Three Books on Harmonics by Claudius Ptolemy

PREFACE.

A vertical decorative woodcut border on the left margin features intricate floral and foliate scrolls, including stylized leaves and flowers, within a rectangular frame.

Note also, especially in codex C, ai for e, and e for ē, also ēs for ois or eis, and ō for o, and many things of this kind, also u for b, and vice versa; not that I considered these to be manifest errors, but to show by example how easy it was to slip in these matters at that age and in those places where ai, a, ē, ei, i, u, ē were almost indiscriminately pronounced as i or ei; likewise au, eu, etc., as av, ev or af, ef; so it is no wonder if this is found quite often in other manuscript codices.

There are, however, other more minor matters, which, although they may sometimes be noted, I would not consider it worth the effort to do so always. For instance, in de or d' before a vowel, also mēte, mēde, mēte, kat', kath', kata, and things of this kind; in these, if the codices agree, I follow them; if they disagree, I follow either the majority or use my own judgment; yet I do not always detain the reader with these. If, however, either a point intervenes, or emphasis or another cause suggests a delay in pronunciation, I would prefer (if the codices permit) to write it out in full rather than by apostrophe.

Nearly the same must be said regarding the accent of enclitic words; whether retained, leaned, or entirely lost; for instance dé gé, or dè ge, or d' ge, and things of this kind; in which matter the codices vary a great deal, and writers are accustomed to indulge themselves in great liberty, whether in marking them or not marking them, and thus or otherwise. I, therefore, in such a trivial matter (especially unless the reason of emphasis suggests one thing or the other), follow the codices where they agree; where they differ, I use my own discretion; nor am I overly solicitous, lest I appear too curious about a thing of no value: meanwhile allowing others their own judgment if they prefer it done otherwise.

Understand the same regarding words that are sometimes written together, sometimes separately, and indeed according to one's own discretion: such as hōs te and hōste, ek eti and eket-i, en' holōs and en-holōs, mē de and mēde, monon ou and monon-uchi, to ge hen and toigaroun, eph' hoson and ephoson, ex archēs and exarchēs, eph' hexēs and ephexēs, hōn tina and hōntinaoun, tout' esti and toutesti, di' ho and diho, g' en and gen, and many others: in which I have attempted to follow the writing to which most codices generally incline, yet in such a way (for the most part) that I am consistent with myself (writing the same words in the same way), but not too scrupulously, however; especially if some reason suggests otherwise; for example, dēlonoti, where it signifies namely, clearly, etc., but dēlon hoti, for it is clear, or it is evident that, etc.

Similarly, in subscripting i or not subscripting it (especially in certain tenses of the Subjunctive Mood), where even the most expert critics or printers do not always agree among themselves or with themselves.

But, in compounds from kai, such as k'an, kan, kak, kakeinos, etc. (for kai an, kai en, etc.), I am accustomed to omit it; partly because the codices almost perpetually agree on this; and partly because Radulphus Wintertonus Ralph Winterton (very curious about these things) in his notes to the Minor Poets, once published at Cambridge (and not without reason), contends that this should be done. Since, for example, in kai en, it should not be said that ai and e coalesce into a long a by crasis; but, with the i first extracted by thlipsis, finally a and e coalesce by crasis into a long vowel. Nor should the trace of the extracted i be retained. Indeed, since what is subscribed should be considered later than that to which it is subscribed; and an intermediate i cannot be considered later than the whole long a (conflated from a and e); it cannot be insinuated through a subject i. It is otherwise, however, if there is an i in the latter diphthong (as what is later than the others coalescing). And so, chō should be written for kai ho, but chō for kai hoi. These things have indeed been said not without reason. Nor, however, are they anantirrhetōs indisputably true. Indeed, if anyone prefers the opposite, it could be retorted: Just as what is subscribed is later, so the breathing mark, which is superscribed, should be judged as prior to the vowel to which it is ascribed. Since, therefore, in chō for kai hoi, the aspirated breathing, although proper to the subsequent vowel o (and thus intermediate to the coalescing ones),