Help needed: Greek/Latin "Descriptio Graeciae" (Pausanias)

Greek Learning Greek
1

Salvete!

Once again I need help of those who are well versed in Greek and Latin. I am just finishing my transcription of Descriptio Graeciae by Pausanias. Could you help me? The links lead to the respective pages in a Google-Books edition.

Book I, Chapter XIII, Line 39:

  • “Pyrrhus vero ea, ec quae consecuta est, nocte”. Probably “Pyrrhus vero ea, et quae consecuta est, nocte”

Book I, Chapter XXIV, Line 49:

  • “Pro[???ILLEGIBLE???] filium tollere meditantem, et Ityn ipsum dicavit Alcamenes.” Probably “Procnen filium”.

Book I, Chapter XXX, Line 1:

  • “Cygnum autem canoran maxime avem esse, vulgo creditur.” Is this “canoram” instead?

Book I, Chapter XLIV, Line 39:

  • “Quum itaque tripos illo imprudente lapsus ad Geraniam montem excidisset, eum ib? vicum, cui Tripodisco nomen est, condidisse.” Probably “eum ibi vicum”.

Book II, Chapter XXVI, Line 40:

  • “(4) I? quum jam Peloponnesum intrasset, filia, qu patrem sequebatur”. Probably “Is quum…”

Book III, Chapter XIV, Line 1:

  • “Haud procul ab hac Lesche est sculapii templum, quod In Agiadarum dicitur.” Why “In” (capital I) Agiadarum"?

Book III, Chaper XVI, Line 4:

  • “(4) A Chitone fere ad portas eunti sacellum est Chilonis, sapienti nomine clari hominis: et ** ri Atheniensis, unius de illis, qui eum Dorieo Anaxandrid filio in Siciliensem coloniam classe trajecerunt.” Why “ri” in “et ** ri Atheniensis”?

Book IV, Chapter 16, Line 1:

  • “Et poterant sane, sive mutuum posceretur auxilium, sive ducis pugnam vel jam aggredientis vel prope aggressuri significatione? statim et sine mora observare.” (Seite 195 in Buch, Zeile 1 ff). Probably “significationes” for “signals”?

Book IV, Chapter XXXIV, Line 18:

  • “(12) Sita et hc urbs ad mare est, uti olim fuit Argolica illa vestutior Asine.” Probably “vetustior”?

Book V, Chapter X, Line 28:

  • “(9) … At supra postici fores Amazoni balteum eripit; tum, qu de cervo et Gnos io tauro commemorantur, qu item de hydra deque Stympheliis volucribus et Argivo leone, ibidem expressa sunt.” Is this “Gnosio” or “Gnossio”?

Book V, Chapter XVIII, Line 36:

  • “(2) … At ?lteras duas feminas, qu pistillis mortaria tundunt, medicamentorum artem calluisse arbitrantur, sed nulla, qu ill fuerint, inscriptio indicat.” Probably “alteras”.

Book VI, Chapter V, Line 1:

  • “(4) Fuerunt et alii quidem maxime illustres de pancratio victoriis; verum ad Pulydamantis titulos periculiaris qudam accessit fortitudinis gloria.” Is “pericularis” an error or what?

Book VIII, Chapter XXV, Line 10:

  • “(11) At Ladon Erinyos templo relicto, a lva Apollinis On cat templum prterlabitur, a dextera sculapii puer dem; ubi Trigonis nutricis est sepulcrum.” What instead of “On cat”?

Book VIII, Chapter XXXVI, Line 17:

  • “(9) Inter Despn fanum et Megalopolitanorum mnia stadia intersunt quadraginta, et dimidia quidem vi pans usque ad Alpheum fluvium; quo transmisso stadia duo absunt Macareorum ruin.” The word “pans” must be an error, but I cannot figure out the right word. “pons” doesn’t seem to make sense, does it?

Book IX, Chapter XXIV, Line 40:

  • “Proximum fonti est Nympharum sacellum et exiguus lucus, in quo omnes arbores consititi sunt. (5)” Correct word instead of “consititi”?

Book X, Chapter VI, Line 2:

  • “Jam quum denuo expeditionem pararet, tum vero Delphi supplices Apollinem rogarunt, ut avertere ab ipsis vellet imminens periculum, (7) atque Phemonoe, tunc temporis oraculi antistes, hc ??? hexametro versu vaticinata est” Probably “haec iis hexametro”.

Book X, Chapter XVI, Line 36:

  • “Verum et his potiuntur Lipari et aliis quinque deinceps in ipsos emissis; quid? tertio parem navium numerum itemque quarto in potestatem redegerunt. … (8)” Why “quid?”?

