Galan ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 2015 Guillermo Galán Vioque Joseph Scaliger’s Notes on Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica Guillermo Galán Vioque OSEPH SCALIGER was without a doubt a prolific humanist. Apart from his editions of major Latin authors, he pro- duced numerous notes and conjectures to classical and postclassical texts, both Greek and Latin.1 In this article I study and publish Scaliger’s notes on Quintus of Smyrna’s Post- homerica, using the surviving witnesses that we have of his an- notations. An autograph manuscript with Scaliger’s notes is in the library of the University of Leiden, Leidensis SCA 57, ff. 11–14 (= L). It contains a list of corrections and conjectures on the Posthomerica organised by books, but without line references. It seems that Scaliger copied onto these pages his own notes from the margins of a manuscript or an edition of the Posthomerica. It is well known that a great part of Scaliger’s library was in- herited by the University of Leiden shortly after his death in 1609.2 Others of Scaliger’s books were acquired at the auction of an important selection of his books held in Leiden on 11 March that same year, or came later through donations by 1 For his life and work see A. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship I–II (Oxford 1983–1993). 2 There is an apograph of his will at the University of Leiden (MS. Leidensis Perizon. Q 5, fol. 39–44v); cf. P. C. Molhuysen, Codices manuscripti. Codices Scaligerani (praeter orientales) (Leiden 1910) V–VIII, and K. van Ommen, “The Legacy of Joseph Justus Scaliger in Leiden University Library Catalogues, 1609–1716,” in M. Walsby and N. Constantinidou (eds.), Documenting the Early Modern Book World. Inventories and Catalogues in Manuscript and Print (Lei- den 2013) 51–82. J GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 947 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 other humanists.3 And Scaliger’s manuscripts are already men- tioned as part of the University Library in its first printed cata- logue, published by Daniel Heinsius in 1612.4 There are also two volumes with Scaliger’s notes in the Bod- leian Library, manuscripts d’Orville 442 and 405. MS. d’Orville 442 (= O1) is an undated Aldine edition of Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica, Colutho’s Rape of Helen, and Tryphiodorus’ Sack of Troy.5 It contains notes taken by S. Haverkamp from an unidentified manuscript which belonged 3 Cf. Catalogus librorum bibliothecae Iosephi Scaligeri, quorum auctio habebitur in aedibus Ludovici Elzevirii, bibliopol. Lugd. Bat. ad diem 11. Martij (1609). A facsimile edition: H. J. de Jonge, The Auction Catalogue of the Library of J. J. Scaliger (Utrecht 1977); see esp. 1–4. 4 [D. Heinsius], Catalogus librorum Bibliothecae Lugdunensis. Praefixa est Danielis Heinsii Bibliothecarii […] oratio (Leiden 1612) 79–88 (cf. Molhuysen, Codices manuscripti III, and van Ommen, The Legacy 77–79). 5 Quinti Calabri Derelictorum ab Homero libri quatuordecim (Venice s.d.; usually dated 1505). Cf. C. J. Strackhoven, Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum et im- pressorum uiri nobilissimi Joannis Doruille (manuscript copy [Oxford, Bodl. Lib. D’Orville 302–303], ca. 1765) f. 63 (I always quote following d’Orville 302); Bibliotheca d’Oruilliana siue catalogus librorum instructissimae bibliothecae uiri summi d. Jacobi Philippi d’Oruillii (Amsterdam 1764) 156, no. 1318; T. Gaisford, Co- dices manuscripti et impressi cum notis manuscriptis, olim d’Oruilliani qui in bibliotheca Bodleiana apud Oxonienses adseruantur (Oxford 1806) 57; F. Madan, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford IV (Oxford 1897) 122, no. 17320). Strackhoven mistakenly dates this Aldine edition to 1529. This date appears in one of the exlibris written at p. Ai: “Memorare nosissima 1529.” This copy belonged to Francis Fox, who received it in 1530 from his brother John (p. Ai: “Sum Francisci Foxi ex dono Iohanni Foxi 1530”), first owner of the book (his exlibris gives a date of 1521 [p. Ai: “εἰµὶ τοῦ Φόξου καὶ τῶν φιλῶν 1521”]). John Fox was nephew of Richard Fox, founder of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and became the Arch- deacon of Surrey (1520) and Winchester (1521). He died in 1530 (cf. C. J. Drees, Bishop Richard Fox of Winchester: Architect of the Tudor Age [Jefferson 2014] 153). That same year Francis also inherited from his brother a copy of Aristotelis opera omnia (Venice 1495–1498) (Oxoniensis Jesus Coll. K.16.8) and another of Luciani opera (Venice 1503) (Cantabrigensis Corpus Christi Coll. Gaselee 156) (cf. “Early Bookowners in Britain. British provenances from 1450 to 1550,” http://ebob.cerl.org/cgi-bin/record.pl?rid=00002007). 948 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 to G. Falkenburg.6 The notes on the Posthomerica stop at Quintus Smyrn. 4.203.7 Most of these notes were published by J. C. de Pauw (= p) as an appendix to his edition, Quinti Calabri praetermissorum ab Homero libri XIV (Leiden 1734).8 According to its preface, it was Haverkamp himself who sent this book to the editor (f. *5r-v): Communicauit etiam mecum uir cl. Sigebertus Haverkamp aliud exemplar Aldinum, in quo emendationes Josephi Scaligeri a libro primo ad uersum CCIII libri quarti, ex ipsius Scaligeri codice descripserat: quae cum numero plures et Sylburgianis longe essent meliores, et illis excerpsi et ad calcem libri, serius 6 Cf. the note written by S. Haverkamp in the back cover: “Emenda- tiones quae sunt in margine Calabri, Tryphiodori et Coluthi descripsi ex codice Falkenburgiano.” There is a copy of the Basel edition of 1569 (Quinti Calabri antiquissimi et sapientissimi poetae Praetermissorum ab Homero libri XIV, quibus Troianam historiam ab Homero derelictam graviter et splendide prosecutus est) in the library of the University of Leiden with notes copied by Falkenburg himself (Sign. 755 C 28 [= H. 540]: cf. W. Senguerdius, J. Gronovius, and J. Heyman, Catalogus librorum tam impressorum quam manuscriptorum bibliothecae publicae Universitatis Lugduno-Batavae [Leiden 1716] 261). There are numerous notes to the first book of the Posthomerica, but subsequently they are rare (see pp. 107–108, 146, 182, 200, 226, and 276) until the beginning of Tryphio- dorus’ Sack of Troy (pp. 303–326) and Colluthus’ Rape of Helen (pp. 327–334). This volume is mentioned in the prologue to J. C. de Pauw’s edition, although it is mistakenly considered an Aldine one: “Asseruantur in Biblio- theca Lugduno-Batava duo Aldina (sic) huius poetae exemplaria, in quorum uno Sylburgius multa, in altero Falkenburgius pauca oppido manu sua notauerant” (f. *5). In fact, today there are two Aldine editions in the library of the University of Leiden with manuscript notes, one actually with F. Sylburg’s notes (755 C 26 [= H. 559]; cf. Senguerdius-Gronovius-Heyman, Catalogus 261); the other is annotated by G. Canter (755 C 27; absent from Senguerdius-Gronovius-Herman). There is also a copy of the Hannover edition of 1604 (Q. Cal. Paraleipomena, id est Derelicta ab Homero) with man- uscript notes by D. Heinsius (755 C 30 [= H. 220]; cf. Senguerdius- Gronovius-Heyman, Catalogus 261). 