Name der Zeitschrift: Klio Jahrgang: 99 Heft: 1 Seiten: 305-314.

Cobet, in his second discussion of γορεύω and its compounds, maintained that these verbs in Attic formed all tenses except present and imperfect from ρ, επον, ερηκα, ερηµα, ρρήθην, save that forms with -αγορευ- were optionally used to distinguish certain alternative meanings. Thus πηγόρευσα etc. could be used in the sense ‘forbid’, but not in that of ‘weary’ or ‘give up’; προηγορευµένα could be used in the sense ‘proclaimed’, but not in that of ‘foretold’ ‘or’ ‘said previously’; προσαγορεσαι etc. (...) could be used in the sense ‘call, name’ but not in that of ‘greet’. These distinctions, he believed, did not break down until about the time of Alexander. Hence his rejection of the aorist καταγορεύσ offered by the MS. tradition in Peace 107. But καταγορεύειν too is a verb with two clearly distinct ranges of meaning: ‘tell, declare’ and ‘denounce, accuse’. (shrink)

THE book which Eudoxus of Cnidos was stated by some to have translated from the Egyptian is entitled in the manuscripts of Diog. Laert. 8. 89, a reading which R. D. Hicks retains in his Loeb edition. It was retained also in the edition of C. Gabr. Cobet and in the Tauchnitz edition ; so also H. S. Long in O.C.T.. Egyptian religion was richly theriolatrous. But does it proffer a suggestion of ‘Dialogues of Dogs’? The contrary belief is (...) suggested by the proposal of various emendations. (shrink)

In my translation of the Historia Animalium, now thirty-five years old, I pointed out a couple of passages where νθρωπος stood in the text though νος seemed to be the appropriate word. It had not occurred to me for the moment, though it soon after wards did, that ανος was at hand to account for so curious a misreading. The same contraction has other misreadings to account for, as we may read in Cobet; but I do not know that (...) this one has been drawn attention to. (shrink)

So van Leeuwen prints the lines, following Cobet and Meineke in athetizing 16. Nor is it difficult to find grounds for the exclusion; τòν πο is repeated at 47; the following three words smell of the scholiast; the last three resemble the end of 13. The line taken as a whole seems to play little if any role, and indeed to lack meaning, even if line 47 is some way away and it is a little odd that the three (...) separate elements meld into a perfectly acceptable comic trimeter . Conjectures are not lacking for the replacement of κ τν ρνων by something which gives more sense; Köchly's νθρωποσ ποτ' ὢν may be taken as typical in both meaning and style. (shrink)

The construction of ν with the future has been hotly denied as impossible, so far as Attic Greek and indeed post-Homeric Greek generally are concerned. The opponents of the construction have had among their number such scholars as Dawes and Cobet; and of late, it seems, editors of texts generally. The view of Cobet is given on p. 469 of his Miscellanea Critica, with reference to Demosth. 9. 70 πάλαι τις δέως ν σως ρωτήσων κάθηται. Cobet, who (...) has been followed by later editors, altered ρωτήσων to ρωτήσας, commenting ‘ubi semel Constiterit δέως ν ρωτήσω, δέως ν πεύσομα aut simile quid pro ρωτήσαιμι vel πυθοίμην recte dici, turn demum librorum lectioni acquiescemus. quod equidem nunquam futurum esse satis scio.’ This view, which must of course be understood as excepting Homer from its scope, is nothing more than a blank denial of the possibility of the construction. We see more of an argument in Kühner-Gerth , where it is remarked that the construction, frequent in Homer, was later given up because ν with the optative was sufficient to express a future possibility; and that possibly emenders have done right to alter passages in Attic which contain it. This is not expressed with any great certainty. Nevertheless it has become to such an extent the prevailing view among editors that in modern texts it is extremely rare to find the construction allowed to remain. (shrink)

In C.Q. 1935, 72–82 and 150–163 I published some observations on Herodotus which were the by-product of a translation. Those which follow are the similar by-product of a lexicon. It says much for the delusive simplicity of Herodotus that it is still possible to reap a critical crop from an author who has been read by Reiske, Dobree and Cobet. Had van Herwerden not edited Herodotus, the harvest would have been twice as large.

xs1F61ς … xs22EFξειργxs22EFσατο of MSS. is generally corrected to the third person plural, but it would be more like Thucydides to xs22EFξεxs22EFργαστο write: this would then be another instance of the corruption of pluperfects, such as S000983880001956X_inline1 into xs1F20γγxs22EFλλετο and the like, of which many instances are given by Cobet in Nov. Lect. 422, Var. Lect. 253. In the old edition of Poppo, 1826, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 297, xs22EFξxs22EFπγαστο is given as contained in Cod. Bas. ex emend., (...) but it is not noticed by Poppo-Stahl or recent editors. Ως with the pluperfect is Thucydidean: Mr. Marchant on ii. 59 refers to iii. 23, 1; 26, 4; 27, 1; 69, 2. See the remarks of Poppo in vol. i. part ii. p. 44 sq. on this MS. (shrink)

xs1F61ς … xs22EFξειργxs22EFσατο of MSS. is generally corrected to the third person plural, but it would be more like Thucydides to xs22EFξεxs22EFργαστο write: this would then be another instance of the corruption of pluperfects, such as S000983880001956X_inline1 into xs1F20γγxs22EFλλετο and the like, of which many instances are given by Cobet in Nov. Lect. 422, Var. Lect. 253. In the old edition of Poppo, 1826, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 297, xs22EFξxs22EFπγαστο is given as contained in Cod. Bas. ex emend., (...) but it is not noticed by Poppo-Stahl or recent editors. Ως with the pluperfect is Thucydidean: Mr. Marchant on ii. 59 refers to iii. 23, 1; 26, 4; 27, 1; 69, 2. See the remarks of Poppo in vol. i. part ii. p. 44 sq. on this MS. (shrink)

Cette traduction complète des Vies et doctrines des philosophes illustres de Diogène Laërce, sous la direction de M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, représente ce qu'il convient d'appeler un événement éditorial. Faut-il le rappeler, Diogène Laërce, en dépit de sa notoriété et de son utilité pour l'étude de la philosophie ancienne, reste un auteur peu traduit et peu édité. Pour s'en tenir à l'époque moderne et aux traductions complètes, le lecteur francophone n'avait guère à sa disposition, jusqu'ici, que les traductions de Zévort et de (...) Genaille. La première remonte au milieu du XIXre siècle. La seconde, de 1933, suit l'édition de Cobet, et se révèle très insatisfaisante. Bref, deux traductions inutilisables, en regard des critères de scientificité actuellement en vigueur. C'est donc avec le plus vif intérêt qu'il convient d'accueillir cette nouvelle traduction. Parmi ses nombreuses et incontestables qualités, on remarquera, au premier chef, que l'éditrice a su s'entourer de spécialistes de tout premier ordre. Citons les noms de Luc Brisson, de Michel Narcy, de Jacques Brunschwig et de Jean-François Balaudé, auteur d'une traduction remarquée des trois lettres et des Maximes capitales d'Épicure. (shrink)