4
(bis); 19a 2; 19b 4 (bis), 6; 20 1; 24
3 (bis), 8, 19; 25 4 (bis), 5, 13 (bis),
14, 19; 26 1, 6; 27 1; 28 3; {29 17,
33); 30 7; 31 7, 8, 10; 32 2, 4, 20; 33
21, 24 (bis), 27, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42;
35 3, 4; 42 2, 5; 43 3; 45 4; 46 8, 10;
48b 5; 48b 9; 49 6; 51 8, 13; 52 3,
11; 53 9
24 2, 6
24 5
1 11, 12, 15; 24 8, 20 (bis), 21,
24; 27 1; {29 18)
,, 1 9, 10 (bis),
II, 22; 2 5, 10; 5a 2; 7 7; 12 8; 18 2;
213; 24 2, 6, 23; 25 17; 26 6; {29
16); 32 7, 8; 33 5; 39 6; 40 2, 5; 46
9; 48b 1 (bis), 2 (ter); 49 3, 7; 53 5
1 10; 21 3; 48a 1
2 10
50 3; 51 5, 13
11 3; 24 24; 52 6
1 6, 12, 18; 2 4, 6; 5a 4; 6 4; 14a 6;
14b 3; 20 2; 23 2; 24 4 , 5 , 9 , 11, 16,
24; 25 7, 10, 18 (bis); 26 3; 30 4, 9;
31 14; 32 5, 8; 33 8, 47; 36 5; 40 5;
42 2, 6; 49 5, 7, 12; 51 9
15 3; 49 7
19b 3
19b 3, 4; 21 3; 31 6 (bis); 32 13
r (bis); 44 5 (bis)
, , 1 14, 15, 20 (bis); 4
8; 9 3; 10 3; 11 3; 14a 5 (bis); 16 4,
5; 17 3, 4; 18 2, 5; 19b 6; 20 2; 22 4,
5, 7; 24 1, 5, 9, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26; 25
2,8, 17, 18; 28 4; {29 12 (bis), 26,
30, 31, 33); 31 3, 7, 11, 18 (bis), 19
(bis), 20; 32 8, 18; 33 24, 34, 38; 34
6, 9; 37 1; 38 3; 39 2; 40 4; 41 3; 42
6; 43 3; 44 1 ; 47 2; 49 3, 4, 7 , 9
(bis); 50 1,2 (bis); 52 4 (bis); 53 1
() 4 4, 7; 7 5; 10 5; 12 10; 14a 3;
15 4 (bis), 5 (bis), 8; 16 6; 22 5; 25
10, 12; 26 5; 27 1; {29 2, 6, 15, 19,
20,21|; 30 9; 31 6; 33 27,43; 36 3;
38 2; 45 4; 46 4, 6; 51 15
24 10
51 17
24 27
2 1 2
22 4 (bis)
4 1 3
26 2; {29 28|
5b 2 (bis)
3 4; 7 7; 11 2; {29 13, 32}
{29 14}
12 3 , 5 , 8 ; 14a 3; 31 17
30 3
{29 14, 24|
24 19
115
46 4
1 14; 2 8; 33 28; 52 10
1 16, 19; 14a 2
2 4, 7; 18 2; 24 8; 32 2; 34 3; 48b
4, 7; 51 13; 53 7
50 2; 51 2
49 8
{29 9)
33 11
25 13; 33 4
36 6
32 10
24 4; 25 2; 32 10; 33 16;
51 2
37 2
30 1
25 6, 7
22 1
15 6
33 21
38 3; 48b 10
30 2
() 1 14; 2 8, 10; 51 12
() 11 6; 33 24, 32 (bis)
7 2; 41 3
15 3; {29 10)
3 1
32 18
46 6
18; 2 6; 7 4; 18 4; 21 1,2; 23 2;
{29 12, 17, 29, 30); 31 4, 9, 11; 32 4,
6, 12; 40 4; 41 4; 43 1;47 2; 48a 3;
51 10, 15; 52 9; 53 1
1 12; 26 8
30 2, 3, 4 (bis); 31 16
31 23
24 18; 32 15, 19
31 4
20 3
{29 7)
1 7
16 1
2 6
{29 23)
53 2
1 21 (ter); 5a 1, 3; 16 5; 20 2; 26
8; {29 35, 36); 31 1, 2; 33 4, 5 (bis),
6 (bis), 7, 16, 18,29; 35 2; 41 1,3;
46 2, 7; 48b 2; 50 2; 52 9
1 17; 12 8
33 18
() 48b 5
47 4
15 4
{29 18)
38 1
2 2, 3, 5; 31 10
24 14
14b 2
15 1
46 8, 11, 13
48b 6
32 17
{29 16)
{29 8, 26); 41 2; 45 2; 47 2, 3
25 8, 9
24 12, 16,23, 25
24 7
49 11
33 46
7 1, 3, 8, 9
7 1
44 1, 3
1 15
15 5
22 3; 45 3; 52 3, 4
5 1 7
12 9; 15 8; 24 9; 25 4; {29 26); 30
6 (bis); 31 18; 33 34; 35 1 (bis), 3;
41 3; 42 1, 2; 46 2; 51 5; 52 8
46 10
24 19; 51 1, 3
24 25
24 9, 23; 30 9
33 21
( adv.) 33 3, 24; 46 1, 8
31 17
22 2; (29 11); 33 10 (bis), 28, 29,
42; 35 2; 41 2 (quater);45 2, 3
33 6, 17
{29 27)
12 3
10 4; 47 3
15 3
39 5
25 9; 34 9; 46 11
7 9 (bis); 15 5; 19b 1; 23 1; 31 6;
33 4, 13 (bis), 25; 47 3, 4; 53 3
1 21
26 3
38 2; 39 1, 4
5a 1, 2; {29 22); 34 3; 43 1
{29 30)
1 11; 5b 2; 24 18; 35 2
42 7
48b 6
45 2
21 2; 33 19
51 15
4 6, 9; 9 1, 2; 13 3; 30 7
4 2; 33 34, 36
7 5; 46 10
33 48
{29 3)
25 8, 10, 11, 17
12 8; 25 9
32 14
51 14
12 1; 13 1;48b 1; 51 8, 10
32 16
1 14, 22; 4 7, 10; 10 2, 3; 15 4, 5
(ter); 19b 5; 23 1;25 4; 26 2; 27 1;
{29 7, 25); 30 4 (bis), 5; 31 11; 32 5,
7, 14; 33 18, 22, 30, 36, 39, 41, 46;
36 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 42 7; 46 5; 47 3;
48b 8; 49 2
25 1
{29 32); 51 12
48a 2, 4; 51 4
() 33 23; 40 3
() 32 1, 6
16 2, 6; 32 20; 34 8; 38 1, 2;
40 4; 51 7, 16
31 24
33 9
33 35
34 8
22 8
33 13
10 1
10 4
17 5; 37 1
6 1
(adv.) 22 7
1 1 6
50 1
19b 1; 25 1
1 22; 4 8; 16 3; 26 3; 52 11;
53 1
19b 4
(adv.: ) {29 2)
(adv.) {29 22)
1 20; 20 3; 52 1, 7,8, 10
17 2
32 20
32 2
12 7; 25 14, 15 (bis), 16
24 5 (bis), 15; 25 5; 46 3; 52 10
13 3
33 31
5 1 6
(adv.) 20 5
{29 16, 33)
' 24 9
{29 14)
() 3 4; 4 1, 2; 10 2; 13 3, 4;
18 2; 20 5; 23 3; 28 2; {29 9, 23, 24);
30 5; 31 3; 33 1, 2, 26, 34, 40, 41; 34
2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 9 ; 38 3; 46 1; 47 3; 49 2;
51 2, 5, 8 (bis), 9
33 32; 49 7, 9
49 2, 3
18 3, 5; 32 17
41 1; 48b 1
33 10; 46 7
33 2
9 2
{29 18); 32 12
{29 1, 5); 30 6
27 1
33 49
24 21
3 2; 12 6
1 8 (bis); 6 4, 5; 9 4; 14a 3; 17 4;
20 3; 24 4; 26 4; 30 7; 33 8, 30, 43;
44 4, 5; 50 3
53 7
33 3
31 23
33 25
52 9
48a 1, 3
16 7
3 2, 3 (bis)
24 19
19b 4; 30 9
23 1
|29 11); 38 2
1 9, 10, 11, 22; 2 4, 10; 6 2; 10 5; 11
4 (bis); 12 5, 10; 14a 1,2 (bis); 15
1 , 2 , 4 , 6; 16 2; 17 3; 18 1;19a2;
19b 4; 20 2, 3; 21 2; 22 2, 4 (bis), 7
(bis); 23 1; 24 1,6, 7 (bis), 8, 9, 20,
24; 25 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 16; 26 4; 28 1,
2, 3; |29 15, 17, 33, 34); 30 6, 7
(bis); 31 11; 32 7,9, 16; 33 13,21,
22, 38 (bis), 42, 44, 46; 34 3, 8; 42
1,3; 44 1,2 (ter), 3, 4, 5; 45 4; 46 9
(bis), 12; 50 2; 51 11, 16; 53 2
45 5
32 15 (bis), 19
33 28
40 3
33 8
28 3
53 6
24 17
16 4; 33 44, 47; 45 4
33 33; 51 3 (bis)
32 9
25 2
32 9, 10
36 2; 42 5 (bis)
16 5
15 1; 46 3
15 6, 7
31 21
{29 33)
49 13
32 18; 33 38
44 3
33 15
10 5; 16 2; 18 1; 19b 2; 20
4; 34 2
15 8
33 9
16 6
36 5
7 3
46 5
34 9
32 14
43 4
47 5
(29 11)
^ 30 1, 10
51 14
5a 3; {29 20); 32 12; 33 34;
46 4; 51 14, 16 (bis)
9 1; 28 1; 32 17; 33 16; 36 3, 6;
39 1; 41 1; 47 1
18 3
26 7
(29 36); 30 5
2 1 3
1 7; 3 4, 5; 5a 1, 4; 12 4, 11;
28 3
22 5; (29 8); 33 1
25 4
(adv.) 53 8 (bis)
45 1, 2
2 8, 9; 15 9; 19b 4; 33 2; 34 4; 48b 9
7 3
14a 1; 15 4; 16 1; 18 4; 26 5; 31
20
515, 10
(29 32)
40 1
32 13
1 12
6 5
4 6, 10 (bis); 24 12; 30 5
27 1; 31 8
40 5
(29 29)
, 1 11, 12, 21; 2 9; 4 1,2, 7; 6 6; 7
4; 9 4; 13 2, 3; 14a 5; 14b 3; 15 2;
19b 1 ; 20 2; 21 4; 23 2; 24 4, 22; 25
1,6, 10, 14; 26 7; 28 1; (29 4, 18,
19, 20); 30 4; 31 9, 14; 32 3 (bis), 9,
13, 17; 33 1 , 4 , 2 1 , 2 8 , 3 1 , 3 3 , 36,
41, 47; 34 1,3; 35 1,2; 37 1; 42 1,5;
45 1, 2; 46 7, 9; 48b 3 (quater), 6;
49 1, 12; 50 2 (bis); 51 11
, 6 4; 10 2; 11 4 (bis); 24 8, 9, 10,
15, 20, 24, 26; 26 8; (29 20); 30 6
(bis); 32 1, 10 (bis); 33 34; 35 4; 49
4,5, 10; 50 2; 52 5 (quinquies)
12 5; 20 3; 30 5; 32 19; 40 2;
52 10
46 12
12 1; 26 4; 33 30, 47
33 45; 52 1 , 6 , 9
12 7 (bis); 33 40
6 5; 15 7; 30 8; 46 9
() 5a 6; (29 36); 33 26
(29 15)
1 18
32 6
7 8
52 3, 6, 8
25 13
33 17
33 18
1 16; 16 6; 20 5; 24 4; 25 3, 4,
5, 10; 28 2; (29 9); 33 5, 10, 16
33 1
20 1
31 18
(adv.) 1 15
20 1, 2
7 2
47 2, 3, 5
31 16
24 14, 15; 53 3
30 2
12 9 (bis)
19b 5
2 11
31 25; 37 1; 39 4 , 5
39 2, 4
516 (bis)
15 7
33 33
1 14; 51 4
14b 1; 19b 2; 20 3; 22 5; {29 28
(bis)); 31 5, 16; 34 2; 40 1;46 5
24 20; 39 1, 4, 5
17 3 (bis), 5
17 1
30 8; 31 9; 35 3; 42 5
49 8
1 2; 20 3; 31 2
13 1
4 1
33 13
(adv.) 22 7; {29 3, 32); 34 5
1 19; 5a 3; 21 1; 22 5; 23 3;
31 12; 33 25; 34 7; 40 6; 42 3 (bis);
51 10
1 18 (bis); 6 4, 5; 10 6; 16 2;
18 2; 19b 2; 20 4; 34 1; 45 4
32 16
39 3
32 5; 33 30, 39; 46 10, 12
14b 3; 31 12; 35 1, 4
24 11, 18, 24
19b 3
14a 2; 24 7, 16; 32 15, 19, 21; 53
8
{29 21)
22 1; 52 1
22 3; 23 3; {29 16, 19, 32,
36); 32 3; 46 1,5; 48a 2; 49 10
{29 35)
35 4
25 6 (bis); 33 36
43 1, 3, 4
33 38; 48b 9
21 1; 32 18
/ 13 4; 24 25; 33 1,
33; 34 2; 36 4, 7; 39 2
{29 25); 31 11
1 4, 6; 2 4, 7; 4 6, 9; 6 5; 13 4; 26
1; 27 2; {29 23); 30 4, 7; 48b 7; 49 4
25 3; 31 14, 15; 34 7
24 21
33 1; 48a 1, 3
15 2; {29 10)
46 10
2 11; 32 7; 33 20, 21, 35; 48b
8; 49 8
3 1 ; 33 16
26 8
6 4 (bis); 10 2; 52 2
20 4; 34 4; 51 1
49 12
49 2, 3, 6, 11
3 3 (bis)
17 4
9 2
19b 4; 22 6; 24 25;
113
33 7; 48b 1,5
52 2, 3, 10, 11
42 5; 52 6
33 16
3 1
{29 16)
{29 8)
{29 8, 19); 47 5
53 2, 8
{29 8)
7 5; 8 1,2; 11 5 (bis); 15 1; 16 3; 20
2; 22 1, 2 (bis), 5; 25 12; {29 9
(bis), 13, 16, 20, 21, 32); 30 1 ; 31 2,
5, 6, 9, 22; 32 2, 8; 33 42; 36 1; 39 1,
2; 46 3; 48b 2, 9; 50 1 (bis); 51 9,
10, 16; 53 4
4 7; {29 26 (bis))
1 9; 24 2; 27 I; 31 15
6 4; 31 21; 32 14; 42 3; 46 5
48a 2, 3
18 6; 24 23, 26
31 13
INDEX FONTIUM EPICTETI ENCHEIRIDII
Epicteti Dissertationes
I
11
2
3
4
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
12
23
32
36
1
4
1-4
1
2
6-17
12
19
23
24
14
28-29
40
42
8
16
20
24
30
34
13
24
31
33
35
37
4-7
7
15
17
22
23
24-26
24
25
27
28
2
16
1-5
6
1
13-18
18,3
1 3 ,7; 1 3 ,10
9
114-5
51 3 ,16-17
21,3
21,3
2',4-5
2',3; 22,612; 48b 3 ,6-8
2',5-6
49
11,4-5
14b2,1-2
26,7-8 o
21,1; 53 3 ,8
41,2-3
10
1 3 ,9-10
31',6
12',2
22,5
19b,1-2
22,5
26,6
24',3
16,3-5
24 3 ,15
42,8
21,1
5a,4-6
5a,4-6
31',1-5
31 ',2-3
8
31',4
30,3
31 ',5
31 ',4-5
9,2
31',5
312,7-9
30.3-4
122,8-9
l 3 ,10-11;
31 ,6
30.4-7
31',6
52,4
49
18
19
22
24
25
13-17
28
10
17
18
19
4
7-8
8
25
10
15
18
1
14
1-2
3
11
15
16
17
28
27
28
29
1
5-6
11-12
13
14
1-10
10
23
29
30
4
7
10
18
24
32
35
41
51
56
1
3
26,1
l 3 ,10-11
22,3
9
3,2-3; 12 2 ,56
16,6-7
3,1
5a, 1-2
9
31 4 ,21
l',l-3; 1',1
31^,9-11
13.1-2; 22,12 31 2 ,7-9
1*6
11.5
31 ",7-9
12,5
36,1
25 4 ,13-15;
33 14 ,41-44
46 2 ,8
16,3-5
5a, 1-2; 16,35; 20,1-2
28.2-4
1 5 ,19
16.1-5
31^,9-11
31 ',6
31 4 ,21
42
l 3 ,10-11;
42,1-4; 42,67
16.3-5;
24',3
48a
1 5 ,22
18,3
533"4,8-9
15,22
46%7-8
51 ',3-5
17
42.4-6
49.9-14
33 1 2,33-34
1 5 ,22
13
15
31
36
2
3
4
10
12-14
12-13
15
25
26
2
8-10
8
10
6-8
8
23
7
2
3
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
10
11
12
14
24
14
18
7
8
9
10
12-13
14
19
8
10
11
14
17
18
24
7
8
11
22
24
1
2
5a,2-4
5a.2-3
31^,10
13,1-3;
48b 2 ,1;
48b 2 ,2-3;
48b2,3-4
4,4-6; 4,6;
4,9-10; 13,34
12,4
14a,5;
24 3 ,16
13,3-5; 22,1
l 4 ,12-17
14b, 3-4
53 4 ,8-9
14b,3-4
14b, 1-2
24 3 ,16
15,1-6
36,3-7
36,3-7
3 3 ' 3 36-38
13,6-12;
1 3 ,7: 24',4
331340
32
32 3 ,16-18
32 1 ,3;
323,14-15;
32 3 ,18-19
322,5-6
322,8-9
322,5-6
322,9-11
22,3-4
49
462,10-12
30,2-4
30,4-7
25 ,9-10
30,2-4
30,4-7
28,2-4
28,1-2
I 3 ,7
14b,1-2
18,3
33'2,33-36
33 12 ,33-36
42,3-4; 42,8
33'2,33-36
8
2',3; 30
31',1-5
lj.2
l',3
12,4-6
36,1
17
18
19
22
28
33
34
39
40
44
17-18
22
24
28
31
12-13
15
22
24-28
24-25
24
28
31
19
20
21
22
23
24
III
1
2
6-19
8
26
29
32
11
12
13
17
8
10
13-14
15
17
26
28-29
36, 37
41
42
43, 45
11
13-15
19
37
40
3
4
6
9-10
14
16
5
5a, 1-4; 21,1