7 Madan, A Summary Catalogue IV 122, says erroneously that the notes stop at Quintus Smyrn. 4.210. 8 “Addenda et corrigenda,” pp. 872–874. GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 949 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 enim mihi innotuerunt, eas exhibui, quae ab aliis non erant pro- ditae, ut ne cum molestia tua eadem bis terue recurrerent.9 Later, Haverkamp sent it to Jacques Philippe d’Orville along with some coins, as he tells him in a letter written 9 May 1736: “Calabri exemplar et nummos pro commodo tuo, quamdiu indigas, potes retinere.”10 D’Orville never returned it to its owner.11 In this same letter Haverkamp explains why he could not finish copying the notes: Nullo modo exsculpere ex memoria possum, unde Scaligeri illa in Calabrum nactus fuerim, certe ille noster Ultraiectinus plura nequaquam habet. Credo autem me iuuenem Leidae descrip- sisse in libro qui publica auctione vendebatur, atque angustia temporis prohibitum reliqua describere, pretio uero deterritum ab emendo codice ipso.12 Three years after the publication of de Pauw’s edition, d’Or- ville published a book criticising it, his Critica vannus in inanes Joannis Cornelii Pavonis paleas (Amsterdam 1737), because, in his opinion, the editor used Scaliger’s notes more than he ad- 9 “Sigebertus Haverkamp sent me another Aldine copy, in which he had copied J. Scaliger’s corrections from the first book as far as line 4.203, from Scaliger’s own copy. Since they were more numerous and better than Syl- burg’s, I selected and edited at the end of this book (they came to my notice late) those which have not been published before, so that you do not find them repeated two or three times to your own discomfort.” 10 MS. d’Orville 482, f. 95. For d’Orville and S. Haverkamp as coin collectors see J. J. Bellermann, Bemerkungen über die phoenizischen und punischen Münzen I (Berlin 1812) 32–34. 11 On d’Orville’s fondness for not returning the books he borrowed see P. Burmann, “De uita uiri inlustris Nicolai Heinsii comentarius,” in Nicolai Heinsii aduersariorum libri IV (Harlingen 1742) 9 (quoted at G. Galán Vioque, “Isaac Vossius’ Sylloge of Greek Pattern Poems,” GRBS 52 [2012] 304 n.75). 12 “I cannot remember where I found those notes of Scaliger. That citi- zen from Utrecht [= de Pauw] certainly published many of them in vain. I think that when I was a young man in Leiden I found them in a book that was going to be sold in a public auction. I could not copy the other notes for lack of time, and I was discouraged from buying the book itself because of its price.” Quoted at Gaisford, Codices manuscripti 57. 950 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 mitted, without acknowledging them.13 On the other hand, MS. d’Orville 405 (= O2) is a copy of the edition by de Pauw, mentioned above, which contains notes by d’Orville, who copied into the margins collations of the first book taken from two manuscripts and numerous annotations. According to a note written at the top of p. 3, one of the manu- scripts belonged to the Laurentian Library and was collated by A. M. Bisconius; the other belonged to the Barberini collection and was collated by Philippus Vitalis.14 The latter was Bar- berinus gr. 166,15 and the Laurentian was Laurentianus LVI 29.16 The notes are assigned to F. Sylburg, P. Francius, J. Lectius, G. Falkenburg,17 D. Heinsius, A. M. Salvinius, and also J. 13 See especially d’Orville, Critica uanus 577: “Scaligeriana autem serius accepisse ait; etiamsi mihi hoc uariis de causis credibile non sit.” 14 P. 3: “cod. L. siue Laurentianus collatus cum edit. Aldina contulit Anton. Maria Biscionius, Laurentianae custos. Cod. B. ex bibliotheca Card. Barberini. Contulit P. D. Philippus Vitalis hieromonachus Cryptae Ferratae crit. Diui Basileii, nec non eminentissimi Cardinal. Franc. Barberini biblio- thec[arius].” Cf. Madan, A Summary Catalogue IV 118 (also Strackhoven, Catalogus f. 63, and Gaisford, Codices manuscripti 52). 15 Cf. S. di Ricci, “Liste sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheca Barberina,” Revue des Bibliothèques 17 (1907) 94; J. Mogenet, Codices barberiani Graeci II Codices 164–281 (Vatican City 1989) 3–4; F. Vian, Histoire de la tra- dition manuscrite de Quintus de Smyrne (Paris 1958) 11, 13, and 67. 16 The notes agree with the readings of the manuscript and its subscriptio is also transcribed at p. 2: “In catalogo bibliothecae Laurentianae quam con- fecit Langius [= W. Langius, Catalogus librorum mss. bibliothecae Mediceae (Leip- zig/Frankfurt 1710) 156] dicitur scriptis hic codex a Georgio Trapezuntio, sed potius est ille Georg. Tribizius. Ἐγὼ Γεῶργιος ὁ Τριβίζιος, ὁ τῶν ἐν Βενετίαις Γραικῶν ἱερεὺς µετέγραψα τόδε τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον Κοϊντοῦ [ποιητοῦ] ἐκ βιβλίου διεφθαρµένου καὶ τὰ µὲν ἐπιδιώρθουν, τὰ δὲ ὡς ἔχει τὸ ἀντίγραφον, οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε διορθοῦν τὰ πάντα, ἅπερ σαφῶς οὐκ οἶδα” (quoted at A. M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Mediceae II [Florence 1768] 330, and Vian, Histoire 24). The relationship of Barberinus gr. 166 and Laurentianus LVI 29 to this collation has already been pointed out by M. D. Reeve in a note at W. M. Linday’s catalogue of annotati in the Bodleian library: List of Editions of the Classics with Marginalia (Oxford ca. 1900) 32 (MS. Top. Oxoniensis C 310). 