Missing sentences from Oldfather's Bibliotheca version (Diodorus Siculus)

κάττα

New Member
There are 3 sentences in the 1559 Basel version, that are missing from the 1933 Loeb. What can be the reason?

These sentences are directly one after the other in the Basel edition:

Diodori Siculi, Bibliothecæ Historicæ, Libri XV., Basileae (Basel), 1559Loeb, 1933 edition (LCL 279), Charles Henry OldfatherLoeb, 1933 edition (LCL 279), Charles Henry Oldfather
Ac de prima quidem universi generatione hæc accepimus.[LCL 279, Book I. 7.8]
καὶ περὶ μὲν τῆς πρώτης τῶν ὅλων γενέσεως τοιαῦτα παρειλήφαμεν,
Concerning the first generation of the universe this is the account which we have received.
De terrae veró foetificatione quam vis præter opinionem nonnullis esse videatur, tamen ea quæ nunc quoque fiunt, his testimonium videntur afferre.- missing -- missing -
Nam iuxta Thebaiden Aegypti, cú Nili cessavit inundatio, calefaciéte repente sole limum ab aqua relictum, multis in locis ex terra multitudo murium gignitur.- missing -- missing -
Quod argumentum est, ab ipso orbis primordio animantia similiter omnia generata esse.- missing -- missing -
Iam veró homines á principio genitos, dicunt in agris pastum quærentes, syluestri & incondita vita vixisse, quibus herbæ & arború fructus ultró victum præberent.τοὺς δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς γεννηθέντας τῶν ἀνθρώπων φασὶν ἐν ἀτάκτῳ καὶ θηριώδει βίῳ καθεστῶτας σποράδην ἐπὶ τὰς νομὰς ἐξιέναι, καὶ προσφέρεσθαι τῆς τε βοτάνης τὴν προσηνεστάτην καὶ τοὺς αὐτομάτους ἀπὸ τῶν δένδρων καρπούς.But the first men to be born, he says, led an undisciplined and bestial life, setting out one by one to secure their sustenance and taking for their food both the tenderest herbs and the fruits of wild trees.

On Page 6 of the 1559 Basel edition:

Basel_1559_Page_6.jpg
 
Last edited:

Terry S.

Quaestor
Staff member
Is there an Oxford Texts version available, or another critical text? There might be something about this in the footnotes.
 

κάττα

New Member
The Teubner edition is available on Library Genesis.
Many thanks, that contains the missing text in footnotes. Page 13-14:

Page_13.jpg
Page_14.jpg

The references are the following:

Α = Coislinianus codex saec. XV (praef. p. VII)
Β = Mutinensis codex saec. XV (praef. p. VII)
C = Vaticanus codex saec. XII (praef. p. XIV)
D = Vindobonensis codex saec. ΧΙ (praef p. IV)
Ε = Parisinus codex saec. XVI (praef. p. XI)
F/G = Claromontani codices saec. XVI (praef. p. XVI)
Μ = Venetus codex saec. XV (praef. p. XV)
Ν = Vindobonensis codex saec. XVI (praef. p. XI)

So that says that this part was found in sources A, B, E, N. And there was a part which was also present in D?
 
Last edited:
Top