Anabasis of Alexander: v. 1 (Loeb Classical Library)

482 Pages·1929·23.6 MB·English

by  Arrian

6/^lS
f^/^/

ARRTAN
WITH AN BN«.i.i:>ii TRAKSLATIOM
ST
£. ILIFF ROBSON, B.D.
ANABASIS ALBZAKDRI
l-IV
m
TWO VOLUMJBS
1
i
WILLIAM IILINKMAXN LTD
CAMSIIIDOK, MAMACMOtCm
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
MOMLXTU
jMi,MM.ifti,tffy
FHmltdlmOfmt
CONTENTS
Pksfatokv Notb
AHAAAtlf or AUDUNOU—
Book I 3
Book II 124
Book III 224
Book IV 354

;
PREFATORY NOTE
Thb text of this editkm it that of Dobner, e<L
Didot; and this In torn it that ofthe ParisUn MS.
usually noted at B, but bj Dobner at A. B, GMlex
Parlalnat gr. 17&3, Jllifth eodwy, it, with O
(ConttantlnopoUtannt, flfteeoth centarj), ahnott
certainly directly derived firtm a eopy 0/ A, fint
hand; andsincethe lacunaofVII. 13.7 representa a
kMtofanexactpageofA, Rootiinodoubtcorrectin
fegafdlng A at the archetypal text. A, Codex
Vindoboneniit, twelfth or early thirteenth century,
wat eoneeted Uter, and the text of A* it repre-
sentedbrk,the" Florentinebestcodex"ofGronow,
abo utea by Doboery lo whon the agreenent of B
and k it paramooot. A hat gape, owing to lost or
danageotpages; andthe**secondgroup" of MSS.
have m eommon a large number ofsmaller lacunae
10 that B and C,with k (from A*).akme arc without
lacunae (save for the oomnxm lacuna ofBook VII).
For the Itutiem, A with B give the best text.
Arrian's attempt at Herodotean dialect iscreditable,
but notwithout errors.
The task, therefore,ofan editorofthe Ammbasu is
comparatively easy; but this does not mean that
onUnaryeritfealmethodscanbeomitted. There are
two directlont. In etpedal. In which editors have
moved. Ontheonehandthereisanatural tendency
to *' attidxe " Arrian. His tenses are not always
aecoffding to rule; he uses the Imperfect of com-
vll
PREFATORY NOTE
pletedactkm; hkprepotitiontarefometliiictttraage;
ne eren uses mrii for **op-ftre«iii ";* be teemi to
misplace rt and y«, and M does not always corre-
spond to its f^, KiHger and Sintenis hare done
much to put hixn right; but such corrcctiooto based
on the idea that the Greeks alwajrs used their best
toob. Thenagain,Arrian,desiringclearness,repeats
liiiiiselfmodi and unneoessaritj, and thto leads to a
crop of **timiUr endingt,** from wbieh eltiier con-
fusion has resulted (see I. 12 mi imL) or onlsiioiis,
usually small, have been freelj snspeeted. A
similar sospickwi artoet from hto rather unusual use
ofTt and fUi^,* Hjownviewison the wholeagaln«t
the proposed insertions, and whoUjr against the
attlcising tendendea, of editors. B, C and k are,
as bas been seen, fr«e from the many lacunae ofthe
*'seeond group " of MSS., and we can hardly be
wrong, in default of A, in adopting a consensus of
A* (s k) BL (Laofcntian, fifteenth oentory, which
according to Roos to the best repreoentative of the
**second class " of MSS.). I have naturally mode
moehuseoftheapparatosofRoos,cd.Teubnermaior,
1907; but I do not reeord suncstions which,while
interestingenough,appear(onRoos'ownettfanateof
the MSS.^unnecessary,norvarietiesofpropernames
except where there is difference ofpenons (e.g. IV.
19. 2and IV. 21. 1,22. 1),nor,asa rule,theevidence
ofSuidasandEustathius,northevariantsfoundinthe
Poliorcetica (Sieges of Tyre and Gaza, from II. 15
and 25). Again, while precision in word-forms to
important, yet where one cannot do^^natise (e.g. as
toripuf>Br) and rip€uf>&rj, I. 21. 4) and the translation to
not affected, I have not deserted the MSS. Thus
> n. 1. S. • See«.#.L7.2.
viii