17 I have verified that d’Orville copied Falkenburg’s notes from the 1569 GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 951 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 Scaliger. This volume belonged to G. Canter, and later to D. Heinsius (f. *1: “Olim Gulielmi Canteri, nunc Danielis Hein- sii”). We know of the existence of another volume with Scaliger’s notes on the Posthomerica thanks to the catalogue of the library of Jacques Philippe d’Orville produced by Strackhoven around 1765.18 Strackhoven included in his catalogue d’Orville’s man- uscripts and printed books with notes. Strackhoven mentions at f. 63, just between the Aldine and de Pauw’s edition mentioned above, an edition of Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica published in Frankfurt in 1614, in reference no doubt to a copy of Troia expugnata seu Supplementum Homeri, eorum omnium quae urbi illi ac- ciderunt ab interitu Hectoris, donec tandem omnino exscinderetur; interprete L. Rhodomanno, cum C. Dausqueii adnotamentis (Frankfurt 1614). This copy is also mentioned in both auction catalogues of his library of 1764 and 1804.19 Unfortunately it is now lost. What makes this missing book especially interesting is that, according to Strackhoven’s catalogue, it contained L. Rhodomann’s and J. Scaliger’s notes on Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica copied from their own manuscripts: “cum emendationibus Jos. Sca- ligeri et L. Rhodomanni ex eorum exemplaribus descriptis.”20 ___ volume mentioned in n.6 above. Moreover, at p. 1 d’Orville mentions a fragment of the third book of Constantinus Lascaris’ Grammatica (“῾Η δὲ ποίησις τοῦ ὁµηρικοτάτου Κοίντου”; cf. f. 164 in the Aldine edition of 1495 and f. t VIIIv in the edition Venice 1521), copied also at f. 2 of Falkenburg’s volume, pointing out his source as “Falkenb.,” and besides he adds below “Falkenburgi liber habet quaedam in Tryphiodorum” (on which see n.6). 18 Cf. n.5 above. According to a note in f. Vv, the catalogue was started in 1761 and finished in 1779. 19 Cf. Bibliotheca d’Oruilliana (1764) 156, no. 1319: “Quintus Calaber Gr. & Lat. Rhodomanni & Dausquii. Ffurt 1614,” and Bibliotheca d’Oruilliana. A Catalogue of the reserved part of the library of the learned and critic James Philip d’Orville (London 1804) 5, no. 123: “Calaber (Quintus) Gr. Lat. Rhodo- manni et Dausqueii notis mss. Francof. 1614.” 20 Strackhoven, Catalogus f. 63. The notes were copied from Scaliger's Aldine by P. Francius (cf. Strackhoven f. 62v: “In margine huius libri emen- dationes Jos. Scaligeri ex ipsius exemplari Aldino adscriptae sunt […] P. 952 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 D’Orville’s library was acquired by the Bodleian in 1804, but this 1614 edition did not enter the Bodleian.21 It was not men- tioned by Gaisford in his catalogue of the d’Orville legacy, published only two years after the acquisition of d’Orville’s books and manuscripts. It is also absent from the manuscript List of Editions produced by the classicist W. M. Lindsay around 1900,22 and from F. Madan’s catalogue.23 This missing copy could well be the one that is mentioned in the auction cata- logue of Scaliger’s books, although the date is there mistaken, as it is dated 1604 (“Quintus Smyrnaeus Calaber Rhodomani, gr. lat. Francof. 1604”).24 On the other side, we also know that Scaliger owned a copy of J. Brodaeus’ Annotationes in Oppiani Cynegeticon libros IIII, Quinti Calabri Paralipomenon Homeri lib. XIV, Coluthi Thebani de Helenae ___ Francius”). D’Orville owned other printed editions with Scaliger’s notes, such as an edition of Diodorus Siculus’ Bibliotheca (Paris 1559) (MS. d’Orville 311), and D. Heinsius’ edition of Theocritus’ Idylls ([Heidelberg] 1604) (MS. d’Orville 294). There was also a copy of Abraham Ortelius, Thesaurus Geo- graphicus (Antwerp 1596), with Scaliger’s notes, when Strackhoven wrote his catalogue (Catalogus f. 88v: “ex bibliotheca illustris uiri Josephi Scaligeri, cuius manu conjectura annotata hic leguntur. [fuit] Nicolai Heinsii D. F.”), but it is no longer in d’Orville’s collection. It is already absent from Gais- ford’s Catalogue. It was sold in 1836 as part of R. Heber’s library (cf. B. Wheatley et al., Catalogue of the Library of the Late Richard Heber [London 1836] part X, 83, no. 2516), and is today Bodleian Library B 17.C Th. 21 A copy of this edition with manuscript notes is mentioned in the catalogue of R. Heber’s auction that could possibly be this missing one (Wheatley, Catalogue part X, 86, no. 2600). 22 It is today’s Top. Oxon. C 310 (R. 6136); cf. n.16 above. 23 See P. O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum. A Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incom- pletely Catalogued Humanistic MSS of the Renaissance in Italian and Other Libraries IV (Leiden 1989) 263–265. 24 Cf. de Jonge, The Auction Catalogue 54 (Rhodomann’s edition of 1604 was printed in Hanover, see below). According to this catalogue, it has no annotations, since it appears without an asterik (the asterisk means that “aliquid in eisdem libris ab Illustrissimo Scaligero notatum esse”: Catalogus librorum bibliothecae Iosephi Scaligeri f. A1v). GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 953 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 raptu lib. unum (Basel 1552) without manuscript notes,25 and per- haps an unknown edition of the Posthomerica bound together with the editio princeps of the tragedies of Aeschylus (Aeschyli tragoediae sex [Venice 1518]), later owned by N. Heinsius.26 According to the auction catalogue of N. Heinsius’ books, it was “passim emendati manu Jos. Scaligeri.”27 Unfortunately, it is today also missing. This unknown edition could well be an Aldine, since Scaliger mentioned that he owned one in a letter to J. Gruterus 10 March 1601,28 and moreover, R. Montague wanted to borrow one from Scaliger on 1 July ca. 1600–1603.29 Thus Scaliger’s notes are the following: Conspectus siglorum L Leidensis, SCA 37, ff. 11–14 O1 Oxoniensis, d’Orville 442 O2 Oxoniensis, d’Orville 405 p J. C. de Pauw, Quinti Calabri praetermissorum ab Homero libri XIV (Leiden 1734) 872–874 Liber primus 12 εἶλαρ (instead of ἦµαρ) O1 O2 16 µάλ’ ὀρώρει (instead of πεπότητο) O1 O2 33 ἄλλαι ἕποντο L O1 O2 44 µετὰ δ’ O1 O2 48 Οὐλύµποιο O2 71 πτόλεµον O1 72 ὅτε φρένας O1 p 77 ἢ O1 O2 103 ἤδη O1 O2 p 111 ὀιζυρῶς O1 116 µάλα γάρ τοι πένθος O1 O2 p 137 ἐξαπάφησεν O1 O2 • πονέεσθαι O1 O2 143 χρυσέας O1 O2 150 ἀάσπετον O1 O2 153 ἂψ ἀπ’ ’Ολύµπου L 169 Ἀρπυίῃσι O1 O2 p 187 Ἀρηιάδος O2 190 ἐπουρανίῃσι O2 192 κακὰ 25 De Jonge, The Auction Catalogue 54. Brodaeus’ printed annotations to Quintus of Smyrna are at pp. 153–424. 26 Cf. R. Smitskamp, The Scaliger Collection (Leiden 1993) 109: “Quintus Calaber & Aeschylus Venice 1518.” N. Heinsius’ father, the famous Daniel Heinsius, was allowed, along with friends such as C. Mylius and J. Badius, to select and keep the printed books he wanted, and in addition D. Heinsius bought some books with annotations at the auction of Scaliger’s library (cf. de Jonge, The Auction Catalogue 3 and 5). 27 Catalogi bibliothecae Heinsianae pars posterior (Leiden 1682) 90. 28 P. Botley and D. von Miert, The Correpondence of Justus Joseph Scaliger III (Geneva 2012) 588. 29 Botley and von Miert, The Correspondence III 435. Cf. also n.20 above. 