In verse 6 Professor Giangrande (JHS xcv [1975] 36–7) would read λαοτίταντον, saying that it means ‘expanded by the stones’. But τιταίνω does not mean ‘expand’ in volume; it ordinarily means ‘extend’, ‘stretch’ in length, and -τίταντον has no real claim to be regarded as suitable here. Besides, Giangrande's whole approach is based on the assumption that we have in this epigram exactly the same version of the story as is found in e.g. Pliny NH × 125, where the bird uniformly raises the level of the water by dropping stones into the vessel and can then drink at leisure. But some of the wording here suggests snatching haste; in particular ἔφθανє suggests that the bird ‘caught’ water splashed by the dropped stone(s) ‘before it got away’, i.e. before it fell back to the bottom of the vessel (cf. Gow—Page, The Garland of Philip ii 203 ad loc.).

H. van Thiel demonstrated only 16 years ago that the text of Longus's novel rests on two manuscripts, Laur. conv. sopp. 627 (s. xiii2) and Vat. gr. 1348 (s. xvi1). The descripti nevertheless yield historical information, and so it is as well to establish their relationships. Three scholars who knew them at first hand have tried: A. Kairis in his edition (Athens 1932), H. Dörrie in De Longi Achillis Tatii Heliodori memoria (Göttingen 1935), and E. Vilborg in his edition of Achilles Tatius (Gothenburg 1955). None of them arrived at the truth. Perhaps the same applies to me, because I have contented myself with collating at most book i and checking a few passages elsewhere; but I can give reasons for my disagreement.

I will first set out my stemma. As everyone's symbols conflict, I will use none except F for the Laurentianus and V for the Vaticanus, but in my discussion I will abbreviate the shelfmarks. Relationships that I do not discuss are adequately treated by Kairis, Dörrie, or Vilborg.