5a, 1-2
11
31',2-3
49,9-14
51',3-5
5a, 1-2
15,9
8
13,9-10; 8
2',5-6
30
20.4-5
10.2-3
34.9-10;
51 2 ,12-14
10.5-6
l 5 ,18-22;
34.1-3
16,2; 19b,2;
20.3-4
51*12
51 ',6-8;
51 2 ,12-14
49.9-14
46', 1-2
1 3 ,8; 31 ',6
12.4-5
1',3; 1 2 ,5
35.2-3
30
22,3
46', 1-2
22.6-7
31 4 .16-17
31 4 .17-18
31 s ,11-13
31 4 .18-19
312.7-9
l 4 ,16-17
11,5
11,5
12.4-5;
13.10-11;
5a,5; 53',2
11,5
6,3
52.5-6
52,5-6
18,1
6,4-5
1,7
30: 30,1
522.8-10
462,8-10
l 3 ,10-11
1 3 ,9-10
30.3-4
7-9
14-15
14
15-19
15
17
6
7
9
10-11
9-10
9
16
6
7
10
17
3
5
7
1
13
16
19
11
12
5-6
2
7
10
15
16
17
13
14
15
16
8
11
4-6
11-14
1-13
1
1
3
4
17
6
11
15
2-3
5
7
18
19
3
5
1
3
20
9
11
16
30
l 5 ,18-22
10.2-3
21
16
lr\22
19b,1-2
31-^,9-11
31 4 ,18-19
4,6; 4,9-10;
13 3-4
33* 25-27
7,7-8
31 ',5
I s ,10-11
46',3-6
4,6; 4,9-10;
13.3-4
19a
6,4-6
4,1-3; 53',1
P.8; 31',6
122,6
30.4-7
1 3 .7
30
47,4
2-,6-7;
48b 3 ,7-8
30,3; 47,4
l 5 ,18-22
23
47,3-4; 47,45
16,3-5
I s , 9-12
47.2-3
6; 44
29
4,1-2
33 3 ,8-10;
33 6 ,14-16
33 6 ,14-16
332,4-6;
332,7-8
33 fi ,13-14
22,3
1 5 ,22
25'"2,1-9
19b,1-2;
25 4 ,13-15
31 4 ,16-17
33 9 ,21-22
18,3; 30,2-7
42.3-5
48a
5a,5
18.5-6
18,5-6
30,3; 30,9
30.8
17
1
3
4
5
7
10
12
18
22
23
11
13
21-22
21
25
38
48
51
52
61
95
100
102
106
23
9
16-17
21
22
24
4
8
11
22
44
48
49
58
68
69
79
84-88
84
86
87
95
96-99
103
113
117
118
430
III 25
1
2-3
3
26
7
18
28
29
34
38
IV
1
6
43
58-59
67
75
77
79
82
83
84
85
89-90
101-103
105
107
111
113
132
130
131
141
149
161
172
2-4
2
4-7
4
7
7-8
9
21
24
25
33
34
35
38
39
34.4-7
51*12
24',7
12
46',1
l 3 ,10-11;
31',2-3
31',1-5;
31',6
12',2; 31>,45
l',3
5a,2-4
1-12
4
5
6
7
9
14
15
28
29
30
2
9
13,9-10
10
16
15,22
30,3
14b,1-2
14a, 1-2
14a,5
14b,3-4
11,5
14b,1-2
I ' ,3
22,9-10
14b,1-2
8
II
11,5
14a, 1-2
3,2-3; 122,56
46',1
12.5-6
I ',3
19b,5-6;
53',2-3
11,2; 12 2 ,6
19b,4-5
24 3 ,16
II
13,3-5
25',4-5
122,8
l 4 ,12-17
24',1
13,5
12*,7;
25^, 17-18
31',5
53 3 ,8
4,3
4,10
1',3 22,6-7;
48b ,6-8
53',2
21,2-4; 2 2 ,89
14b, 1-2
1 5 ,22;
25-27
34
36
5
7
9
10
11
13-14
18
20
21
35
2
3
15
17
22-23
23
9
10
25
35
1
6
8
15
16
18-19
19-20
19
23-24
24
25
12
26
27
31
34
2-3
19b,5-6
42
14b, 1-2
30,6-7
4 6.9-10
I ,9; 14a,2-4
42.6-7
47,4
12,5-6; 11,5
30.7-8
31 4 ,17-18
31 3 ,11-13
2',5-6
19b,5-6
1 5 ,22
12', 3-4
19b; 25'-2,l9
18.3-4
25^,5-7
18,3-4
31',4
1 3 10-11;
31',4; 31 ',6
14b, 1-2
31 3 ,14
17
18,3
8; 31',4;
33' 3 ,36-38
19b, 1-2
18,3-4
45.1-2
45,3
46', 1
23.2-3;
46',3
46',3-6;
46',5-6
23.2-3;
46 2 ,9
48a
23.2-3
25 5 ,17-18
14b,4
19b,3
31',6
II
l 4 .12-17
252.5-7
122,8
25 4 ,16-17
25 2 ,9
l 4 ,12-17;
13.3-5
12*,6
12',2
21,2
3,3-4
51 1 .6-8
rv
12
16
17
20-21
13
fragmenta
I
IV
19-20
7
22-23
2-3
4-5
8-13
XI
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XXIII
XXVII
15-16
XXVII
XXXII
gnom. Mosch. (E)

