BMCR 2001.07.21

Response: Lightfoot on Brodersen on Lightfoot on Brodersen

Response to 2001.07.01

Response by

Many thanks to Kai Brodersen for his response to my review of his edition of Parthenius’ Ἐρωτικὰ Παθήματα. I very much hope that it will lead to the betterment of both our editions, and in the confidence that it will I append the following remarks.

I hadn’t realised that my comment that B.’s text ‘differs only fairly lightly from my own, which he has clearly used as a base-line’ would be controversial. The remark was simply based on observable propinquity.1 Of course, there is no question but that B. has also returned to P and made sterling use of that, and I am particularly grateful to him for supplying a list of places where his own text reinstates the reading of P from which my own departs unnecessarily. This has prompted me to return to P myself, and in this light it should be noted that B.’s careful perusal of the manuscript has unfortunately stopped short of his eradicating the following tralatician errors:

2.3, 14.2, 27.1 τείσασθαι Brodersen, Lightfoot: τίσασθαι P

10.1 ἐς βαθὺν B L: εἰς βαθὺν P

13.3 μεταθεῖ B L: καταθεῖ P

15.3 ἔνθα B, cf. L’s app.: ἔνθα δη P: this correction actually belongs at the beginning of 15.4

19 Ἰφιμέδην τὴν Ἀλωέως γυναῖκα B L: τὴν Ἁλωέως γυναῖκα Ἰφιμέδην P

B. contributed his list of corrections in anticipation of a second edition of my Parthenius, and it seems only courteous to return the compliment in prognostication of a similar happy event in his own case. On the subject of unsignalled departures from the paradosis, note that B. omits to record the following non-trivial departures from P in his list on pp. 121-3:

Index 23 περὶ Χιλωνίδος B: περὶ Ἰωνίδος P

1.3 Βύβαστον B: Βούβαστον P 2 (which should be noted since B.’s list of emendations is ‘im Blick auf diesen korrigierten Textbestand’)

2.2 δακρύων ἀλινδουμένη B: δακρύωνκαλινδουμένη P 2

6.5 περιερρύησαν B: περιερύησαν P and sim. 6.7 καταρραγέντος / καταραγέντος; I have not recorded these minor corrections either, but B perhaps ought to note them in his text since he has done so at 8.2 ἐρ

7.4 ἀντιλέγοντα B: ἀντιλέγειν P

11.2 ἤγετο παῖδα B: εἴχετο παιδὶ P

23.2 ἐν αὐτῇ B: ἐν αὐτοῖς P

29.1 on p. 123 the report of P should read δή τε δεξιῶς, not δη τὲ δεξίως

36.5 μὴ should be included in the lemma in the final entry on p. 123, σῖτα καὶ ποτὰ

Perhaps the following alterations of breathing should also have been noted, for good measure:

5.3 αὑτοῦ πατέρα B: αὐτοῦ π. P

8.5 (third occurrence) αὑτῷ B: αὐτῷ P

8.9 (last word) αὑτῷ B: αὐτῷ P

31.1 αὑτὴν B: αὐτὴν P

32.1 αὑτῶν B: αὐτῶν P

Finally, may I take this opportunity of supplying the following list of misprints and other niggles:

1.5 Λὺρκος

Misplaced acute on 4.7 πολλά

6.4 ὑπέρξεται for ὑπέρχεται

False breathing on 9.7 ἁθρόοι (the form exists, but P has a soft breathing).

15.1 ἔστιν ὅτε, bracketed by B. after καὶ, in fact comes before it in P.

16.2 τὸ καὶ B: τὸ μὲν καὶ P

17.6 τῆν γυναικός

21.3 μένηται B: μέμνηται P

30.1 Omitted breathing on Ηρακλέα

35.4, on p. 123: ἄπταρος P (not ἀπταρος)


1. For example, there are no textual differences between us in the prologue (contrast, for example, one editorial difference from Martini), nor in the first story (contrast, for example, two differences from Martini), nor in the second story (contrast one difference from Martini), one in the third story (a correction of a breathing; one, more major, difference from Martini), two in the fourth story (the same two, plus another two differences, in Martini).