Xenophon, Cynegeticus 5.18

384 NOTES Xenophon, Cynegeticus 5.18 Helle~~: ~~~~ne~::~ o~i:~US~~dMa:tChf;~~Sth 9~fO;~dte~~s ofte~~nO~ho~~: cynegetIcus is not above reproach. At 5.18, it reads: OI..WX0IJ.£VOI.. O£ £tal.. XU1:aOI)AOI.. (SC. AU'riJ) lJ.ahmu IJ.£V 01..<1 yT'jc; X£Xl..vl)lJ.€vl)C;, £<1V hwal..v lvl..Ov £pu8llIJ.U, xut 01..<1 xuAalJ.llC; 01..<1 rrlv clnuuynuv. ~~a:~eest~~xtu~~wo~tal~~~~ lavsl..O~ r:~~~f~~~r£~~~~~~~~e!ra~~, t~:u~~iti~~~ apparatus lvl..ov is cited as the reading contained in Marcianus gr. 511 (=590~, one of the better old manuscripts of the works of Xenophon; it is also defended by a reference to Gautier's monograph La Langue de Xenophon. The hand of Marcianus gr. 511, although compact, is quite legible, and it does in fact read not lvl..Ov but EVI..OI.. (in agreement with the remaining manuscripts, including Vaticanus gr. 989 and Vindobonensis phil. gr. 37, two primary manuscripts of the Cynegeticus). A tracing of the word from the ms. shows »,q (t'v 1..01..). The scribe of M is careful and consistent in his reproduction of final nu, which always appears as v or r . lDonald F. Jackson, "The Re-unification of a Historical Codex," CJ 65 (1969) 12. In preparing his text of the Hellenica, Marchantused readings from British Museum add. ms. 5TiO("'H) for book vii. Jackson shows that H is an apograph of a manuscript known to but rejected by Marchant (Coislinianus gr. 317) and consequently of no value in the establishment of the text. For Marchant's shortcomings in the texts of Xenophon's Hiero and Agesilaus, see Dennis O. Haltinner and Edward A. Schmoll, "The Older Manuscripts of Xenophon's Hiero," Revue d'Histoire des Textes, 10 (1980) 231-236. 2See LSJ under &VI.OI..: "later in sg. Arist. Pr. 884 b 13, Thphr. Vert. I, Arist. Metaph. 1026 a 5." There is some question about the last reference. See the critical apparatus ad loc. of Jaeger's OCT of the Metaphysics. The Thesaurus LinguaeGraecae, now in progress at the University of California, Irvine, lists tvl..OV at Cynegeticus 5.18 as the only example of the singular. I here extend my thanks to David Wilson, Assistant Director of TLG, for his kind assistance. 3For a full physical description of Marcianus gr. 511, see A. M. Zanetti and A. Bongiovanni, Graeca D. Marci Bibl iotheca codicum manuscriptorum per titulos digesta (Venice, 1740). NOTES 385 As for Gautier, his monograph is valuable, but as a defence for I{Vl.OV, unJfvailing. The word does not appear among the many he discusses. In his conclusion, Gautier states, "Nous croyons a I'authenticite du corpus Xenophontien dans son ensemble, hormis la Republique athenienne et Ie Cynegetique. L'Apologie est de tro~ peu d'Mendue pour que les arguments linguistiques soient decisifs. 1I No further comment on this point is needed. Marchant is also misleading on a third point. The reading ~Vl.O" does not come from M but from an old edition of Xenophon's opuscula. According to Schneider, lIin margine Steph. posterioris annotatur 6 ~VLOV, quod in versione reddidit Leunclavius et recipit Welsiana." In the University of Iowa's Special Collections is a copy of the second edition (1581) of H. Stephanus, Xenophontis 'To. o~olJ.£va ~L~A.La, which on p. 573 contains the marginal note liquidam scr. I{VLov Ii (the textual reading being I{VLOL).7 The singular crept into various printed editions on the basis of this marginal note, which seems to provide some editors with a ready emendation for the apparently awkward £av I{xwoLv I{Vl.OL £pu8rwa ("if some have redness ll ). Weiske has reservations: II... locum vitiosum aliis emendandum commendat, suspicatur tamen, £Pu8rwaS ab auctore fuisse ad solum aut ad sata relatum, non ad lepores." At all events, I{vLOV has intruded to the detriment of the text and against the sound authority of the manuscripts . There is no evidence, styl istic or grammatical, to justify its replacement. I{vLOL, the vetus and, I might add, mel ior lectio, should be restored to the text wFi""ena new edition is prepared. - UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA EDWARD A. SCHMOLL 4LE~opold Gautier, La Lansue de Xenophon (Geneva, 1911). See chapter 5, IIElements Hellenlstlques du Vocabulaire Xenophontien, II pp. 66 ff. 5Gautier, 130. 6Gottlob Schneider (ed.), Xenophontis opuscula politica, equestria, venatica (Leipzig, 1815),554. 7Whether this marginal note is a disguised conjecture of Stephanus or whether he had access to mss. no longer extant cannot be stated with certainty. 8Schneider, 554. It is clear enough that the antecedents of ~VLOL are OU,llXO!J.f.VOL and xcna.5T)AOl and refer to Aa* It is also clear from what follows in the text (5.18 'TO yap CPQvov. • • 22) that Xenophon has the color of the hares in mind. The sense provided by I{Vl.OL needs no emendation. ...