3
gnom. Stob. (C)
3
10
15
14b,1-2;
24',3
30,1
16.5-6
51',6-8
24 3 ,16
l 5 ,19-20
31',2-3
1 1 ,1
6,4
31',4-5
17
20
15,1-6; 36,37
6; 44
11,1-3
2 2 ,6-ll;
48b 3 ,6-8
2 2 ,11
12',3-4
24 3 ,15-18
25
35
59
60
gnom. Stob. (D)
24 3 ,15-18
8
Aelianus
VH III
44
32 3 ,19-21
Cleanthes
SVFI 527
53',2-5
Euripides
fr. 965 Nauck
53 2 ,6-7
Plato
Ap. 30cd
Cri. 43d
Cri. 46b
53 4 ,8-9
53 3 ,8
51 3 ,14-16
Xenophon
Mem. I
13.2-3
13.3-5
6; 44
33 7 ,16-18;
39
33 3 ,8-10;
33 6 .12-16;
33'",46-49
12',3-4
24 4 ,24
24 4 ,22-23
17
1,7-9
3,3
32 3 ,11-14
3 I s , 23-25
INDEX AUCTORUM EPICTETI ENCHEIRIDION LAUDANTIUM
Ambr., Bon. Mort. = Ambrosius, De bono mortis, ecl. C. Schenkl, CSEL 32,1, PragueVienna-Leipzig 1896: ch. 5a
Anon., De scientia pol. = Anonymus, Menae patricii cum Thoma referendario De scientia
politica dialogus, quae exstant in codice Vaticano palimpsesto, ed. C.M.
Mazzucchi, Milan 1982: ch. 53
[Ant.] = [Antonius Magnus],
ica
, in: , I, Athens 1957, pp. 4-27 (N.B. 27
Ath. = p. 27 in ed. Atheniensi): chs. 1, 5a, 10, 11, 13, 14a, 15, 18, 19a, 19b, 21,
31, 33 6 , 34, 48a, 48b, 51
= H. Schenkl, Das Florilegium " , WS 11 (1889), 1-42:
ch. 8
Apostolius (Apost.), ecld. E.L. von LeutschF.G. Schneidewin,
Paroemiographi
Graeci, Gttingen 1839-1852: ch. 6
Arethas, Sch.D.Chr. = Arethas, Scholia in Dionem Chrysostomum, ed. A. Sonny, Ad Dionem Chrysostomum analecta, Kioviae 1896: ch. 5a
Bas., Ep. = Basilius, Epistulae, ed. Y. Courtonne, vol. 2, Paris 1961: ch. 8
, Jul. = , Homilia in martyrem Julittam (PG 31): ch. 11
Byz. = Gnomologium Byzantinum
' , ecl. C.
Wachsmuth, Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien, Berlin 1882: chs. 21, 47, 48b
Cecaum., Strat. = Cecaumenos, Strategicon, ed. G.G. Litavrin, Moscow 1972: ch. 3
Chrys. = Johannes Chrysostonuis, In Acta Apostolorum Homilia (PG 60): ch. 33''
Clem., Paed. = Clemens Alexandrinus, Paedagogns, edd. O. SthlinU. Treu, Berlin
1972 3 : ch. 39
Dor., Ep., Sent. = Dorotheus Gazaeus, Epistulae, Sententiae, edd. L. Regnault-J. de
Prville, Dorothe de Gaza, Oeuvres spirituelles, SC92, Paris 1963: ch. 8
Eug., Theod. = Johannes Eugenicus, I, ed. Sp.P.
Lambros,

