We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The text of Quintus Curtius benefited greatly from Conrad Müller's edition of 1954 (Munich, with translation by H. Schönfeld). In particular, his thorough investigation of Curtius' rhythms enabled him to settle many hitherto doubtful points. Problems remain, unsolved or undetected. In Curtius, as in other prose texts, scribal omissions are a prolific source of corruption, sometimes productive of interpolation. Most of the following notes postulate corruptions of this type.
1 Professor Goodyear writes: ‘It must give us pause to find that Curtius nowhere uses tenus (see Therasse, Index verborum). One might rather try usque ad, which he does use (e.g. 4. 3. 10, 7. 8. 30, 10. 10. 3). Perhaps Babyloniae ac 〈Mesopotamiae usque ad fines〉 Ciliciae’
2 ‘Better e.g. aceepta: cf. 9. 1. 35 nec adfirmare sustineo de quibus dubito, nec subducere quae accepi. Note memoriae proditum est here’(Goodyear). I agree.
3 ‘The supplement should be carried further, to 〈modo patentium〉, which takes up diffusus and also better explains the omission. Cf. 7. 8. 22 scies quam late pateant’ (Goodyear).
4 ‘magnitudini Pori is a gloss which has ousted the dative it explained, and that dative might be moli or arguably something quite colourless, like ei rei’ (Goodyear).
