pothos.org

Who has made the best inquiry as to the missing page of Arrian? There was something happening with Hephaestion and some other disgruntled guy...does Bosworth mention it?
later Nicator

Hi Nick,I assume that Bosworth definitely covers it in his commentary on Arrian. The problem is that it's *so* expensive (very niche, I suppose) that I've never got hold of it. I'm not aware of anywhere else that he mentions it. What about the notes to the Penguin translation? There might be something there.All the bestMarcus

Marcus,There might be a bigger problem than expense in using Bosworth's commentary on Arrian here. I think the missing "page" is in book VII, but Bosworth DOES seem to like to take his time. I think his commentary on books I-III was published in 1980; books IV-V was published in 1995. Has he even published his commentary on book VII yet?John

Good point, John. For some reason I thought that Bosworth had finished it all, but if he hasn't then, as you say, it could take a while!Perhaps Bosworth hasn't even *realised* that there's a bit missing? )All the bestMarcus

There's nothing in the Penguin translation by Aubrey de Selincourt. If it's only a page missing there's no reason to suppose that what is lost is any more significant than is covered on individual pages that survive.Much more important is the loss of part of Curtius for autumn 324 - mid 323, covering the death of Hephaestion and events leading up to Alexander's death. This must have had lots of interesting stories in it.

The missing "page" in Arrian (sometimes called "the great lacuna") involves the time just before Hephaistion's death. Arrian is talking about the feud between Olympias and Antipater. Suddenly there is a break in the text, and when it comes back Arrian is talking about reconciliation between Hephaistion and Eumenes. Maybe the missing part had to do with some sort of cover-up of how Hephaistion and Alexander were put out of the way by Antipater's family, or covered various other "ego wars?"John

Bosworth does mention the lacuna in his introduction in the 'Text, Translations, and Editions' section in Volume 1 of his Commentary.Regarding the lost section he merely mentions that all of the extant manuscripts lack this lacuna, and therefore are all derived from the Vindobonensis, or Vienna, codex, the oldest suriviving manuscript and one which also lacks this piece of the text.Bosworth states that the 'loss of a folium in the Vienna codex' was the cause of the lacuna. Also, there was some other water or 'damp' damage to the manuscript as well as some fading. Apparently this was the cause of the loss of the early sections of the history and the loss of the end of the Indica. He also states that a scribe attempted to restore much of the manuscript in an 'exceedingly careless and ignorant fashion.'According to the Brunt Loeb edition the above mentioned scribe also 'tore out twenty pages...and substituted his own'. Yikes!

Wow, now that's enlightening! Has there been any effort using modern technology to delve into the problem of the faded text? I know that this has been done with Shakespeare and also on some play which was not done by Shakespeare, but which had his name on it instead. Apparently, Shakespeare erased the original author's name and replaced it with his own. Though I don't think this was done fraudulently, Shakespeare merely purchased the play, and with the consent of the original playwright put his name to it.
later Nicator

I can't find any information that implies that a technological attempt has been made to restore the damaged text, or that it is even warranted. It seems that the parts of the original manuscript that were damaged are gone, or 'lost', perhaps originally taken out to preserve the integrity of the remaining manuscript and keep it from further damage. The parts that the scribe had 'reconstructed' were bascially tossed-out and replaced by accurate secondary texts that were presumably copied from the original codex before the text became illegible. But sadly, not before the first portion was destroyed. A.G. Roos was the one who did the inital intensive investigation of the Vindobonensis manuscript in 1904. He wrote a critical edition that was later revised by G. Wirth in 1968 and seems to be the definitive greek text for Arrian. It is also the one reproduced in the Brunt Loeb edition.

Where is the original manuscript today?

I'm not sure of the location of the Arrian manuscript but a bunch of the Vindobonensis texts are in the Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Vienna. The 'Vindobonensis histor. Gr. 4' is the one that we are interested in, but I can't pin down any solid references.I wonder if it is on display somewhere or just archived...