I, Athens 1912: chs. 5a, 11, 12,
19b, 24, 34, 38
Georg. = Johannes Georgides Monachus, Gnomologium, ed. P. Odorico, Il prato e
I'ape. II sapere sentenzioso del monaco Giovanni, Wiener byzantinische Studien 17,
Vienna 1986: ch. 21
Gnom. = , ed. J.F. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca e codibus Regiis, Paris
1829-1833, III 465-474: ch. 8
Hierocl. = Hierocles, In aurenm Pythagoreorum carmen commentarius, ed. F.G. Khler,
Stuttgart 1974: chs. 9, 11
Ibn Ftik, Mukthar = Ibn Ftik, Mukhtmr al-hikam wa mahsin al-kalim, ed. A. Badawf,
Madrid 1366/1958: ch. 11
a1-Kincl, Risal = al-Kindf, Risalfi l-hla Ii dafi al-ahzn, edd. H. RitterR. Walzer,
Studi sul al-Kindi II. Uno scritto morale inedito di al-Kindi (Temistio ?),
MAL 6,8,1 (1938), 5-63: chs. 5a, 7, 8, 11
Marc. = Florilegium Marcianum litteranim ordine dispositum, ed. P. Odorico, II prato e
l'ape. II sapere sentenzioso del monaco Giovanni, Wiener byzantinische Studien 1 7,
Vienna 1986: ch. 8
[Max.J, Loc. comm. = [Maximus Confessor], Loa communes (PG 91): chs. 8, 121, 33 4 ,
33", 33 1 5 , 39
Mel., Loc. comm. = Antonius Melissa, Loci communes (PG 136): chs. 8, 12 1 , 21, 29 1 ,
39
Miskawayh, Tahdhib = Miskawayh, Tahdhib al-akhlq, ecl. . Zurayk, Beirut 1966;
versio gallica: Miskawayh, Trait d'thique, M. Arkoun, Damascus 1969: ch. 6
Olymp., in Ale. = Olympiodorus, In Piatonis Alcibiadem Commentaria, ed. L.G.
Westerink, Amsterdam 1982 2 : ch. 5b
, in Grg. = , In Piatonis Gorgiam Commentaria, ed. L.G. Westerink, Leipzig 1970:
chs. 1-2, 3, 5b, 11, 17, 21, 30, 33 2 , 43, 47
, in Phd. = , In Platonis Phaedonem Commentaria, eel. L.G. Westerink, Amsterdam

1976: ch. 1
= , eel. H. Schenkl, Plorilegia duograeca (Jahres-Bericht ber das
K.K. Akademische Gymnasium in Wien fr das Schuljahr 1887-1888), Vienna
1888, 1-18: ch. 5b
Pleth., Virt. = Georgius Gemistus Plethon, De virtutibus, ed. B. Tambrun-Krasker,
Athens-Leiden 1987: chs. 5a, 22, 30, 31, 42
Plot. = Plotinus, Enneades, edd. P. HenryH.R. Schwyzer, Paris-Brussels 1951-1973:
ch. 17
Procl., in Ale. = Proclus, In Piatonis Alcibiadem Commentaria, ed. A.Ph. Segonds, Paris
1985-1986: chs. 5a, 5b
Procop., Ep. = Procopius Gazaeus, Epistulae, edd. A. GarzyaR.-J. Loenertz, Ettal
1963: chs. 8, 17
ScLLuc. = Scholia in Lucianum, ed. H. Rabe, Leipzig 1906: ch. 1
Simp. = Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epictte, ed. I. Hadot, Leiden 1996:
passim
Stob. = Stobaeus, Anthologium, edd. C. WachsmuthD. Hense, Berlin 1884-1912
(1958 2 ): chs. 5a, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 2 , 15, 16, 17, 331"3, 33 4 , 33 5 , 33 6 , 33 1 4 , 33 15 " 16 ,
34, 39, 42, 43, 46
Synes., Prou. = Synesius, De Providentia, eel. N. Terzaghi, Synesii Cyrenensis Opuscula,
Rome 1944: ch. 17
Vind. = Exc.erpta Vindobonensia, ed. A. Meineke, Stobaeus, Elorileium IV, Leipzig
1857, 290-296: chs. 5b, 48b
INDEX LOCORUM POTIORUM
1. Epicteti Encheiridion
2
2 ,11
3,1
3,3
4,1
6,5
12 2 ,10-11
13,5
14al,l-2
16,1
16,5
24',2-3
24 2 ,6
24 2 ,8
25',1
26,3
29
31 2 ,7-8
31 4 ,18
32',5 sqq.
332 3 s q q .
33> 3 ,40
33 1 4 ,41
33 1 5 ,45
33 1 6 ,47
34,7 sqq.
34,9
36.1
36,7
39.2
41.3
44,1-3
45,3
46',2
48b 2 ,3
49,2
49,9
49,12
50,2
51',2
51 ',3
5l',6
51 2 ,13-14
51 3 ,15-16
53',2
532,6-7
120
120
121
121
122
122
122-123
123
123-124
124
124-125
125-126
126
126
127
127
127-128
128-129
129-131
131-132
132
132
132-133
133
133-134
132
134-135
135-136
136
136-137
137-138
138
138-139
139
132
139-140
140-141
141
141
141-143
143
143-145
145
145-146
146
2. [Nili] Encheiridion
12a,2-3
15,1-2
188
189
18,2
20,6
22,7
23,1
24,4
30,3
31a 4 6
31c 12 ,6-10
31c'2,6-7
31c 1 3 8-9
31c 14 ,9-10
332,5
33 4 ,8-9
35b ,12-13
38a',5
38a 3 ,9
38b 4 ,1
39,1
40,7
53a,6
55a,7
61',4-5
612,7
63,1
66b 3 ,5
71a 1 ,3
71a 2 ,6
7 la 4 " 5 ,12
189
189
190
190
190
190
190-191
191
191
191-192
192
192
192
192
192
193
193
193
193
193-194
194
194
194
194
194
194-195
195
195
3. Paraphrasis Christiana
3 2 ,3
3 4 .6-7
4 4 ,7
6 4 .7-8
9 3 ,6
',
10 7 ,10
16 1 .1
16 8 ,13
17',1
22',2
22 2 ,4
24 3 .4
24 3 .5
26', 1
30 2 .2
31 9 .15
31 '2,19
3 1 1 3 22.24
31 ' 5 ,26-27
3122,39
241
241
241
241-242
242
242
243
243-244
244
244
244-245
245
245
245
245
245-246
246-247
247
247-248
248
248
31 2 4 ,42
32 2 ,3
32 7 ,13
32'%23
33a 6 ,8
35',2
42 a ,2
44 1 .3
45 2 .2
47 2 ,3-4
491.4
51,2
56*,2
56 9 ,15
57',2-3
572.3
57 3 .4
248
248
248-249
249
249
249-250
250
250
250
250-251
251
251
251
252
252
252
252
63.1
64^,3
662,2
67>,7
693,3.4
70 4 ,6
71',2
71 3 ,5
253
253
245-246
253
253
253-254
254
254
4. Encheiridion Vaticani gr. 2231

10,10-11
18,3-5
31 4 ,24
63,5
263
262
263
262-263
INDEX CODICUM
Atheniensis Benaki Museum 45 (T.A. 16) Ench Mm: pp. 3, 34-36

Atheniensis Byzantine Museum, Kolyva 58 Nil C: pp. 151, 182-183
Atheniensis National Library 373 Ench T: pp. 3, 19, 51-53
Atheniensis National Library 521 Par . pp. 199, 217, 219-221
Athous 1820 (Philotheou 56) Par R pp. 199, 221-222, 225-227
Athous 4263 (Iviron 143) MZL: pp. 151, 182-183
Bern, Brgerbibliothek, Bernensis 97 Par B: pp. 199-200, 215-216
Bern, Biirgerbibliothek, Bernensis 150 Par C: pp. 200, 215-216
Bern, Brgerbibliothek, Bernensis 691 EnchX: pp. 3, 63, 65-66
Berolinensis gr. 175 Ench O: pp. 4, 34-35
Besanon, Bibliothque Municipale 420 Ench Aa: pp. 4, 61-62
Bononiensis 2359 Simp H: pp. 87-88, 101-102, 104, 106-108
Bucharest gr. 645 Ench Ii: pp. 4, 77
Bucharest gr. 655 NilB: pp. 151, 182-183
Bucharest gr. 1030 Enchjj: pp. 4, 77
Cantabrigiensis 1920 (Ii. VI. 41) EnchKk: pp. 4, 75-76
Dresdensis Da 55 Ench : pp. 4-5, 19-21, 25-28
Edinburgh, University Library 234 Ench Hh: pp. 5, 34-35, 37, 39-40
Edinburgh, University Library 3076 Ench Nn: pp. 5, 61-62
Escorialensis gr. 39 (R.III.5) Ench P: pp. 5, 34-35, 37-38
Escorialensis gr. 272 (Y.III.2) Par D: pp. 200, 221-224
Escorialensis gr. 289 (Y.III. 19) Par E: pp. 200, 221-222, 225
Florentinus Laurentianus 31,37 Ench : pp. 5-6, 19-21, 25-26
Florentinus Laurentianus 55,4 Par M: pp. 200, 213-216
Florentinus Laurentianus 55,7 Ench H: pp. 6, 33-35, 37
Florentinus Laurentianus 74,13 Ench R: pp. 6, 35-36
Florentinus Laurentianus 81,22 Ench N SimpN: pp. 6, 48, 88, 110
Florentinus Laurentianus CS 163 Ench W: pp. 6, 63, 65-66
Florentinus Laurentianus Redianus 15 Enchb: pp. 7, 40-42, 108-109
Karlsruhe K 508 Ench Ee: pp. 7, 48-50
Kozani, 13 Ench Oo: pp. 7, 77-78
Leidensis Perizonianus gr. O 5 Ench Z: pp. 7, 63-64, 76, 79
Leidensis Vossianus gr. Q 54 Par H: pp. 200-201, 222, 227-228, 231-233
Londiniensis Add. 10064 Simp U: pp. 88, 98
Londiniensis Acid. 11887 EnchPp: pp. 7-8, 61-62
Londiniensis Burney 80 Ench Ff: pp. 8, 34-35, 37-39
Londiniensis Regius 16.C.XIX Simp O: pp. 88, 110
Mediolanensis Ambrosianus gr. 481 (L 43 supp.) Ench C: pp. 8, 19-21, 31-32, 40
Monacensis gr. 25 ParF: pp. 201, 221-222, 226
Monacensis gr. 529 Ench : pp. 8, 19-20, 25, 27-28
Monacensis gr. 567 Ench D: pp. 8, 40, 42-43
Mosquensis Bibliotheca Synodalis 438 Vladimir Par S: pp. 201, 222, 227-229
Neapolitanus II.C.37 (Borb. 96, Farnesianus <36>) Ench A: pp. 9, 19-21, 25, 27-30
Neapolitanus III.E.29 (Borb. 351) Ench Y Simp Y: pp. 9, 43-45, 47-49, 88, 108 n.14,
110
Neapolitanus III.E.30 (Borb. 352) Simp : pp. 89, 96
Neapolitanus Girolamini C.F. 2.11 Ench : pp. 9, 19-21,25,27-30
Oxoniensis Bodleianus 16991 Ench Gg: pp. 9, 39
Oxoniensis Canonicianus gr. 23 Ench Tt: pp. 9-10, 19, 23-25
Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 247 Ench Q Simp Q: pp. 10, 45, 89, 108 n.14, 110
Oxoniensis Laudianus gr. 21 Par L: pp. 201, 221-222, 224-225
Parisinus gr. 39 Pari: pp. 201-202, 222, 227-228, 231-232
Parisinus gr. 362 Par O: pp. 202, 221-222, 225-227
Parisinus gr. 858 Par N: pp. 202, 221-224

Parisinus gr. 1053 Par P: pp. 202, 213-217
Parisinus gr. 1054 Ench Ss Nil G: pp. 10, 30-31, 152, 170-171
Parisinus gr. 1220 Nil P: pp. 152, 165-170
Parisinus gr. 1302 Par Q: pp. 202-203, 222, 227-228, 230-231
Parisinus gr. 1959 Simp R pp. 89, 103
Parisinus gr. 1960 Simp]: pp. 89, 101, 104, 108-109
Parisinus gr. 2072 EnchESimpE: pp. 10, 43-44, 89, 104-105
Parisinus gr. 2122 EnchX: pp. 10, 63, 65-66
Parisinus gr. 2123 Ench Bb: pp. 11, 61-62
Parisinus gr. 2124 Ench U: pp. 11, 55-57
Parisinus gr. 2446 Par T. pp. 203, 215-216
Parisinus gr. 3047 Ench : pp. 11, 19-21, 25-27
Parisinus Suppl. gr. 200 Ench Ce: pp. 11, 61-62
Parisinus Suppl. gr. 684 M/S: pp. 152, 174-175, 177-178
Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1023 Ench F Simp F: pp. 11-12, 43-44, 90, 104-106
ParisinusSuppl.gr. MM EnchX: pp. 12, 19-21,31-33
Parisinus Dupuy 902 Ench Dd: pp. 12, 61-62
Parisinus Mazarineus 4459 Ench I Simp I: pp. 12, 46-47, 90, 110
Parisinus Mazarineus 4460 Simp D: pp. 90, 94-97
Perusinus gr. 173 Simp V: pp. 90, 98-99
Romanus Angelicus gr. 80 Ench S: pp. 12, 36
Sinaiticus Catharina 385 Par U: pp. 203, 222, 227-228, 230
Uppsalensis gr. 25 EnchG: pp. 12-13, 63-65
Vaticanus gr. 100nc/(Vv: pp. 13,35-36
Vaticanus gr. 326 Simp B: pp. 90, 94-97
Vaticanus gr. 327 Simp C: pp. 52-55, 91, 97-100
Vaticanus gr. 653 M/W: pp. 152, 174-177
Vaticanus gr. 740 ParJ: pp. 203, 222, 227-228, 231-234
Vaticanus gr. 894 Ench Ww: pp. 13, 19, 32-33
Vaticanus gr. 952 Ench : pp. 13, 19-21, 25, 27-30
Vaticanus gr. 1142 Par K: pp. 203, 222, 227-228, 231-234
Vaticanus gr. 1314 nc/t : pp. 13, 19-21,25-26
Vaticanus gr. 1434 M/V: pp. 153, 174-177
Vaticanus gr. 1823<: pp. 14, 19-21, 25, 27-30
Vaticanus gr. 1858 Ench : pp. 14, 19-21, 25, 27-30
Vaticanus gr. 1862 EnchXx: pp. 14,63
Vaticanus gr. 1950 Ench Yy Par Z: pp. 14-15,21-22,204,222,227-228,230-231
Vaticanus gr. 2231 Vat V Simp A: pp. 91, 94-96, 257-259
Vaticanus Barberinianus gr. 4 Ench Uu: pp. 15, 52
Vaticanus Barberinianus gr. 76 Ench Simp : pp. 15, 45-47, 91, 108 .14, 110
Vaticanus Ottobonianus gr. 25M/0: pp. 153, 174, 177-180
Vaticanus Ottobonianus gr. 142 M/N: pp. 153, 176
Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 91 Par W: pp. 204, 221-222, 225-226
Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 100 Simp W: pp. 91, 99-100
Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 149 Ench J: pp. 15,43
Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 276 Simp T: pp. 91, 98
Vaticanus Paladnusgr. 361 M/Q: pp. 153, 172-174
Vaticanus Reginensis gr. 23 Par Y: pp. 204-205, 221-222, 225-227
Vaticanus Rossianus 1023 SimpX: pp. 92, 99-100
Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 132 Enchil: pp. 15, 19-21,25-27
Venetus Marcianus gr. 127 (coll. 390) ParX: pp. 205, 214-215, 217-219
Venetus Marcianus gr. 131 (coll. 471) M/M: pp. 153, 165-170
Venetus Marcianus gr. 253 (coll. 621) Simp S: pp. 92, 103
Venetus Marcianus gr. 261 (coll. 725) Simp G: pp. 92, 101-103
Venetus Marcianus gr. Appp. CI. XI 13 (coll. 1009) Simp P: pp. 92, 108 n.14, 110
Vindobonensisphil.gr. 37 Ench L Simp L: pp. 16,43-45,47-48,92-93, 108 n.14, 110
Vindobonensis phil. gr. 234 Ench M Simp M: pp. 16, 46-47, 93, 108 n.14, 110
INDEX SIGLORUM
Ench
codices manusaipti
A
Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1164
B
Florentinus Laurentianus Redianus 15
C
Mediolanensis Ambrosianus gr. 481 (L 43 sup.)
D
Monacensis gr. 567
E
Parisinus gr. 2072
F
G
Uppsalensis gr. 25
H
Florentinus Laurentianus 55,7
I
Parisinus Mazarineus 4459
J
Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 149
K
Vaticanus Barberinianus gr. 76
L
Vindobonensis phil. gr. 37
M
N
O
Berolinensis gr. 175
P
Escorialensis gr. 39 (R.III.5)
Q
Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 247
R
S
Roman us Angelicus gr. 80
T
Atheniensis National Library 373
U
Parisinus gr. 2124
V
Bern, Brgerbibliothek, Bernensis 691
W
Florentinus Laurentianus CS 163
X
Parisinusgr. 2122
Y
Neapolitanus III.E.29
Leiclensis Perizonianus gr. O 5

Aa
Besanon, Bibliothque Municipale 420
Bb
Parisinusgr. 2123
Cc
Dd
Parisinus Dupuy 902
Ee
Karlsruhe K. 508
Ff
Londiniensis Burney 80
Gg
Oxoniensis Boclleianus 16991
Hh
Edinburgh, University Library 234
Ii
Bucharest gr. 645
Jj
Bucharest gr. 1030
Kk
Cantabrigiensis 1920 (Ii. VI. 41)
Mm
Atheniensis Benaki Museum 45 (T.A. 16)
Nn
Edinburgh, University Library 3076
Oo
Kozani, 13
Pp
Londiniensis Add. 11887
Ss
Parisinus gr. 1054
Tt
Oxoniensis Canon, gr. 23
Uu
Vv
Vaticanus gr. 100
Ww
Vaticanus gr. 894
Xx
Vaticanus gr. 1862
Yy
Vaticanus gr. 1950
Dresdensis Da 55
Monacensis gr. 529
Neapolitanus II.C.37
Vaticanus gr. 952

Vaticanus gr. 1823
Vaticanus gr. 1858
Neapolitanus Girolamini C.F. 2.11
Parisinus gr. 3047
Vaticanus gr. 1314
Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 132
editiones (tibi nomen ditons ignoratur, nonien librarii uncis quadratis inclusum
indicatur)
Br
[Th. Brumennius], Paris 1566 (Oldfather nr. 126)
Ca
[G. Morden], Cambridge 1655 (Oldfather nr. 40)
Co
[A. Mylius], Cologne 1595 (Oldfather nr. 38)
Cr
[A. Cratancler], Basel 1531 (Oldfather nr. 250)
Ge
[E. Vignon], Geneva 1595 (Oldfather nrs. 15-21)
Ha
G. Haloander, Nuremberg 1529 (Oldfather nr. 249)
Lo
IJ. Flesher], London 1670 (Oldfather nr. 42)
Ma
|J. Maire], Amsterdam-Leiden 1627 (Oldfather nrs. 145-146)
Mh
(J. Maire], Leiden 1646 (Oldfather nr. 155)
Ms
|J. Maire], Leiden 1634 (Oldfather nr. 152)
Na
Th. Naogeorgus, Strassburg 1554 (Oldfather nr. 283)
Ne
[C. Neobarius], Paris 1540 (Oldfather nr. 284)
PI
[Ch. Plantin], Antwerp 1578 (Oldfather nr. 128)
Ra
[Ch. Plantin], "ex officina Plantiniana Raphelengii", Leiden 1607, 1616
(Oldfather nrs. 136, 141, 142)
Sc
J. Schegk, Basel 1554 (Oldfather nr. 14)
SI
J. Ferandus, Salamanca 1555 (Oldfather nr. 10)
To
|J. Tornaesius], Lyon 1589 (Oldfather nr. 132)
Tr
V. Trincavelli, Venice 1535 (Oldfather nr. 29)
Tu
J. Tusanus, Paris 1552 (Oldfather nr. 316)
Up
J. Upton, London 1741 (Oldfather nrs. 30-33)
Ve
H. Verlenius, Louvain 1550 (Oldfather nr. 318)
We
[A. Wechelus], Paris 1564 (Oldfather nr. 125)
Wo
H. Wolf, Basel 1560 (Oldfather nr. 35)
Nil
codices manuscripti
Bucharest gr. 655

