Introduction

13

readily available. With all probability, Athenaeus followed a twofold strategy;
while he directly excerpted material from original works, he also used various
intermediary sources (e. g. previous collections, compilations, glossaries, com-
pendia, etc.); of course, we cannot determine in any individual case whether
the citation comes from a primary or a secondary source. One way or the oth-
er, Athenaeus gives us, in general, good reason to believe that he made every
effort to assure the authenticity and correctness of his quotations. Regarding
the manuscript tradition, codex Marcianus (A: Venetus Marcianus 447) is our
most important witness, since it is the unique source for the unepitomized
Athenaeus. It was written in the early tenth century AD, probably by John
the Calligrapher; although several copies of it survive, none of them has any
value whatsoever for the constitution of the text. The two main codices of
Athenaeus’ Epitome, C (Parisinus suppl. Gr. 841) and E (Laurentianus LX.2),
are closely related; unfortunately, the tactic of the Epitome compiler was to
remove the majority of the titles of the works that were cited (hence the
huge number of incertarum fabularum fragmenta - in the case of Amphis as
well as in the case of other dramatic poets). See further the collective volume
Athenaeus and His World, edited by Braund & Wilkins (2000), which focuses on
multiple aspects of Athenaeus’ life and work (including an analysis of issues of
his manuscript tradition, in the chapter by Arnott); see also Lukinowich 1994.
Regarding the manuscript tradition of Stobaeus, the codices that preserve
Amphis’ material are S (Vindobonensis Sambuci), M (Mendozae Escurialensis),
A (Parisinus), L (Laurentianus Florentinus), and Br (Bruxellensis). Noteworthy
is also the personal anthology of Macarius Chrysocephalus, who was
Metropolite of Philadelphia during the fourteenth century AD. For the com-
pilation of his anthology Macarius drew extensively on Stobaeus’ material.
See Hense (1894) vol. ΠΙ pp. vii-lxvii, xxxx, and Wachsmuth (1884) vol. I pp.
xxx-xxxi.
Pollux is another major source for Amphis; the codices that preserve
Amphis’ material are A (Parisinus Gr. 2670), the kindred codices F (Falco-
burgianus Parisinus Gr. 2646) and S (Schottianus Salmanticensis Hispan. I
2. 3), as well as the kindred codices B (Parisinus Gr. 2647) and C (Palatinus
Heidelbergensis 375). See further Bethe vol. I (1900) i-xx.
The manuscript tradition of Diogenes Laertius is discussed by Marcovich in
the introduction to his edition of the text (vol. 1,1999, ix-xviii); the codices that
preserve Amphis’ material are B (Neapolitanus Burbonicus), F (Laurentianus
69,13), P (Parisinus gr. 1759), and the fragmentary codices V (Vaticanus gr. 1302)
and Φ (an excerpt in Vaticanus gr. 96, with multiple apographa). Marcovich
considers codex B to be the best (despite being written by an illiterate scribe),