954 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 πολλὰ O1 O2 195 αἴδεο δ’ ἕως O1 O2 p 196 Δαρδάνου ἕως O1 O2 p 205 ἀπάνευθεν O1 O2 220 περὶ χροΐ O1 O2 227 Μολίονα O1 O2 p 228 Γυλισσόν τε O1 O2 p 231 ἐφέσπετο O1 O2 232 ἐυσθενέσσι O1 O2 240 δὲ O1 O2 245 ὅς δ’ O1 O2 282 Μυκάλην ἔνεµον O1 O2 296 οι συνστονάχουσι O1 O2 p 298 µηλονόµοισιν ἀεὶ O1 299 παρεσσοµένοισι O1 O2 p 310 σφισι O1 332 που δ’ ἴς Αἴαντος ἔβη O1 O2 p 333 ἐναντία ἠριάασθαι O1 334 πελάσσω O1 345 θοοῖς O1 357 µαψιδίῃσιν O1 369 κακὰ πολλὰ O1 380 ἐρήτυε O1 388 ἐπεσσυµένων O1 p 389 κλυτòν ὀτρύνεσκ’ L O2 : κλυτὸν ὀτρύνεσχ’ O1 395 κυδαίνουσ’ ἡ δ’ O1 406 Τισιφόνην O1 O2 p • ἐµµεµαυῖα O1 408 θράσος O1 420 ὁράατε O1 451 τίπτε περὶ κλόνον αἰνόν L O1 O2 p 457 εὔαδον O1 469 πτολέµοιο O1 472 κακῶν O1 479 βλοσυρέσσι O1 490 κέδασσεν O1 491 κέχυνται O1 502 µεγάλου O1 518 ὄσσαν τ’ O1 519 ὅππως O1 536 καὶ O1 540 ἠύτε θουρία uel λυγρὴ L O1 541 ἦτορ ἔχουσα L O1 546 χαλκὸς ἔλαµπε L O1 O2 p 549 διατρυφὲν εὖτε µόλιβδος L 552 ἀµφοτέροισιν O1 558 ἱκέσθε O1 587 ἀπαντήσασα O1 O2 p 592 κραταιῇ O1 599 εἴσιδε O1 606 καὶ εἰ O1 O2 p 615 ἢ δ’ ὥς O1 618 ἢ ἐπὶ O1 627 παρὰ O1 630 ὡς µιν ἴδοντο O1 637 τετρυµένοι ἅψεα πάντες L O1 645 ἀντὶ O1 648 τόδε σοί γε O1 651 ἐπεὶ ἦ O1 656 et 661 δε O1 668 τι O1 669 ἐυχεσάοντο O1 670 τοιαύτης ἀλόχοιο O1 O2 p 675 ἐνηέος ἀµφὶ θυγατρὸς L • ἀάπλετον uel ἀµείλιχον ἀµφὶ θυγατρὸς O1 686 ἐπεβήσατο O1 O2 p 693 ἀπαιθοµένοις O1 O2 p 696 ἠλιβάτου O1 700 ἀνὰ ταρφέα O1 706 πορφύροντι O1 O2 p 711 µνήσαθ’ ὅσοι Κρονίωνος L • µνήσαθ’ ὅσοι καὶ Ζηνὸς O1 722 ποὶ νείκεσε µύθῳ L • µάλα νείκεσε uel κατανείκεσε µύθῳ O1 723 φρένας ἠλεέ τίς νύ σε L O1 746 ἀπ’ ἐκ µελέων O1 O2 p 772 υἱέα O1 773 τοῦ δ’ ἐτέτυκτο πάϊς σθεναρὸς L O1 779 ἐριδµαίνειν O1 804 οἱ παρκατέθαψαν O1 O2 p 806 οὐδ’ ἂρ σφὶ L O1 O2 p 827 ἐκίδνατο O1 Liber secundus 1 ὀρέων ὑπερηχηέντων L 11 ὅππως O1 30 ἀλλά που O1 O2 p 34 ἦ νυ οἰ O1 50 ἀναλκείης ὑπὸ λυγρῆς O1 O2 p 51 µήδ’ ἐπὶ πάτρης O1 O2 p 56 δισσάκι L O1 O2 p • φέροντας L O1 O2 p 57 δῶµεν ἕως οὐ κτῆσιν L : ἂψ δόµεν ὡς οὐ κτῆσιν O1 O2 p 59 ἐµοὶ O1 64 ᾔνεον αἶψ’ ἀΐοντες O1 O2 p 71 πάντων O1 72 ἄγε δὴ O1 85 πορφύρῃ … χαλέπτῃ O1 O2 p 110 Ἄρηϊα O1 115 µητέρος O1 116 ἀθάνατον βίον αἰὲν L O1 126 µύθῳ O1 129 ὥς κεν µοι κρήνειαν L : ὥς κεν ἒτι κρήνειαν O1 p 130 ὀλλυµένους µάλ’ ἅπαντας uel ὀλλυµένους ἅµα πάντας O1 O2 p 131 µακάρεσσιν ἀτειρέσι L O1 134 θυµὸν ἐν εἰλαπίνῃσι φίλῃσι L O1 O2 p 154 µαχέσασθαι O1 O2 p 157 ἐθέλεις O1 • µεταδαίνυσο O1 161 φάτ’ O1 175 µηδὲ O1 197 προπόλοισι L : ποιοβόροις O1 O2 p 206 ἵπποις καὶ ὄχεσφιν O1 230 εὖτε Γύης µελάθροισι L O1 O2 p 232 µάλα γάρ ῥα O1 245 πρόσθ’ O1 • καὶ τοῦ O1 O2 p 252 ἐσσυµένον τοῦ δ’ οὔ τι λύθη κέαρ L O1 255 βληµένῳ O1 O2 p 286 θάρσει O1 287 ὥς τότε κε Μέµνων GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 955 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 φρόνεε µέγα L : ὣς τότε δὴ Μέµνων µέγα φώνεε O1 O2 p 288 µάλα κτανέειν O1 289 ἀπέπλαχθη O1 299 φοβέοντε O1 305 φίλῳ πότε παιδὶ O1 O2 p 306 ἐναλίγκιος O1 O2 p 316 παρὰ παιδὶ O1 p 317 µή τοι σε O1 O2 p 329 οὐκ ἂν τοι O1 331 πολυρρήνοιο δίηται L O1 373 ἰλαδὸν O1 • ὑστάτιον O1 377 ὣς Μέµνων O1 382 ἄρ’ ἀνὰ uel ἀνά τε O1 385 ἐξαλέονται O1 392 τεθνεῶτος O1 O2 p 400 κατέναντα κεχωµένος L O1 408 ὃς δὲ O1 • περ ἀταρβέι O1 418 ἔκποθι O1 • λειριόεσσαι O1 421 προφερεστέρη O1 436 Νηρεΐδας O1 439 ὁππότε δειµαίνεσκε L O1 441 Οὐλύµποιο πεσόντα O1 O2 451 ἐγγὺς δὲ O1 464 ἔνερθε δὲ δαιδαλέοιο O1 O2 p 471 Lacunam statuit Scaliger O1 O2 p 486 µέλας δ’ ἐπετέρπετ’ Ὄλεθρος L O1 509 δοιαὶ ἄρ’ O1 510 ἐρεµναίη µὲν ἔβη O1 518 µάρνασθαí τε O1 O2 p 529 ἀνεγνάµφθησαν O1 O2 p 535 τοὺς ἵπποι χρεµέθοντες L O1 545 βράχεν O1 O2 p 551 µιῇ O1 560 Παφλαγόνιον non legitur O1 p 562 αἱµατόεις O1 566 πυθοµένους O1 568 φορέοντες O1 573 ὑπηέριοι φορέεσθαι L O1 575 ὅποτ’ O1 593 δύσατο O1 O2 p 595 δυοκαίδεκα O1 596 ἀιὲν ἑλισσοµένου ‘Υπερίονος L : ἀιὲν ἑλισσοµένου περὶ τέρµονος O1 O2 p 600 κύκλον O1 O2 p 607 περὶ O1 609 φίλε O1 618 ἂψ ὀπίσαιτο L : ὠπίσατο O1 623 φαµένης O1 O2 p 626 κατέκρυβεν uel κατέκρυφεν οὐρανὸς O1 627 φέρων O1 O2 p 632 ἄφνω ἐυµελίην L • Ἀχιλήεα O1 O2 p 642 µελανόχροες O1 654 ἅµα κλόνον ἠὲ καὶ ἄφνω L 658 εἰσανόρουσεν O1 662 γὰρ µέγα Ζηνὸς O1 O2 p 664 ἔχει O1 666 ἐκέδασσε δ’ ἄρ’ ἀχλύν L Liber tertius 3 µέγ’ ἕον στενάχοντες L O1 O2 p 17 φθῖσθαι O1 O2 p 39 θεσπεσίην O1 44 γάρ µιν O1 O2 p 48 ὀρυµαγδοῦ O1 72 µε O1 84 ἐξείρυσσεν O1 O2 p 89 ἄµβροτον ἰὸν L O1 90 κραιπνὸς O1 94 Ἀχαιοῖς αὖθι διάνδιχα O1 O2 p 100 ἐν δὲ σὺ O1 O2 101 δαινυµένοις O1 102 λιποῦσαν O1 105 ἤλυθεν ὕλη O1 110 κραταιοῦ O1 115 et 116 ὅτις O1 116 τετιµένος O1 123 οὐ νύ τι σοί Τρῴων ἐπιµέµβλεται O1 O2 p 125 σοῖσιν ὑπ’ O1 129 ἠµείβετο uel ἀπαµείβετο O1 133 κατηφιόων O1 O2 p 137 κρύβδ’ Ἥρης L O1 154 ἶνας τ’ ἐγκεφάλοιο O1 O2 p • κέασσε O1 155 ἐρείσας O1 165 ἐφέβοντο O1 O2 p 187 ἐγήθεεν O1 201 ἀµφι- O1 206 αἵ δ’ ὑπὲρ ἀνδρῶν O1 210 ποτὶ τὴν πόλιν O1 O2 p 213 ἀµφέβαν O1 219 ἀπαὶ νέκυος O1 O2 p 222 ποτέονται O1 O2 224 ἀκάχηται O1 234 ἀντία Μασσικύτοιο Χελιδονίης O1 253 οὔ νύ τοι O1 O2 p 258 ξεῖνος O1 259 δωτίνῃσι παραιφάµενος O1 264 οὐτιδανῇσιν O1 266 ἐρεµνάς O1 269 δ’ αὖτ’ ἐδάµασσε uel δ’ εἶτ’ ἐδάµασσε O1 O2 p 275 Ἀχιλλέος O1 277 κτείνοντ’ O1 297 δυσµενέσι O1 : δυσµενέσε O2 p 299 Μαίναλου O1 302 ποταµοῖο O1 307 ὑπ’ O1 319 λεῖπεν O1 333 κράατος; ἐκ δ’ ἄρα O1 O2 p 342 κόµισσαν O1 363 ἐπιειµέν’ ἀνάλκεα L O1 p : ἐπιειµέν’ ἀνάκλεα O2 380 πολυκλαύτοιο O1 386 πονέοντο ἀπείριτον; ἔστε L O1 O2 p 396 πουλυπέλεθρος O1 398 ἐχθóµενον 956 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 O1 O2 p 411 προθελύµνους O1 O2 p 419 θεοκτίτοισι aut θεοκτήτοισι βελέµνοι L : θεοκτήτοισι βελέµνοι O1 421 πολυαχθέι O1 423 ἀµύµονος Αἰακίδαο L : ἀµύµονος οἷο ἄνακτος O1 431 τὸν τότε κῆρ ἀχέων L O1 O2 p 437 ἔµποθεν O1 446 που τάδε O1 451 ἀθλήσει O1 O2 p 452 θυµὸς O1 O2 p 460 ἀάσπετα O1 466 χερειότερον ἐπελήλυθεν O1 O2 p 467 ἀγανούς O1 473 ἐµοῖσι O1 474 χείλεσι O1 480 νῦν δ’ οἴχῃ µὲν ἄιστος O1 O2 p 482 λευγαλέος O1 O2 p 495 καταφθιµένου O1 496 δυσµενέσιν O1 499 ἦ ῥὰ καὶ ἄµµε βροτοὺς ψευδέσσι λόγοισι L O1 O2 p uel ἥ ῥὰ νυ καὶ σὺ καὶ βροτοὺς ψευδέσσι λόγοισι O1 O2 p 500–501 Πριάµοιο ἄνακτος / ἄστυ L O1 501 ὃς ὑπέστης O1 O2 p 527 ὕδατος ἐν πυρὶ θεντας ἄφαρ κρυεροῖο λέβητας L O1 531 πάντα O1 534 κράατος O1 O2 p • ἥν ῥεῖα φασὶ L O1 O2 557 αἴγλη O1 • ἀλεγεινῶς O1 562 εὐρυχόρου περὶ O1 572 δυσάµµορος O1 • µε O1 582 ὀρινοµένοιο γόοιο L O1 610 εὐρυρέεθρος O1 621 οὔ µοι O1 622 γινοµένῃ O1 • ὅσα γῆ τε καὶ O1 O2 p 632 ἀγειραµένη O1 O2 p 653 Τρώων τε O1 662 ἧστο O1 666 πάντεσσι φάος O1 O2 p 691 ὀδώδεε O1 O2 696 πολύδρακυν O1 O2 • ἔκποθεν Ὀυλύµποιο O1 710 πυρῇ O1 711 µαλεροῖο O1 714 ὁµῶς uel ἄδην O1 738 Ἡφαίστου κλυτὸν ἔργον L O1 Liber quartus 7 ὑπ’ ἄγκεα τῆλ’ ἀπὸ Τροίης L 9 περίβλυσαν O1 10 ἀενάου O1 27 κείνῳ O1 28 φεύξεσθαι O1 39 τοὺς δ’ ἔτ’ ἐγὼ O1 O2 p 52 αὐτὸς O1 65 νηυσὶν ἐδόρπεον O1 93 οἱ O1 98 ἔτι ζώοντος ἐµεῖο O1 O2 p 99 ἤ καὶ σοῖο καὶ αὐτοῦ L O1 O2 p 108 φραζώµεσθα O1 128 