C
Atheniensis Byzantine Museum, Kolyva 58
G
Parisinus gr. 1054
H
Hafniensis deperditus
L
Athous 4263 (Iviron 143)
M
Venetus Marcianus gr. 131 (coll. 471)
Vaticanus Ottobonianus gr. 142
Vaticanus Ottobonianus gr. 25
Parisinus gr. 1220

Q
S
V
Vaticanus gr. 1434
W
Vaticanus gr. 653
editio
R
J.M. Suarez, Rome 1673 (Oldfather nr. 324)
Par
codices manuscripti
A
Atheniensis National Library 521

C
F
H
I
J
L
M
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
V
Escorialensis gr. 272 (Y.III.2)

Escorialensis gr. 289 (Y.III. 19)
Monacensis gr. 25
Leidensis Vossianus gr. Q 54
Pari si us gr. 39
Vaticanus gr. 740
Vaticanus gr. 1142
Oxoniensis Laudianus gr. 21
Parisinus gr. 858
Parisinus gr. 362
Parisinus gr. 1053
Parisinusgr. 1302
Athous 1820 (Philotheou 56)
Mosquensis Bibliotheca Synodalis 438 Vladimir
Parisinus gr. 2446
Sinaiticus Catharina 385
Vaticanus Reginensis gr. 23
Vaticanus gr. 1950
editio
Cas
M. Casaubon, London 1659 (Oldfather nr. 323)
Vat
V
Vaticanus gr. 2231
Simp
codices manuscripli
A
Vaticanus gr. 2231
B
Vaticanus gr. 326
C
Vaticanus gr. 327
D
E
Parisinusgr. 2072
F
G
H
Bononiensis 2359
I
J
Parisinus gr. 1960
K
L
M
N
O
Londiniensis Regius 16.C.XIX
P
Venetus Marcianus gr. App. Cl. XI 13 (coll. 1009)
Q
Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 247
R
Parisinus gr. 1959
S
T
U
Londiniensis Add. 10064
V
Perusinus gr. 173
W
X
Vaticanus Rossianus 1023
V
editiones
Sa
[Ioannes Antonius de Sabio et fratres], Venice 1528 (Oldfather nr. 121)
He
D. Heinsius, Leiden 1639-1640 (Oldfather nrs. 81 la-812)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. Editions
a. The authentic Encheiridion
For a full list of editions of Ench up to 1952, see Oldfather, Contributions and Supplement. Here I will list the major editions before Schweighuser's editio maior, and
some of the 19th and 20th century editions, which all depend on Schweighuser
(for full titles see Oldfather). In the case of anonymous editions the name of the
publisher is added in square brackets. For the editions discussed in the relevant
chapter (pp. 58-86) the siglaare added in square brackets.
G. Haloander, Nuremberg 1529 [Ha] (Oldfather nr. 249)
[A. Cratander], Basel 1531 [Cr] (Oldfather nr. 250)
V. Trincavelli, Venice 1535 [Tr] (Oldfather nr. 29)
[C. Neobarius], Paris 1540 [Ne] (Oldfather nr. 284)
H. Verlenius, Louvain 1550 [Ve] (Oldfather nr. 318)
J. Tusanus, Paris 1552 [Tu] (Oldfather nr. 316)
J. Schegk, Basel 1554 [Sc] (Oldfather nr. 14)
Th. Naogeorgus, Strassburg 1554 [Na] (Oldfather nr. 283)
J. Ferandus, Salamanca 1555 [SI] (Oldfather nr. 10)
H. Wolf, Basel 1560 [Wo] (Oldfather nr. 35)
[A. Wechelus], Paris 1564 [We] (Oldfather nr. 125)
[Th. Brumennius], Paris 1566 [Br] (Oldfather nr. 126)
[Ch. Plantin], Antwerp 1578 [PI] (Oldfather nr. 128)
[}. Tornaesius], Lyon 1589 [To] (Oldfather nr. 132)
[E. Vignon], Geneva 1595 [Ge] (Oldfather nr. 15)
[A. Mylius], Cologne 1595 [Co] (Oldfather nrs. 38-38a)
[Ch. Plantin], "ex officina Plantiniana Raphelengii", Leiden 1607, 1616 [Ra]
(Oldfather nrs. 136, 141, 142)
|J. Maire], Amsterdam-Leiden 1627 [Ma] (Oldfather nrs. 145-146)
[J. Maire], Leiden 1634 [Ms] (Oldfather nr. 152)
D. Heinsius, edition of Simplicius' commentary, Leiden 1839-1840 [He] (Oldfather
nr. 812)
[]. Maire], Leiden 1646 [Mh] (Oldfather nr. 155)
[G. Morden], Cambridge 1655 [Ca] (Oldfather nr. 40)
[J. Flesher], London 1670 [Lo] (Oldfather nr. 42)
H. Relandus, Utrecht 1711 (based on the work by M. Meibom; Oldfather nr. 287)
J. Simpson, Oxford 1739 (Oldfather nr. 297)
J. Upton, London 1741 (Oldfather nr. 30)
C.G. Heyne, Dresden-Leipzig 1756 1 , 1776 2 , 1783 3 (Oldfather nrs. 253-257)
J.B. Lefebvre de Villebrune, Paris 1782, 1783, 1794-5 (Oldfather nrs. 275-278)
J. Schweighuser, Leipzig 1798 (Oldfather nr. 294)
J. Schweighuser, Epicteteae Philosophiae Monumenta III, Leipzig 1799 (Oldfather nr.
26)
A. Koraes, Paris 1826 (Oldfather nr. 12)
Ch. Thurot, Paris 1874-1917(01dfather nrs. 304-315)
H. Schenkl, Leipzig 1894, 1916 2 (Oldfather nrs. 22-25)

W.A. Oldfather, London 1928 (Loeb edition, vol. II) (Oldfather nr. 13)
P. Sniets, Mainz 1938 (Oldfather 301a; I have not seen this edition myself)
E.V. Maltese, Epitteto, Manuale, con la versione latina di Angelo Poliziano
volgarizzamento di Giacomo Leopardi, Milan 1990
e il
b. [Nilus]' adaptation
J.M. Suarez, Rome 1673 (Oldfather nr. 324)
J. Schweighuser, Epicteteae Philosophiae Monumenta
(Oldfather nr. 26)
c. Paraphrasis
V, Leipzig 1800, 95-138
Christiana

A. Berkel, Leiden/Amsterdam 1670, Delft 1683, Leiden 1711 (Oldfather 232-234)
N. Blancard, Amsterdam 1683 (Oldfather nr. 235)
J.C. Schroder, Delft 1723 (Oldfather nr. 291)
J. Schweighuser, Epicteteae Philosophiae Monumenta V, Leipzig 1800, 3-94 (Oldfather
nr. 26)
II. Catalogues of Manuscripts

Additions 1 = Catalogue of additions to the manuscripts in the British Museum in the years
MDCCCXXXV-MDCCCXL, London 1843
Additions 2 = Catalogue of additions to the manuscripts in the British Museum in the years
MDCCCXU-MDCCCXLV, London 1850
De Andrs = G. de Andrs, Catlogo de los codices griegos de la real biblioteca de El
Escorial, II, Madrid 1965
Astruc-Concasty = Ch. AstrucM.L. Concasty, Bibliothque Nationale, Dpartement des
manuscrits, Troisime Partie, Le Supplment grec, Tome. III, N"s 901-1371, Paris 1960
Babington = Ch. Babington, in: C. Hardwick et al., A catalogue of the manuscripts
preserved in the library of the University of Cambridge, III, Cambridge 1858
Bandini = A.M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum Graecorum bibliothecae Laurentianae, /-77/,
Florence 1764-1770
Brambach = W. Brambach, Die Handschriften der Grossherzoglich Badischen Hof- und
Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe, IV, Die Karlsruher Handschriften, Karlsruhe 1896
(repr. 1970)
Camariano = N. Camariano, Catalogul manuscriselor greesti, Bucharest 1940
Canart = P. Canart, Codices Vaticani Graeci, Codices 1745-1962, Vatican City 1970
Capocci = V. Capocci, Codices Barberiniani Graeci, I, Vatican City 1958
Coxe, Rodt. = H.O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bodleianae; pars
prima recensionem codicum Graecorum continens, 1, III, Oxford 1853, 1854 (repr.
1969)
, Coli. = , Catalogus codicum MSS. qui in collegiis aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie
asservantur, Oxford 1852 (repr. 1972)
Cyrillus = S. Cyrillus, Codices Graeci manuscripti regiae bibliothecae Borbonicae, /-//,
Naples 1826-1832
Devreesse = R. Devreesse, Codices Vaticani Graeci, III, Vatican City 1950
Dorez = L. Dorez, Catalogue de la collection Dupuy, II, Paris 1899
Feron-Battaglini = E. FeronF. Battaglini, Codices manuscripti Graeci Ottoboniani
bibliothecae Vaticanae, Rome 1893
Forshall = J. Forshall, Catalogue of manuscripts in the British Museum. Neiv Series Vol. I.
Part II. The Burney manuscripts, London 1840
Franchi de' CavalieriMuccio = P. Franchi cl' CavalieriG. Muccio, Index codicum
Graecorum bibliothecae Angelicae, SIFC 4 (1896), 33-184 (= Samberger II, 47198)
Gollob, Bes. = . Gollob, Die griechischen Handschriften der ffentlichen Bibliothek in
Besanon, in: Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien,
Philos.-hist. Klasse 157,6 (1908)
, Ross. = , Die griechische Literatur in den Handschriften der Rossiana in Wien, I. Teil,
in: Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philos.hist. Klasse 164,3 (1910)
Graux-Martin = Ch. Graux. Martin, Notices sommaires des manuscrits grecs de Sude,
Archives des missions scientifiques et littraires III 15 (1889), 293-370
Hagen = H. Hagen, Catalogus codicum Bernensium, Bern 1875
Hardt = I. Hardt, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae regiae Bavaricae.
Codices Grae, I-V, Munich 1806-1812
Hunger = H. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der sterreichischen
Nationalbibliothek, I, Vienna 1961
Kamil = M. Kami!, Catalogue of all manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catharine on
Mount Sinai, Wiesbaden 1970
Kolia = I. Kolia, 7
(
),
in: '
,
Thessaloniki 1978, 205-221
Lambros, Athens = Sp. P. Lambros,

'
' ',
'
,
Neos Hellinomnimon 13 (1916), 120-132
, Athos = , Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts on Mount Athos, I-II, Cambridge 18951900
Lappa-ZizikaM. Rizou-Kouroupou = E. Lappa-ZizikaM. Rizou-Kouroupou,
' , Athens 1991
Lilla = S. Lilla, Codices Vaticani Grae 2162-2254 (Codices Columnenses), Vatican City
1985
Litzica = C. Litzica, Catalogul manuscriptelorgreesti, Bucharest 1909
Madan = F. Madan, A summary catalogue of western manuscripts in the Bodleian Library
at Oxford, IV, Oxford 1897
Martini = E. Martini, Catalogo di manoscritti greci esistenti nelle biblioteche Italiane, I 2,
Milan 1896
Martini-Bassi = A. MartiniD. Bassi, Catalogus codicum Graecorum bibliothecae
Ambrosianae, I-II, Milan 1906
MercatiFranchi de' Cavalieri = G. MercatiP. Franchi de' Cavalieri, Codices
Vaticani Graeci, I, Rome 1923
De Meyier, Per. = K.A. de Meyier, Bibliotheca universitatis Leidensis, Codices manuscripti
TV, Codices Perizoniani, Leiden 1946
, Voss. = , Bibliotheca universitatis Leidensis, Codices manuscripti VI, Codices Vossiani
Graeci et miscellanei, Leiden 1955
Mioni, Bibl. Ital. = E. Mioni, Catalogo di manoscritti greci esistenti nelle biblioteche Italiane,
II, Rome s.a.
, Neap. = , Catalogus codicum Graecorum bibliothecae nationalis Neapolitanae, I 1,
Rome 1992
, Vieri. = , Bibliothecae divi Mara Venetiarum codices Graeci manuscripti. Thesaurus
antiquus, I, Rome 1981
, Ven. App. = , Codices Graeci manuscripti bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum, III,
Rome 1972
Molinier = A. Molinier, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothque Mazarine, III, Paris
1890
Olivieri-Festa = A. OlivieriA.N. Festa, Indice dei codici greci delle Biblioteche

Universitaria e Comunale di Bologna, SIFC 3 (1895), 385-495
Omont, Inventaire = H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la
Bibliothque Nationale, I-IV, Paris 1886-1898
, Suisse = , Catalogue des manuscrits grecs des bibliothques de Suisse, Centraiblatt fr
Bibliothekswesen 3 (1886), 385-452; separate edition Leipzig 1886
Revilla = P.A. Revilla, Catlogo de los codices griegos de la Biblioteca de El Escorial, /,
Madrid 1936
Richard, Inventaire = M. Richard, Inventaire des manuscrits grecs du British Museum,
Paris 1952
Rostagno-Festa = E. RostagnoA.N. Festa, Indice dei codici greci Laurenziani non
compresi nel catalogo del Bandini, SIFC 1 (1893), 131-232
Sakkelion-Sakkelion = I. SakkelionA.I. Sakkelion,
' ', Athens 1892
Samberger = C. Samberger, Catalogi codicum Graecorum qui in minoribus bibliothecis
Italicis asseroantur, /-//, Leipzig 1965-1968
Schnorr von Carolsfeld = F. Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Katalog der Handschriften der
knigl. ffentlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden, I, Leipzig 1882
Schreiner = P. Schreiner, Codices Vaticani Grae, Codices 867-932, Vatican City 1988
<Sharp-Finlayson> = <L.W. SharpC.P. Finlayson>, Edinburgh University Library.
Index to Manuscripts, I, Boston (Mass.) 1964
Sigalas = A. Sigalas, '
'
. '. ' , Thessaloniki
1939
Sinkewicz = R.E. Sinkewicz, Manuscript listings for the authors of classical and late
antiquity, Toronto 1990
Stevenson, Pal. = H. Stevenson, Codices manuscripti Palatini Graeci bibliothecae
Vaticanae, Rome 1885
, Reg. = , Codices manuscripti Graeci Reginae Suecorum et Pii PP. II bibliothecae
Vaticanae, Rome 1888
Stornajolo = C. Stornajolo, Codices Urbinates Graeci, Rome 1895
Studemund-Cohn = W. StudemundL. Colin, Verzeichnis der griechischen
Handschriften der kniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, I, Berlin 1890
Vladimir = Archimandrite Vladimir, Sistematiceslioe opisanie rukopisej Moskovskoj
Sinodal'noj (Patriarej) Biblioteki. I. Rukopisi greceskija, Moscow 1894
Warner-Gilson = G.F. Warner-J.P. Gilson, Catalogue of western manuscripts in the old
Royal and King's Collections, II, London 1921
III. Other works1

Bast = F. I. Bast, Epistula critica, Leipzig 1809
Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf = F. BlassA. DebrtinnerF. Rehkopf, Grammatik des
neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gttingen 1975 1 4
BonhfFer, Stoa = . Bonhffer, Epictet und die Stoa, Stuttgart 1890
Boter, Plato's Republic = G.J. Boter, The textual tradition of Plato's Republic, Leiden
1989
, Translations = , The Greek sources of the translations by Perotti and Politian of
Epictetus'Encheiridion, RHT 23 (1993), 159-188
Briquet = C.-M. Briquet, Les filigranes, Geneva 1907 (repr. Amsterdam 1968)
1
The bibliography does not include such well-known works of reference as
Denniston, Khner-Gerth, LSJ etc.
Broccia = G. Broccia, Enchiridion. Per la storia di una denominazione libraria, Rome