Book X, Chapter XXX, Line 49:

“(7) Avers salicis parti innititur Promedon. Sunt qui nomen hoc tanquam in poesin introductum a Polygnoto arbitrentur. Tradiderunt alii Grcum fuisse hominem, cu? prcipuum fuerit studium, tum aliam omnem musicam tum maxime Orphei cantus audire.” This is “cui praecipuum”, isn’t it?

Thank you for your help,

Carolus Raeticus

2

Definitely Procnen Πρόκνην=Procnen

ἐν = in. No need for a capital here.

I agree; the s is slightly blurred, but definitely there.

I’m sorry, Carole, that’s all I have time for today, but I’ll look at a few more tomorrow.

3

Hathi has a (far) more legible scan:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044044507242

4

I doubt there’s anything really problematic here. Looking through, I don’t see anything more troublesome than:

Book III, Chapter XIV, Line 1:

  • “Haud procul ab hac Lesche est sculapii templum, quod In Agiadarum dicitur.” Why “In” (capital I) Agiadarum"?

Book III, Chaper XVI, Line 4:

  • “A Chitone fere ad portas eunti sacellum est Chilonis, sapienti nomine clari hominis: et ** ri Atheniensis, unius de illis, qui eum Dorieo Anaxandrid filio in Siciliensem coloniam classe trajecerunt.” Why “ri” in "et ** ri Atheniensis”?

quod In Agiadarum dicitur: upper-case In is intentional, giving the title of the temple (< ἐν Ἀγιαδῶν καλούμενον).
And **ri faithfully renders the given **ρῳ, ablative.

Book VIII, Chapter XXXVI, Line 17:

  • “(9) Inter Despn fanum et Megalopolitanorum mnia stadia intersunt quadraginta, et dimidia quidem vi pans usque ad Alpheum fluvium; quo transmisso stadia duo absunt Macareorum ruin.” The word “pans” must be an error, but I cannot figure out the right word. “pons” doesn’t seem to make sense, does it?

Presumably pars. (ἥμισυ > dimidia pars)

5

Thanks for the correction, Michael. There’s actually an entry for “ἐν Ἁγιαδῶν” in the DGE (Diccionario Griego-Español), citing this passage. I believe it would be rendered as "at the Agiades’ " referring to the Agiad dynasty of Spartan kings.

In the Loeb edition by Jones & Ormerod, Ἁθηναίων **ρῳ is replaced by Ἀθηναδώρου.

6

Salvete,

thank you for your help so far. I made a choice concerning a few others:

Book I, Chapter XLIV, Line 39:

  • “Quum itaque tripos illo imprudente lapsus ad Geraniam montem excidisset, eum > ib? > vicum, cui Tripodisco nomen est, condidisse.” Probably “eum > ibi > vicum”.
    ADDITION: The Hathi-scan also has “ib”, and only “ibi” makes sense, so I’ll choose that word.

Book IV, Chapter XXXIV, Line 18:

  • “(12) Sita et hc urbs ad mare est, uti olim fuit Argolica illa > vestutior > Asine.” Probably “vetustior”?
    ADDITION: > Hathi-scan also has “vestutior”. I opt for “vetustior” because this seems to refer to Book II, Chapter 36.

Book V, Chapter X, Line 28:

  • “(9) … At supra postici fores Amazoni balteum eripit; tum, qu de cervo et > Gnos io > tauro commemorantur, qu item de hydra deque Stympheliis volucribus et Argivo leone, ibidem expressa sunt.” Is this “Gnosio” or “Gnossio”?
    ADDITION: > I’ll choose “Gnosio” because he uses the word “Gnosi*” in other places.

Book X, Chapter XXX, Line 49:

“(7) Avers salicis parti innititur Promedon. Sunt qui nomen hoc tanquam in poesin introductum a Polygnoto arbitrentur. Tradiderunt alii Grcum fuisse hominem, > cu? > prcipuum fuerit studium, tum aliam omnem musicam tum maxime Orphei cantus audire.” This is “> cui > praecipuum”, isn’t it?
ADDITION: > The cleaner Hathi-scan has only “cu” as well. Since “cui” is the only thing making sense, I am going for that.

Which leaves me with the following problematic passages:

Book I, Chapter XIII, Line 39:

  • “Pyrrhus vero ea, ec quae consecuta est, nocte”. Probably “Pyrrhus vero ea, et quae consecuta est, nocte”
    ADDITION: Actually, the text has “Pyrrhus vero ea, ec quae consuta est, nocte”, which makes even less sense. Perhaps the “ec” in front is the missing “ec” in “consuta”, so that we get “ea, quae consecuta est, nocte”? Does the Greek text help?