τοὕνεκεν ἐν O1 O2 p 130 ἐυφροσύνης τε καὶ O1 O2 p 139 ἀµβροσίην ἐκέραιρον L 140 ἐς O1 • τράπεν O1 O2 p 144 Νηλῆος ἐὺς O1 154 ἰδ’ O1 172 αὐτή θ’ ἡ Θέτις ἀργυρόπεζα O1 O2 p 191 ὅσσαι ἅµ’ O1 193 ὠκυτάτοιο O1 200 καὶ τότε O1 203 τῷ δὴ ἀρ’ ἐγχριφθεὶς uel τῷ δ’ ἄρ’ ἐνιχριφθεὶς p : τῷ δὴ ἀρ’ ἐγχριφθεὶς O1 O2 369 µήτι παντοίῃ L O2 389 κάλλιπεν οὐκ ἐθελοντὶ L 425 καρποῖο τυχῆσαι L 427 ἐς τέλος ὧδε L 428 καὶ ἄσπορον ἀνθεµόεν κρῖ L 429 µέλλον ἤθι (sic) … ἀλδαίνεσθαι L 431 ἔτ’ ἄχνοον L 508 καρπαλίµως δ’ εὔληρα λάβε L 511 καὶ … ἀφρῷ Scaliger obelo notauerat O2 537 ἐν ἀγῶνι δρόµου πέρι L 550 τοῖς δ’ αἶψα τάθη δρόµος L 558 ἕκαστος ἐκέκλετο L 566 ἐσθλὸς ἀνὴρ L Liber quintus 36 ὧνπερ ἁπάντῃ O2 52 πάντῃ O2 53 διειργόµεναι O2 63 ἐφέποντο O2 72 µειδιόων O2 88 ᾐδιόων non legitur O2 101 δέδεντο δὲ O2 108 ἀάσπετον O2 115 κεκασµένον O2 120 Ἑκτορέοιο O2 125 ὁκ’ O2 152 ἐµοὶ πίθεσθε O2 170 δηριόωνται O2 173 µήσεται O2 190 ἀλλὰ σοὶ ἀµφιµέµηλε θράσος L O2 202 ὅς γ’ O2 213 ἐρύσσαι O2 217 περιδείδιες O2 229 ἐριδµαίνοντε O2 237 ἐνένιπτεν O2 240 µε ἔφησθα O2 251 ἀµφὶ πόνοισι O2 262 κράτος O2 263 εὐφροσύνῃσι … ἠνορέη δὲ O2 267 µ’ἐν O2 275 µέσσον O2 278 ἔκτοσθ’ ἔστησας µόνος O2 287 ἐγχείην O2 314 µόγησα O2 322 ἄρ’ αὐτὸς GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 957 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 O2 323 ἄτῃ ἀνιηρῇ O2 335 κατεδύσατο O2 336 ἴσαν O2 338 Προµηθέα µητιόεντα O2 353 οὔτε µιν ὕπνος O2 354 ἀλλὰ γ’ ἑοῖσιν L O2 • ἐν ἔντεσιν L 356 νᾶυς O2 362 κεῖνος ἔρεξεν L 367 Πληιὰς O2 370 ὅπῃ µὶν O2 375 ΛΕΙΠΕΙ ΣΤΙΧΟΣ O2 380 ἐπ’ ἐσχάρῃ O2 382 ἀµφί γε πᾶσαν O2 396 τ’οὐρανὸν αἰπὺν L : δ’οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν O2 399 ἢ δέ ἑ κύσεν ἑλοῦσα O2 410 χεῦεν O2 422 ἀασάµεσθα O2 429 Κεφαλλήνων O2 439 ἀρνειοῖο O2 446 τοκέες O2 469 χερσὶν O2 • κακῇ … ἄτῃ O2 478 ἐσθλὸς O2 491 δέµας O2 496 ἐκ τεγέων O2 502 deest versus post ἀργαλέας qualis iste: εἴχον. ὁδ’ ἧστο κέαρ τετιηµένος ἠύτε κοῦρος L 504 ὅτε παρ’ L 509 νέκυν πέρι νηήσαντο ἔκβαλεν ἦτορ L 523 ληιδίην σφετέρην ἄλοχον L 619 L Liber sextus ἄλλος δ’ ἀλλήλοισιν ἐπῴχετο L 31 πολέµοιο δυσηχέος O2 35 ἄσῃ Ἄρηα O2 79 ἄµφω γάρ κεν ἰόντε L 82 ἐπὶ κρατεροῖο τοκῆος L 158 ἄµφω δεικανόωντο L 181 µετ’ ἀγακλυτῶν L 224 µέγ’ ἐσίνετο πᾶσαν ἁλωήν L 349 ὠρώρει L 378 εὐκεάτοιο O2 391 µήδετ’ ἐπεσσύµενος L 398 πρωίας L 466 διὰ χθονὸς ἠύτ’ ἁλούσης forsan L 495–6 ἆιψα δ’ ἐπὶ σφετέρας ἐκόµισσαν ἑταῖροι / νῆας L 580 ἐχέφρονα Δηϊονῆα L 617 ᾤκεον εὐκτέανον L 630 ἔφθιτο δ’ αἰών L 645 βροτοῖς βαθὺν ἠέρα L O2 Liber septimus 15 ἐπεὶ κλυτὰ µήδεα L 61 ἰητήρια νούσων L 206 εἰ µὴ σεῖο πατὴρ τὸν ἴσον Διὶ τῖον Ἀχαιοὶ L 225 ἡµετέρου δε γάµοιο θεοῖς L 290 δαµήµεναι εἵνεκ’ Ἀχαιῶν L 291 καὶ ἄξιον Αἰακίδῃσιν L 306 ᾗ ἔνι συµφορέονται • λείπει στίχος L 321 πουλὺς δ’ ἀµφ’ ἕνα χῶρον L 360 µέµηνε θεός µεγάθυµος L 381 Ἴλιον ἀµφὶ πόλιν τε φέρων κλέος Ἀτρείδῃσι L 397 αἷψα δὲ δὴ O2 407 αἶψα Καλυδναίας L 408 τόνυ Πρωτεσιλάου L 411 ἀυαίνεται ἄκρα L 434 πατρὶ ἑῷ L 549 δύµεναι O2 572 οἳ δὲ κελαινῆς L 633 αὖτ’ O2 715 καὶ ἄλσεα ῥωπήεντα L Liber octauus 72 σὺν νέφεα ῥήξωσι L 113 Ὀδυσῆος ἐύφρονος L 170 ὣς µένεν ἄτροµος δῖος L 347 περὶ στεροπῇσιν ἔλαµπε L 437–440 πέλει ἄλγος / ἔσσεται (omittit 438–439) L Liber nouenus 53 φρένας O2 56 εἶδον O2 62 παρὰ νῆας O2 128 πεζῶν O2 174 εἰσετ’ ἐιόντος aut ἐνθάδ’ ἐόντος L 175 θούριος L 186 ἵππῳ uel ἵππου O2 318 αἰπὺ βέρεθρον L 347 ἀποµαίνεται ἦτορ L 353 Λήµνον κοίλην L O2 360 δὴ γάρ µιν ἐπὴν ἕλε λιµὸς deest versum L 448 ἄφνω O2 449 ποτὶ χθόνα δῖαν ἄγεσκον L 462 ὠκύτερον ποίησε νοήµατος L 503 εἰδόµενοι φύλλοισιν L 512 νῦν δέχου ἕπτα γυναῖκας L 519 εἴπερ τις ἔτι ἤλιτεν εἵνεκ’ ἐµεῖο L 958 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 Liber decimus 30 αὐτὰρ ἐπιβρίσουσιν L 65 δεινὴ γὰρ ἄγε θεὸς L 69 πῦρ βρέµει αἰθόµενον L 109 σὺν ἄλγει L 131 πονέουσαν ἐπὶχθονός L 135 αὖθι δ’ ἵησι L 173 ἐξ ὀρέων κελαδεινὰ L 194 πεπότητο O2 210 θοὸν βέλος L 351 ἐλποµένου Ὁδυσσήος L 405 ὥς ὄφελον µ’ ἐδάσαντο πάρος τάδε L 406 ὄσσον ἀνιερῆς L 413 κώκυσ’ O2 415 οἵη δ’ ἐν ξυνοχῇσι περιτρέφεται L 426 βιότου κλυτὸν L 462 ἦρα φέροντες L 463 ὑστατίην L 481 Εὐάδνην Καπανῆος … µελέεσσιν L 484 ὑποκάββαλε τέφρῃ L Liber undecimus 3 ἑκάτερθε πόληος L 23 Λητὼ δῖ’ L O2 39 κακαὶ δέ ἕ Κῆρες L 40 ἔλλαβε πένθος L 56 ἐσσυµένων ἤµερσε καρήατος ἄορι τύψας L 70 δορὶ … µακρῷ O2 76 χραύσασα O2 79 Πολύειδον O2 89 ἔφθασε O2 96 θαλέθουσι O2 112 ΛΕΙΠΕΙ ΣΤΙΧΟΣ O2 194 κραταιὴν L O2 195 σειρᾷ O2 (instead of στερρὸν ἔτ’) 218 κιὼν κατεναντία L O2 228 ὑπὲκ Βορέαο θυέλλης L 280 οἱδ’ ἔχον ἀλλήλοισι φόνον L 365 ἄρ’ O2 419 ὑπ’ ἀκαµάτοιο ἐρωῆς L 474 Ποίαντος ἐὺς L Liber duodecimus 58 κεκληγῶτες O2 134 ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος ἐπ’ ἔργον L 135 ὑπ’ ὀκρυόεντι σιδήρῳ L 197 ὕπερθε χολούµενος L 234 ἐὸν λόχον L 393 ἐµπρησέµεν ἵππον L 498 ΛΕΙΠΕΙ O2 502 ἐξυπαλύξαι O2 Liber decimus tertius 26 τάχα δ’ ἂµ φατὰ L 75 ΛΕΙΠΕΙ O2 164 καὶ ὧς βεβαρηότες οἴνῳ L 169 ἀµύµονα Μύγδονος υἷα L 191 ὅ τις O2 236 ὄµβριµον ἆορ L 243 εὐθαλπέος ὥρῃ L O2 244 ἡ δε µέγ’ ἠµύουσα L uel ἰλλίζουσα O2 247 ΛΕΙΠΕΙ O2 259 ἐσχατόεντα O2 260 ἐϋγλαγέων O2 261 θέῃ O2 285 ἄρνυται O2 291 ἄλλοι δ’ ἀλλοίσις ἰνδάλµασι O2 320 τὸν δ’ ἁπαλῆς µάλα χειρὸς L 345 οὕνεκα ἴς χρυσοῖο L 348 νὺξ δὲ µί’ ἧµιν ἔφηνη L 396 Πάρις ξείνοιο Διὸς L 462 ΛΕΙΠΕΙ O2 488 ἠύτ’ ὄρος λασίοισι L 489 τὸ µὲν οὔτ’ ἀνέµου Βόρεαο θύελλαι L 413 ἀλλὰ ὑπὲκ πύρος O2 492 Ἡφαίστοιο βίηφι L 499 ὅς µιν ἄγεν L • ἡ δ’ ἀλάλητο L 514 µε O2 Liber decimus quartus 33 συσὶ νήπια τέκνα L 36 µίγδα περιγρύζουσι L O2 51 µετὰ φρεσὶν αἰδοµένη τε L 60 ἐπεσβολίῃσι χαλέψαι L 145 πάντες O2 (instead of Δαναοὶ) 159 καί µε πάρος µεµαυῖαν L 205 ὄτι O2 211 µέµνηθ’ O2 214 Πολυξείνην O2 258 τὴν δ’ ἄγον ἠύτε πόρτιν ἐπὶ θανάτοιο θυηλὰς L : τὴν δ’ ἄγον ἐς θανάτοιο θυηλὰς ἠύτε πόρτιν O2 283 ἵησι νέον σπαργεῦσα L 319 αἵµατι πορφύροντι L 325–326 Γανυµήδεος ἱρὰ / δώµατα L 338 µακρὴν πολέµοιο O2 344 µείλιχοι, οὐδὲ τι. κῦµα O2 411 ἀµφιάλοιο O2 496 ψάµµον ἀναβλύεσκε L 582 κατ’ Ἐγκελάδοιο δαΐφρων L 620 τοὺς δὲ Ποσειδάων µὲν ἐκλονέεν L GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 959 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 For all his notes Scaliger used a manuscript or, more prob- ably, an edition which follows the text of the family derived from H.30 There are some suggestions made on readings found exclusively in H,31 and conjectures to missing words in H.32 Moreover, at 12.498, according to O2, he points out a missing line, missing only in the H family. Some of his conjectures often agree with the readings of a specific manuscript or manuscripts, most of them belonging to the H family. This is the case regarding agreement with R,33 L,34 V,35 C,36 Cpc,37 D,38 Lasc1,39 Lasc2,40 and also with the cor- rector of H (Hc).41 30 I use the sigla of F. Vian, Quinti Smyrnaei Posthomericorum libri XIV I–III (Paris 1963–1969). 31 For instance, 1.12, 3–3, 5.36, 10.406, 12.58. 32 Cf. 1.16, 33, 103, 116, 220, 298, 332, 451, 540, 541, 546, 549, 675, 722, 2.110, 134, 232, 618, 6322, 3.105, 123, 125, 206, 210, 446, 499, 653, 714, 4.52, 99, 566, 7.206, 321, 360, 381, 397, 407, 8.170, 347, 9.30, 206, 318, 10.30, 131, 11.218, 13.396, 14.145. 33 1.169, 227 (also Rhodomann), 282 (also with M), 406, 558, 592, 2.115 (also with Bsl), 154 (with Rpc), 436, 509, 562, 595, 3.110, 1542 [also with Lsl and Lasc2], 213 (also with L), 302 (also with L) 333 [also with Lsl], 495, 582, 610 (and also with P), 4.1401, 144 (with Rpc), 5.63 (and also with Lasc2), 217 (and also with Lsl), 263 (also with Bruxell. 2946–50), 287 (also with Lasc2), 422 (also with Hc and L), 446 (also with Lpr), 469, 7.306, 9.519 (also with V and N), 13.462. 34 1.637, 3.1542 (with Lsl, R, and Lasc2), 213 (and R), 302 (and R), 7.306, 9.56 (also with B and Lasc2). 35 2.51, 3.165, 5.190, 3541, 9.519 (also with N and R), 13.26 (with Lmg and Rpc). 36 2.1, 658 (Cpc and also B). 37 2.154, 2.658 (and also B), 10.481. 38 3.264 (also with M and Hc), 8.437–440. 39 1.491 (also with Lasc2), 502 (also with Lasc2). 40 1.491 (also with Lasc1), 502 (also with Lasc1), 772, 2.59, 529, 3.17, 1542, 5.190 (also with Hc). 41 2.331 (also with Y), 3.234 (also with M and R), 264 [also with M and D]), 419, 421 (also with Y), 492, 4991, 5.190 (also with Lasc2), 6.181, 391 960 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 However, there are also agreements with manuscripts of the Y family and, while some of them are common to all witnesses of that family,42 others are found exclusively in manuscript P43 or M.44 On the other hand, there are numerous conjectures attrib- uted to Scaliger in these witnesses that are usually thought to have been proposed by L. Rhodomann, editor of Books XII– XIV (Cointi Smyrnaei … Ilii Excidii libri duo. Reditus Graecorum, capta Troja, liber unus [Leipzig 1577], included at the end of the second volume of M. Neander’s Opus aureum et scholasticum),45 and later of what can be called, in A. W. James’ words,46 “the first truly critical edition” of the text (L. Rhodomann, Quinti Calabri Paraleipomena, id est Derelicta ab Homero, XIV libris com- prehensa [Hanau 1604]).47 Some of his corrections were also ___ (also with Nr), 14.36, 205, 582. 42 1.33, 71, 77, 143, 192 (also with Lpr), 205, 333, 345 (also with U and Q), 406, 420, 469, 536, 540, 541, 552, 711, 779, 804, 806, 827, 2.30, 34, 71, 130, 157, 175, 331 (also with Hc), 3731, 408, 439 (also with U and Q), 441, 464, 535, 545, 566, 573, 609, 664, 3.72, 89, 101, 129, 222, 258, 275, 299, 398, 421 (also with Hc), 437, 467 (also with D, U, and Q), 474 (also with Hc), 496 (also with Hc), 501, 527, 531, 710, 7.397. 43 This is the case with his conjectures to 3.266, 714, 4.39, 65, 98 (ἐµεῖο DUpcQU), 128 (also with L), 154, 191 (also with Hc), 193, 537 (also pro- posed by Rhodomann), 558 (also with Rhodomann and Canter), 5.52, 120 (also with Hc), 152, 170, 229 (also with Hc), 439, 6.31, 79 (also with Nr), 617, 7.61 (also with Nc), 206, 321, 407, 434, 572, 8.72, 9.449, 10.109 (also with Hc), 194, 11.194 (also with Hc), 13.235, 14.60 (also with Rpc), 205. 44 1.282 (also with R) 45 M. Neander was also the author of the Latin translation that accom- panies Rhodomann’s edition (cf. Ilii excidii 11). 46 “Quintus of Smyrna and Virgil,” in M. Baumbach et al., Quintus Smyr- naeus: Transforming Homer in Second Sophistic Epic (Berlin 2007) 146. 47 For instance, 1.48, 111, 137, 150, 187, 190, 192, 195, 196, 227, 231, 245, 298, 357, 395, 420, 457, 490, 518, 519, 599, 618, 648, 651, 675, 773, 2.1, 116, 126, 131, 1572, 206, 245, 286, 3732, 385, 408 (present already at B and R), 418, 421, 451, 486, 510, 551, 568, 575, 626, 3.90, 94, 100, 155 (also in B), 201 (also at R), 253, 259, 307, 353, 380, 382, 386, 473 (also at Lpc), 5341, 662, 691, 6962, 711, 4.28, 139, 203, 425, 431, 550, 5.101, 173, 240, GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 961 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 preserved in Londinensis, Burney 515, f. 19,48 and were published as an appendix to the Frankfurt edition of 1614.49 Sometimes his suggestions agree with earlier proposals. This is the case at 7.411, 9.62, 9.318, 11.70, 13.169, 413, where he agrees with J. Brodaeus;50 1.369, 395, 637, 2.72, 7.434, with C. Dausque;51 and 4.93, 5.108, 13.489, with F. Sylburg.52 Much more significant is the fact that there are also num- erous original conjectures. Some remained unnoticed by later editors and researchers, who proposed them independently. Therefore they should now be ascribed to Scaliger. This hap- pens at the following loci: 5.53 διειργόµεναι O2 (this correction is assigned to J. P. d’Orville by Vian, although in O2 it is attributed to Scaliger). 1.472 κακῶν O1, 627 παρὰ O1, 3.460 ἀάσπετα O1, 12.502 ἐξυπαλύξαι53 O2, 13.243 εὐθαλπέος ὥρῃ54 L O2 (he anticipates ___ 251, 367, 370, 399, 523, 6.158, 349, 7.15, 206, 290, 291, 715, 8.113, 9.53, 128, 174, 462, 519, 10.69, 426, 462, 481, 484, 11.39, 40, 12.393, 13.320, 348, 488, 4992, 14.33 (also at Bpc), 14.60 (Scaliger agrees here also with P and Rpc), 211 (and R), 283, 319 (and Rsl), 325–326, 344. Cf A. H. Köchly, Quinti Smyrnaei Posthomericorum libri XIV (Leipzig 1850) CXIII: “Sed horum [= Brodaeus, Canterus, Sylburgius, Falkenburgius, Scaliger] pleraque et leuia sunt et fere etiam a Rhodomanno inuenta sunt.” 48 Cf. J. Forshall, Catalogue of Manuscripts in the British Museum. New Series: The Burney Manuscripts I.2 (London 1840) 158; Vian, Histoire 13. 49 Troia expugnata (1614) 749–779. 50 J. Brodaeus, Annotationes in Oppiani Cynegeticon libros IIII, Quinti Calabri Paralipomenon Homeri lib. XIV, Coluthi Thebani de Helenae raptu lib. unum (Basel 1552) 320, 338, 343, 367, 397, 404. 51 Dausque’s conjectures were published as critical notes in Troia expugnata (1614) 1–309 (as an appendix at the end of the book); see especially pp. 27, 29, 36, 46, and 156. 52 An Aldine edition with Sylburg’s manuscript notes is in the library of the University of Leiden (see n.6 above). There are also notes attributed to him in the margins of Oxoniensis d’Orville 405. 53 D’Orville already noted that this correction had been proposed before by Scaliger (O2 p. 737, “cum futuro saepe … sic tamen etiam Scal.”). 54 Vian attributes this conjecture to Rhodomann (1577). 962 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 J. C. de Pauw’s proposals).55 12.135 ὑπ’ ὀκρυόεντι σιδήρῳ L, 13.247 ΛΕΙΠΕΙ O2, and 261 θέῃ O2 (he anticipates T. C. Tychsen’s conjectures).56 13.514 µε O2 (Scaliger anticipates C. G. Heyne’s proposal here).57 9.353 Λήµνον κοίλην L O2 (he anticipates E. Gerhard’s conjec- ture).58 2.392 τεθνεῶτος O1 O2 p, 5.619 νέκυν πέρι νηήσαντο L, 11.228 ὑπὲκ Βορέαο θυέλλης L, and 365 ἄρ’ O2 (F. E. H. Spitzner later proposed the same conjectures).59 5.335 κατεδύσατο O2, 6.5 ἄλλος δ’ ἀλλήλοισιν ἐπῴχετο L (he an- ticipates A. Köchly’s conjecture).60 7.549 δύµεναι O2 (he anticipates G. Hermann’s proposal).61 5.362 κεῖνος ἔρεξεν L, 11.23 Λητὼ δῖ’ L O2 (he anticipates C. L. Struve’s conjectures).62 2.666 ἐκέδασσε δ’ ἄρ’ ἀχλύν L, 6.580 ἐχέφρονα Δηϊονῆα L63 (he anticipates A. Zimmermann’s suggestions).64 55 See de Pauw, Quinti Calabri praetermissorum 46, 58, 184, 737, and 774. 56 Quinti Smyrnaei Posthomericorum libri XIV. Nunc primum ad librotum manuscrip- torum fidem et uirorum doctorum conjecturas recensuit et supplevit Thom. Christ. Tychsen. Accesserunt observationes Chr. Gottl. Heynii (Strasbourg 1807) 298, 326–327 (I have confirmed that at 12.135 Tychsen edited ὀκρυόεντι, not ὀκριόεντι, as Zimmermann and Vian report ad loc. On the spelling confusion cf. LSJ s. v. ὀκρυόεις: “freq. confused with ὀκριόεις”). 57 Quinti Smyrnaei Posthomericorum libri XIV (Strasbourg 1807). 58 Lectiones Apollonianae (Leipzig 1816) 219. 59 Mantissa obseruationum criticarum et grammaticarum in Quinti Smyrnaei Post- homericorum libros XIV (Leipzig 1816) 232, 259, and his Obseruationes criticae et grammaticae in Quinti Smyrnaei Posthomerica (Leipzig 1839) 83–84, 262. 60 Quinti Smyrnaei Posthomericorum libri XIV 289 and 312. 61 Zeitsch.f.Altertumsw. 7.31–33 (1840) 257–275 (review of the editions of Spitzner [1839] and Köchly [1838]) [= Gotofredi Hermanni Opuscula VIII (Leipzig 1877) 24–45]. 62 Grammatische und kritische Bemerkungen zu Quintus Smyrnaeus (Königsberg 1816–1817 [= Opuscula selecta I (Leipzig 1854) 29 (he suggested ἕρεξεν; Köchly proposed ἕρεξε) and 42]. 63 Δηϊονῆα, proposed by Scaliger here, is an Aetolian warrior, not to be confused with the Trojan warrior of the same name mentioned at Quintus Smyrn. 10.167. 64 Quintus Smyrnaeus. Tryphiodorus. Colluthus (Leipzig 1891) 59 and 165. GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 963 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 6.224 µέγ’ ἐσίνετο πᾶσαν ἁλωήν L (he anticipates H. Bonitz’s con- jecture,65 followed later by F. S. Lehrs and A. Köchly). 9.360 δὴ γάρ µιν ἐπὴν ἕλε λιµὸς deest versum L (here Scaliger anticipates M. L. West’s suggestion).66 Some of Scaliger’s other original conjectures have been ac- cepted by recent editors, such as the suggestions he made to 1.195, 196, 686, 2.56, 85, 154, 593, 600, 627, 3.411, 431, 4.130, 140, 5.375, 6.378, 7.381, 10.65, 415, 11.56, 13.75, and 191.67 Others have been deemed worthy of mention in editors’ apparatus critici. This is the case with his proposals to 1.670, 2.471, 3.480, 666, 5.72, 375, 6.35, 9.361, 10.405, 11.102, 452(2), and 14.159.68 However, other suggestions have remained forgotten and perhaps should at least be mentioned in the apparatus criticus of any new edition:69 65 “Symbolae criticae in Quintum Smyrnaeum,” Zeitsch.f.Altertumsw. 3.152–155 (1836) 1234. 66 See Vian, Quintus de Smyrne II 194 (cf. also I LIII). 67 I have not found a witness for Scaliger’s conjectures to 2.628, 9.361, 11.102, and 11.452, although they are mentioned by Vian in his apparatus criticus. 68 For this selection I follow Zimmermann and Vian. 69 For Scaliger’s other original conjectures, see his proposals for 1.153, 195, 196, 228, 232, 299, 332, 388, 389(1), 451, 479, 587 (accepted by Tychsen and F. S. Lehrsius), 606, 670, 693, 696, 700, 706, 711, 723, 746; 2.50, 56, 57, 64, 110, 129, 206, 230, 245(2), 252, 255, 287, 288, 305, 306, 316, 317, 400, 471, 518, 593 (accepted by Köchly), 596, 600 (accepted by Köchly), 618, 627, 632, 662; 3.3, 44, 105, 123, 125, 129, 133, 154(1), 206, 210, 219, 224, 269, 363, 411, 419, 423, 431, 451, 452, 466, 480 (accepted by Tychsen and F. S. Lehrsius), 482, 499, 534(2), 621, 622(2), 632, 714; 4.7, 39, 99, 130 (accepted by C. L. Struve, Spitzner, and Köchly), 140(2) (ac- cepted by Tychsen, F. S. Lehrsius, and Koechly), 172, 389, 427, 428, 508, 566, 5.36, 72, 88, 202, 237, 267, 278, 314, 322, 323, 356, 375, 396, 491, 496, 502, 509, 6.35, 378, 466, 495–496, 630, 645; 7.206, 225, 360, 381, 408, 633, 715, 8.170, 347, 9.62, 347, 512, 519, 10.30, 65, 131, 135, 173, 351, 405, 406, 413, 415, 11.3, 56, 76, 79, 89, 96, 112, 195, 218, 280, 12.58, 134, 234, 13.75, 244, 259, 285, 291, 345, 396, 14.51, 145, 159, 258, 338, 411, 496, 620. 964 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 1.472 οὐδ’ ἔστι κακῶν δεος O1 The unanimous reading of the manuscripts is κακὸν. Köchly proposed κακοῦ, which was accepted by Vian. Scaliger’s pro- posal, κακῶν, attested in O1 and also proposed later by de Pauw, should also be considered since ο and ω were often con- fused by the copyists.70 2.57 δῶµεν ἕως οὐ κτῆσιν L : ἂψ δόµεν ὡς οὐ κτῆσιν O1 O2 p The manuscripts have ὡς οὐ κτῆσιν. Dausque emended ἐκδόµεν ὡς οὐ κτῆσιν, while Rhodomann proposed ἕως instead of ὡς. Scaliger’s suggestions are worthy of consideration, since both follow the metrical pattern of the first foot of the hex- ameter. 2.230 εὖτε Γύης µελάθροισι L O1 O2 p The reading of the manuscripts is obscure (γαίης [γέης H] Ω). Rhodomann proposed ἄνεµος; in his first edition Köchly pointed out a lacuna after εὖτ’, while in the second he added θοὸς; and Zimmermann αἰγὶς, accepted by Vian, although αἰγίς with the meaning of “storm” or “hurricane” is not at- tested in epic.71 Scaliger’s conjecture, Γύης, the name of one of the giants mentioned at Hes. Theog. 149, should at least be mentioned in the apparatus criticus, although the variant Γύγης should be preferred to Scaliger’s Γύης, a misreading of Hesiod (also attested as a variant at Apollod. 1.1.1 and Ov. Tr. 4.7.18) that has now been discounted.72 2.662 γὰρ <µέγα> Ζηνὸς O1 O2 p The manuscript reading is δείδιε γὰρ Ζηνὸς ἄδην ἄλληκτον ἐνιπήν, which is metrically incorrect. Rhodomann added που, 70 Cf. R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (Cambridge 1969) 26; J. D. G. Dunn, World Biblical Commentary XXXVIIIa Romans 1–8 (Dallas 1988) 245; G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of Language and its Speakers2 (Chichester/ Malden 2010) 165. 71 For this meaning see LSJ s.v. II. For the sense “aegis” see Quintus Smyrn. 14.457. Its compound is attested with the meaning “storm” (Quin- tus Smyrn. 4.572, 5.84, 365, 7.457, 10.412). 72 See M. L. West, Hesiod. Theogony (Oxford 1966) 210. GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 965 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 and de Pauw δὴ, which was accepted by Vian. In favour of Scaliger’s proposal see Quintus Smyrn. 5.217, where Zimmer- mann proposed <µέγα> δείδιες. 3.154 ἶνας <τ’> ἐγκεφάλοιο O1 O2 p The use of ἱκάνω + accusative is more frequent in Homer (and later epic) than its use with ἐς/εἰς + accusative (cf. LSJ s.v.): reading proposed by Rhodomann. 3.482 λευγαλέος O1 O2 p Scaliger’s suggestions imply a small change in the text trans- mitted by the manuscripts (λευγαλέον) and makes Rhodo- mann’s proposal redundant for Quintus Smyrn. 3.481 (πένθος instead of θυµὸς). 4.7 ὑπ’ ἄγκεα τῆλ’ ἀπὸ Τροίης L τ’ ἡδ’ [τῆδ’ DQ] ἄντροιο is the reading of the manuscripts. Τηλάνδροιο, a conjecture accepted by modern editors, was proposed by de Pauw. According to Pliny, Telandrus was a Lycian city (NH 5.101, Lycia LXX quondam oppida habuit, nunc XXXVI habet. ex his celeberrima praeter supra dicta … Telandrus). Ac- cording to others, it was Carian (Steph. Byz. Τήλανδρος). If de Pauw’s conjecture is accepted, it refers to a valley close to the river Glaucus. Scaliger’s correction solves the inconsistency. For the confusion between τῆδ’ and τῆλ’ see Quintus Smyrn. 5.447. Furthermore, Τροίη appears fourteen times in the same metrical position in Quintus Smyrn. 5.496 ἐκ τεγέων O2 The reading of the manuscripts is ἐκ τέκεων. It is maintained by Vian. Hermann in his second edition proposed αἱ τέκεων, Struve ἐκ λέχεων, Zimmermann εὐτύκτους. Scaliger’s conjec- ture should at least be mentioned in the apparatus criticus alongside the other proposals. 5.509 ἔκβαλεν ἦτορ L The unanimous reading of the manuscripts is ἔβλαβεν. Vian accepts this; Bonitz, Spitzner, and Lehrs proposed ἐβλάβη, and Zimmermann ἐβλάβετ’. While in Quintus Smyrn. ἔβλαβεν and its variants are attested only here, ἔκβαλε(ν) is attested 966 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 three times and always in the same metrical position (6.563, 593, and 13.122). 7.225 ἡµετέρου δε γάµοιο θεοῖς [… µελήσει] L The use of the third person singular of µέλω with the object in the genitive and the person in the dative is very common (cf. LSJ s.v. I.4). For the use of plurales maiestatis in Greek see H. L. Jones, The Poetic Plural of Greek Tragedy, in the Light of Homeric Usage (New York 1910) 127–131, A. Shewan, “The Pluralis Maiestatis in Homer,” CQ 7 (1913) 129–131, E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik2 II (Munich 1950) 45–46, A. G. Katsouris, “Plural in Place of Singular,” RhM 120 (1977) 228–240, and V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (New Haven 1984) 49–52. 7.633 αὖτ’ O2 The reading of the manuscripts is µνησθέντι ποδώκεος ἄντ’ Ἀχιλλῆος. Spitzner proposed ἀµφ’. However, µιµνήσκω in the passive with a genitive is grammatically correct (cf. Hom. Od. 4.331; LSJ s.v. II). Phoenix earlier remembers Achilles at Quintus Smyrn. 3.460–485 and 4.293. 9.62 παρὰ νῆας O2 The phrase in almost all the manuscripts (ὑπὲρ νῆας) makes no sense and is unattested elsewhere. In R and supra lineam in several manuscripts ἐπὶ νῆας appears, a reading adopted by all editors. Scaliger’s conjecture, proposed also by Brodaeus (An- notationes 338), is also possible, and is attested in Homer in this same metrical position (Il. 9.657, 10.54, 11.805, cf. also 1.347). 9.347 ἀποµαίνεται ἦτορ L This is an interesting proposal for a very difficult passage (cf. F. Vian, Recherches sur les Posthomeriques de Quintus de Smyrne [Paris I959] 169) that should be considered alongside those of Spitz- ner (µάλα µαίνεται) and Köchly (µέγα µαίνεται). 9.519 εἴπερ τις ἔτι ἤλιτεν εἵνεκ’ ἐµεῖο L Tychsen proposed εἰ <καί>, which was accepted by Vian; Zimmermann followed Rhodomann’s conjecture εἰ πού. Scal- iger’s proposal is worthy of mention, at least in the apparatus GUILLERMO GALÁN VIOQUE 967 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 criticus, although εἴπερ is rare in epic, found only at Apol. Rhod. 2.442 and Opp. Hal. 4.362. 10.135 αὖθι δ’ ἵησι L According to Zimmermann, the manuscripts differ, and sev- eral conjectures have been proposed, to which Scaliger’s cor- rection could well be added. αὖθι is a Homeric word (fifty-six times in Homer; eighteen times in Apol. Rhod.), though it is absent from Quintus Smyrn. Among late epic authors, see Manetho Astrol. 6.190 and Nonnus Dion. 4.188. 11.3 ἑκάτερθε πόληος L The unanimous reading of the manuscripts makes no sense (ἑκάστοτε πολήος). According to Quintus Smyrn. 11.5–7, at this moment of the battle the Achaeans were outside the city, while the Trojans were inside. Thus, Scaliger’s conjecture re- flects the situation better than Rhodomann’s (ἔκτοσθε πόληος), although both are palaeographically possible. ἑκάτερθε is at the same metrical position in Quintus Smyrn. 2.482, 509, and 12.92. Moreover, ἑκάτερθε πόληος is a Homeric expression (Od. 6.263, also at the end of the hexameter). 11.280 οἱδ’ ἔχον ἀλλήλοισι φόνον L The manuscripts have πέσχον δ’ (P) and ὑπέσχον (H). Rho- domann, followed by Tychsen and Lehrs, suggested οἳ φέρον. Hermann proposed τεῦχον δ’, and this was accepted by Köchly, Zimmermann, and Vian. Scaliger’s proposal should at least be mentioned in the apparatus criticus. 12.134 ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος ἐπ’ ἔργον L With this conjecture Scaliger fills the gap after ἄλλος, as it appears in R. The other manuscripts have the gap before ἄλλοθεν at the beginning of the line. 13.244 ἡ δε µέγ’ ἠµύουσα L uel ἰλλίζουσα O2 The first proposal avoids the image of a severed head issuing a deep sigh. Cf. Hom. Il. 8.306–308: µήκων δ’ ὡς ἑτέρωσε κάρη βάλεν, ἥ τ’ ἐνὶ κήπῳ / καρπῷ βριθοµένη νοτίῃσι τε εἰαρινῇσιν, / ὣς ἑτέρωσ’ ἤµυσε κάρη πήληκι βαρυνθέν. 968 JOSEPH SCALIGER’S NOTES ON QUINTUS OF SMYRNA ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015) 946–968 14.51 <µετὰ> φρεσὶν αἰδοµένη τε L The juncture µετὰ φρεσί(ν) appears very often and always in this same metrical position in epic from Homer (thirty-four times) onwards, and is also found in Quintus Smyrn. at 10.408. Conversely, Rhodomann’s proposal (<περὶ> φρεσὶν) is rare in epic (in Homer, only at Il. 16.157), except in Quintus Smyrn., who used it eleven times. 14.338 µακρὴν πολέµοιο O2 The manuscripts have πολέµοιο µακρὴν φυγόντες. To solve the metrical problem, Rhodomann adds προ to φυγόντες, to form a compound verb also attested in Quintus Smyrn. at 11.316. Scaliger’s proposal is perhaps an easier solution, since changing the word order makes it unnecessary to add the pre- fix προ.73 September, 2015 Universidad de Huelva Departamento de Filologías Integradas Avda. Tres de marzo, s/n Huelva 21071, Spain vioque@uhu.es 73 This article was written during a research stay at Clare Hall, Cam- bridge, financed by a scholarship granted by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (PRX14/00049), and forms part of the Research Projects FFI 2008-00940 and P09-HUM-4