1979
Bhler = W. Bhler, Zenobii Athoi Proverbia, I, Gttingen 1987
Carlini = . Carlini, Osservazioni sull'Epilogo del Manuale di Epitteto, SIFC III 13,2
(1995), 214-225
Chappuis = P.G. Chappuis, La destin de Thovnne: de l'influence du stocisme sur la pense
chrtienne primitive, Geneva 1926
Dain, Atrien = A. Dain, Les manuscrits des Traits tactiques d'Arrien, in Mlanges Bidez,
Bruxelles 1934 (= AlPhO II)
, Collection = , La collection florentine des Tacticiens grecs, Paris 1940
, Elien = , Histoire du texte d'Elien le Tacticien des origines la fin du Moyen Age,
Paris 1946
, Introduction = , Introduction indite l' Epiette chrtien, in Mlanges de philologie
grecque offerts Mgr. Dis, Paris 1956, 61-68
Dane = N. Dane II, The commentary on the Christian Encheiridion, TAPhA 80 (1949),
425-426
Degen hart = F. Degen hart, Der hl. Nilus Sinaita: sein Leben und seine Lehre vom
Mnchtum, Mnster 1915
Dobbin = R. Dobbin, Epictetus, Discourses, Book I, Oxford 1998
Dring = K. Dring, Sokrates bei Epiktet, in K. DringW. Kullmann (edd.), Studia
Platonica, Festschrift H. Gundert, Amsterdam 1974, 195-226
Farquharson = A.S.L. Farquharson, The Meditations of the Ernperor Marcus Antoninus,
Oxford 1944
Friedrich-Faye = W.H. FriedrichC.U. Faye, Preliminary list of manuscripts of the
Encheiridion, text, adaptations, etc., in Oldfather, Supplement, 137-152
Gamillscheg-Harlfinger = E. GamillschegD. Harlfinger, Repertorium der griechischen
Kopisten 800-1600, 1. Teil, Handschriften aus den Bibliotheken Grossbritanniens,
Vienna 1981; 2. Teil, Handschriften aus den Bibliotheken Frankreichs und Nachtrge
zu den Bibliotheken Grossbritanniens, Vienna 1989
Gignac = F.Tli. Gignac, A grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine
periods, Milan 1976-1981
Hadot, Tradition = I. Hadot, La tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplidus sur le
Manuel d'pictte, RHT 8 (1978), 1-108
, Addenda = , La tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel
d'pictte, Addenda et Corrigenda, RHT 11 (1981), 387-395
, Simplicius = , Simplidus, Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epictte, Introduction &
dition critique du texte grec, Leiclen 1996
Hard = The Discourses of Epictetus, edited by C. Gill, translation revised by R. Hard,
London and Rutland, Vt. 1995
Histad = R. Histad, Marcus Meibom and the lost Codex Meibomianus, Eranos 83
(1985), 103-112
Irigoin, Etude = J. Irigoin, Pour une tude des centres de copie byzantins (suite), Scriptorium 13 (1959), 177-209
Jaclaane = F. Jadaane, L'influence du stocisme sur la pense musulmane, Beirut 1968
Khler = Hieroclis in aureum Pythagoreorum carmen commentarius, ed. F.W. Khler,
Stuttgart 1974
Kronenberg 1909 = A.J. Kronenberg, AdEpictetum, C Q 3 (1909), 258-265
1910 = , , Mnemosyne II 38 (1910), 156-166
Liguori = F. Liguori, II Manuale di Epicteto tra i Cristiani, Milan 1930 [I have not seen
this work myself]
Lindstam = S. Lindstam, Ein byzantinischer Kommentar der christlichen Paraphrase des
Encheiridions, BZ 30 (1929-1930), 43-49
Luc, Rossano = S. Luc, Attivit scrittoria e culturale a Rossano: da S. Nilo a S.
Bartolomeo da Simeri (secoli -), in Atti del congresso internazionale su S. Nilo di
Rossano (28 settembre 1 ottobre 1986), Rossano-Grottaferrata 1989, 25-63
Luc, Saritture = S. Luc, Scritture e libri dlia scuola niliana, in Scritture, libri e testi
nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio. Atti ciel seminario di Erice (18-25 settembre
1988), a c. di G. Cavalio, G. De Gregorio e M. Maniaci, I-II, Biblioteca ciel
'Centro per il collegamento degli studi medievali e umanistici nell'Universita
cli Perugia' 5, Spoleto 1991,1, 319-387
Mandilaras = B.C. Manclilaras, The verb in the Greek non-literary papyri, Athens 1973
De Nicola, Osservazioni = F. de Nicola, Osservazioni critico-esegetiche alia Parafrasi
Cristiana del Manuale diEpitteto, Bollettino clei Classici 19 (1998), [to appear]
, [in prep.] = , another article on the Paraphrasis Christiana, to appear in Studi
Classici e Orientali
Oldfather, or Oldfather, Contributions = W.A. Oldfather, Contributions toward a
bibliography of Epictetus, Urbana 1927
, Supplement = , Contributions toward a bibliography of Epictetus, A Supplement,
edited by M. Harman, Urbana 1952
Oliver, Perotti = R.P. Oliver, Niccol Perolti's version of The Enchiridion of Epictetus,
Urbana 1954
, Politian = , Politian's translation of the Enchiridion, TAPliA 89 (1958), 185-217
Piccard, Anker = G. Piccard, Wasserzeichen, Anker, Stuttgart 1978
, Lilie = , Wasserzeichen, Lilie, Stuttgart 1983
Piscopo, Nilo = M. Piscopo, La tradizione manoscritta della Parafrasi del Manuale di
Epitteto di S. Nilo, Helicon 9 / 1 0 (1969-1970), 593-603
, Par = , La tradizione manoscritta della Paraphrasis Christiana del manuale di
Epitteto, in: J. Dummer (ed.), Texte und Textkritik. Eine Aufsatzsammlung, Berlin
1987
Radermacher = L. Raclermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, Tbingen 1925 2
Radt = S.L. Radt, ZuEpiktets Diatriben, Mnemosyne IV 43 (1990), 364-373
Richard, Rpertoire = M. Richard, Rpertoire des bibliothques et des catalogues de
manuscrits grecs, Paris 1958; Supplment I (1958-1963), Paris 1964
, Recherche = , La recherche des textes hier et demain, in: D. Harlfinger (ecl.),
Griechische Kodikologie und Textberlieferung, Darmstadt 1980, 3-13
Santerini Citi = A.M. Santerini Citi, Il commente anonimo alla Parafrasi cristiana del
Manuale di Epitteto, SIFC 51 ( 1980), 50-71
Schweighuser, or Schweighuser, Ench = J. Schweighuser, Epicteti Manuale et
Cebetis Tabula, Leipzig 1798
, EPhM= , Epicteteae Philosophiae Monumenta, 5 vols., Leipzig 1799-1800
Spanneut, DS = M. Spanneut, article Epictte in Dictionnaire de Spiritualit IV, Paris
1960
, RAC= , article Epiktet in Reallexikon fr Antike und Christentum V, Stuttgart 1962
, Commentaire = , La tradition manuscrite du commentaire chrtien d ' Epictte,
Philologus 108 (1964), 128-137
, Moines = , Epictte chez les moines, MSR 29 ( 1972), 49-57
, Techne = , Techne, morale et philosophie chrtienne dans un document grec indit du
IX"sicle, Orpheus 2 (1981), 58-79
Stellwag = H.W.F. Stell wag, Epictetus, Het eerste boek der Diatriben, Amsterdam 1933
De Strycker-Slings = E. de StryckerS.R. Slings, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Leiden
1994
SVF = Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, I-III H. von Arnim, Leipzig 1903-1905; IV M.
Adler, Leipzig 1924
Usener = H. Usener, Grammatische Bemerkungen, NJPhP 117 (1878) [= Jahrbcher
fr classische Philologie 24 (1878)], 51-80
Vogel-Gardthausen = M. VogelV. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des
Mittelalters und der Renaissance, ZB 33, Leipzig 1909 (repr. Hilclesheim 1966)
White = N.P. White, The Handbook of Epictetus, Indianapolis 1983
Wotke = C. Wotke, Handschriftliche Beitrge zu Nilus' Paraphrase von Epiktets
>Handbchlein<, WS 14 (1892), 69-74

PhA 082 - The Enchireidon and It's Three Christian Adaptations PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PhA 082 - The Enchireidon and It's Three Christian Adaptations PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE ENCHEIRIDION OF

EPICTETUS AND ITS T H R E E

J. MANSFELD, D.T. RUNIA

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright 1999 by Konmklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

T H E TRANSMISSION O F THE TEXTS

Catalogue of'manuscripts of Epictetus' Encheirdion

XVIII. T h e adaptation of Vaticanusgr. 2231

T h e character of the adaptation of Vaticanus

T h e organization of the apparatus criticus

INDICES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

In the course of my work on the text of Epictetus' Encheiridion I have

1. Brief sketch of the origin and reception of Epictetus 'Encheiridion

first place his name is m e n t i o n e d in various sources 7 . Next there are

See the testimonia collected by Schenkl III-XV.

T h e oldest extant MSS of the authentic Encheiridion belong to the

2. Aim and method of the present work

W h e n I envisaged the preparation of a critical edition of Ench in

For all the texts I have maintained the chapter n u m b e r s f o u n d in

CATALOGUE OF MANUSCRIPTS OF EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRIDION

This catalogue offers a brief description of the MSS containing the

4. Berolinensis gr. 175 (Phill. 1579 = Meerm. 289 = 21 ? Clar. = 125'Pel.)

collation is reported by Schweighuser. In a n u m b e r of places Frau

18. Florentinus Laurentianus Redianus 15 (miscellaneus)

23. Londiniensis Burney 80

27. Neapolitanus II.C.37 (Barb. 96, Farnesianus <36>; miscellaneus)

24M5-18 (-), 29>"7, 30, 33 4 , 33 W '\ 33 9 , 33', 3 3 " , 3313*16,

36. Parisinus gr. 2123 (Teller. Rem.-Reg. 3487,3)

50. Vaticanus gr. 1823 (miscdlaneus)

Yy derives f r o m a lost MS which was the ancestor of a n u m b e r of

58. Vindobonensis phil. gr. 37

Stemma codicum et editionum Epicteti Encheiridii

T H E AFFILIATION OF T H E MANUSCRIPTS AND T H E EDITIO

The first family

132] 2 . Here are a n u m b e r of readings which prove that both branches

T h e AC-group and the g r o u p of selection MSS both have separative

In o n e place the r e a d i n g of appears to result f r o m conjectural

In some cases the reading of appears to be based on conjectural

On the other h a n d AC have separative errors against Yy:

has only o n e slight e r r o r against Yy, namely 3,3 ]

T h e r e are no separative errors of AC against Yy; therefore Yy may

] (non ita AC)

] (et Vat, SiG1 *sl)

In the chapters where E b is absent, there are a n u m b e r of errors of

Sib has separative readings of its own (see p. 101). T h e conclusion is

Tt [Oxon. Canon, gr. 23]

First, I will list a n u m b e r of readings c o m m o n to T t a n d the

O n the other hand,

a n u m b e r of errors against Tt; some

In the following places Tt agrees in error with (and sometimes with

] (et Simp Stob.)

Tt has a large n u m b e r of separative e r r o r s of its own; see for

The selection MSS ()

In some places does not have errors f o u n d in and AC: 3,1

T h e f o u r MSS are divided into two g r o u p s of two MSS,

have the following distinctive readings:

a n d are gemelli, as appears f r o m the fact that they both have

Some instances of readings peculiar to :

a n d , too, are gemelli, as is shown by their distinctive readings;

has been contaminated f r o m Par, witness the addition of

T h e c o m m o n source of the other MSS, , appears to have had double

om. (vix legibile in )

has two errors of its own (51^6 ] and 51 3 ,17