Book I, Chapter XXX, Line 1:

  • “Cygnum autem canoran maxime avem esse, vulgo creditur.” Is this “canoram” instead?
    ADDITION: The Hiathi-scan also has “canoran”, but the OLD has “canorus ~a ~um” without any alternative spelling.

Book II, Chapter XXVI, Line 40:

  • “(4) I? quum jam Peloponnesum intrasset, filia, qu patrem sequebatur”. Probably “Is quum…”
    ADDITION: This page is missing in the Hathi-scan.

Book V, Chapter XVIII, Line 36:

  • “(2) … At ?lteras duas feminas, qu pistillis mortaria tundunt, medicamentorum artem calluisse arbitrantur, sed nulla, qu ill fuerint, inscriptio indicat.” Probably “alteras”.
    ADDITION: I choose “alteras” because from the context that makes sense (first two women being depicted, then another set of two women).

Book VI, Chapter V, Line 1:

  • “(4) Fuerunt et alii quidem maxime illustres de pancratio victoriis; verum ad Pulydamantis titulos periculiaris qudam accessit fortitudinis gloria.” Is “pericularis” an error or what? ADDITION: Perhaps “peculiaris”?

Book VIII, Chapter XXV, Line 10:

  • “(11) At Ladon Erinyos templo relicto, a lva Apollinis On cat templum prterlabitur, a dextera sculapii puer dem; ubi Trigonis nutricis est sepulcrum.” What instead of “On cat”? ADDITION: This better scan has the very same problem.

Book IX, Chapter XXIV, Line 40:

  • “Proximum fonti est Nympharum sacellum et exiguus lucus, in quo omnes arbores consititi sunt. (5)” Correct word instead of “consititi”?
    ADDITION: The clearer Hathi-Scan (line 43). Perhaps it should be “consitae”?

Book X, Chapter VI, Line 2:

  • “Jam quum denuo expeditionem pararet, tum vero Delphi supplices Apollinem rogarunt, ut avertere ab ipsis vellet imminens periculum, (7) atque Phemonoe, tunc temporis oraculi antistes, hc ??? hexametro versu vaticinata est” Probably “haec iis hexametro”.
    ADDITION: This clearer Hathi-scan has the same missing bit, but perhaps the clearer image helps with the Greek bit?

Book X, Chapter XVI, Line 36:

  • “Verum et his potiuntur Lipari et aliis quinque deinceps in ipsos emissis; quid? tertio parem navium numerum itemque quarto in potestatem redegerunt. … (8)” Why “quid?”?
    ADDITION: I am beginning to that think that the “?” after “quid” might be intentional. Can “quid?” express surprise or emphasis? On the other hand, this English translation does not seem to support that.

Valete,

Carolus Raeticus

7

You’re welcome.

Which leaves me with the following problematic passages:

Book I, Chapter XIII, Line 39:
“Pyrrhus vero ea, ec quae consecuta est, nocte”. Probably “Pyrrhus vero ea, et quae consecuta est, nocte”
ADDITION: Actually, the text has “Pyrrhus vero ea, ec quae consuta est, nocte”, which makes even less sense. Perhaps the “ec” in front is the missing “ec” in “consuta”, so that we get “ea, quae consecuta est, nocte”? Does the Greek text help?

The printed Latin implies an exemplar in which ec will have been written above the line, intended to make the correction consuta. The Greek (τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν) confirms.

In the next, canoran will not be an alternative spelling but a typesetting error, cf. pans for pars and vestutior for vetustior and periculiaris for peculiaris.

And finally

Book X, Chapter XVI, Line 36:

  • “Verum et his potiuntur Lipari et aliis quinque deinceps in ipsos emissis; quid? tertio parem navium numerum itemque quarto in potestatem redegerunt. … (8)” Why “quid?”?
    ADDITION: I am beginning to that think that the “?” after “quid” might be intentional. Can “quid?” express surprise or emphasis? On the other hand, this English translation does not seem to support that.

“quid?” is unquestionably sound. It’s used as in OLD quis 12b: “esp. transitional, introducing a further item in an enumeration." The Greek just has καὶ, but here as elsewhere the Latin translation is admirably idiomatic.

8

Salve mwh!

Thank you for your help. I made decisions concerning the remaining passages and can now move on to assembling the e-text.

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus