Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
This paper examines Wachsmuth’s report of the manuscript evidence for Stobaeus’s Eclogae physicae. The three chief witnesses are manuscripts F (Naples), P (Paris), and L (Florence). While F and P are straightforward manuscripts of Stobaeus, L is a very complex codex, containing the remains of three separate florilegia. The third of these (which is preserved only fragmentarily) drew heavily on Stobaeus, and preserves many titles of sections and extensive extracts. In order to check the reliability of Wachsmuth’s citations, these three manuscripts were collated at selected passages where they contain material from Aëtius. It was found that Wachsmuth’s apparatus, while generally accurate, occasionally has mistaken reports of the readings of these manuscripts, and also from time to time fails to report readings of these manuscripts that seem to be significant. A further examination of a manuscript in Munich shows yet further incorrect citations, and also gives some reason to think that it may preserve some genuine readings of Stobaeus.