Author's Variants In Longus?

In the course of examining the two independent manuscripts of Longus's novel, Professor Douglas Young has come to the conclusion that they represent different versions from the author's own hand (Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 1968, pp. 65-74). His article falls into two parts: in the first he lists variants that he thinks go back to the author himself, and in the second he attempts to show that it is nowhere necessary to emend a reading in which both manuscripts agree. While Professor Young deserves gratitude for drawing attention to the number and diversity of the disagreements between the two manuscripts, a glance at the variants he discusses shows that he has a conception altogether too generous not only of what can pass for Greek but also of what can pass for sense in a given context. The purpose of this article is twofold: to put readers of Longus on their guard against a theory whose attractions fade as soon as it is measured against the text, and to disappoint any believer in author's variants who may have pounced on Professor Young's article and stored it away for future use. The Standard edition, if there is one, is Dalmeyda's (Bude, 1934); but Professor Young has established by a patient examinarion of MS. A diät Dalmeyda's apparatus criticus needs correcting in over 300 places. It is to be hoped that Professor Young will publish the results of his valuable work on A; for the time being there is no Option but to follow Dalmeyda unless Professor Young's article offers more accurate information. In the following notes Professor Young's order of presentation is adhered to, except that variants he cannot use in support of his theory are separated from ones he can, the former being listed under (a) and the latter under (Jb). Asterisks