the transmission of the text of the p scholia to hermogenes ΠΕΡΙ ΣΤΑΣΕΩΝ - new version

7/29/2019 THE TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT OF THE P SCHOLIA TO HERMOGENES - new version

1/18

1

Published following peer review in Revue d'Histoire des Textes, n.s. vol. V, 2010, p. 25-42.

The transmission of the text of the scholia to Hermogenes

Rui Miguel Duarte

Centro de Estudos Clssicos (University of Lisbon) Researcher

FCT Fundao para a Cincia e Tecnologia (Portugal) Post-doc scholar

Of the popularity of Hermogenes rhetoric throughout the eras we have as evidence a

production of commentaries by several school rhetors, since Harpocration, a

contemporaneous of his and a critic of his issues theory1. Among those commentaries

there is a plentiful corpus, whose textual tradition is inseparable from the text they

comment, figuring in a restrict family named as by H. Rabe2, one among the significant

number of codicological families of codices that transmit all the treatises attributed tothe rhetor of Tarsus. Those commentaries (or scholia) had till now only one edition, by

Christian Walz, in the volume 7 of his series Rhetores Graeci3.

Some other scholars have done in the last century researches on these scholia and on

the manuscripts that bear witness of them. Those are names as S. Glckner or H. Rabe4,

1 On the other hand Harpocration would have influenced the hermogenic theory of the types of style.See Michel PATILLON,Anonyme de Sguier. Art du discours politique, Paris, 2005, p. LVIII-LXV. On the problem ofthe identification of rhetors with this name, see Malcolm Heath, Porphyrys rhetoric, in Classical Quaterly 53(2003), p. 144-166, sp. 147, and idem, Theon and the history of the progymnasmata, in Greek, Roman and Byzantine

Studies 43, 2003, p. 129-160, sp. 132 and following.2 Cf. H. RABE, cf. Rhetoren Corpora, in Rheinisches Museum 67, 1912, p. 321-357, sp. 323. See below the

explanation of the manuscript sigla. The sigla used are RABEs, except for the one referring to Monacensisgraecus 8, taken from Stephan GLCKNER Die Handschriften der P-Scholien zu Hermogenes (Breslau nowadays Wroclaw 1928), p. 5, and for the ones identifying lost and conjecturally reconstructedcodices, which are mine.

3 C. WALZ, Rhetores Graeci vol. VII, Stuttgart & Tbingen, 1836, p. 104-696.4 From S. GLCKNER, cf. the work quoted above n. 2; Quaestiones rhetoricae. Historiae qualis fuerit aeuo

imperatorio capita selecta, Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen 8.2 (1901), p. 1-115; ber den Kommentar desJohannes Doxopatres zu den Staseis des Hermogenes, in Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht des KniglichenGymnasium zu Bunslau I, Kirchhain, 1908, and II, Kirchhain, 1909; Zur Komposition der P.-Scholien zuHermogenes , in Satura Viadrina altera, Festschrift. Zum 50 jhr. Bestehen d. Philol. Vereins zu

Breslau, Breslau nowadays Wroclaw 1921), p. 1-11. As for H. RABE, see op. cit.; Hermogenis opera, in RhetoresGraeci II, Leipzig, Teubner, 1913 (reimpr. 1985) [introduction]; Prolegomenon sylloge, in Rhetores Graeci XIV,Leipzig, Teubner, 1931 [praefatio].


2/18

2

to whom an edition of Hermogenes and comprehensive studies on the manuscript

tradition are due. Later on, by the mid-century, G. Kowalsky5 and his disciples L.

Rychlewska6 and V. Borzemska-Lesnikowska7, and later the Italian R. Romano8,

continued this study.

In 2006, at the University of Aveiro (Portugal), I presented my Pd.D. thesis. In the

thesis, I gave an account of the history of the texts transmission throughout the

manuscript tradition up to Walz edition, and justified the need of a new critical edition

and the criteria for it. A section out of the scholia was chosen: the chapters 1-16

(consisting of a general introduction to the system), corresponding to Walz 7

104-245. The new critical text of these scholia was provided with a Portuguese

translation9.

The research I was able to do led me to some conclusions regarding the manuscript

filiation. For the constitutio textus, only Pa and Pc were taken into account. Theapographs, as well as Walz, were considered mainly for the purpose of establishing a

stemma, even though they have been used occasionally, whenever they borne good

conjectures. These conclusions can be summed up as follows: (1) Pc would be the only of

the extant witnesses of its branch; (2) all the other codices were included in the branch

represented by Pa, which I named ; in this branch, two filiation lines, Pa and , were

determined, the last one a conjecturally lost codex; (3) the net of dependencies of Pa was

also complex.

My former research depended upon a limited sample of texts, the scholia I studied,and neither upon the Hermogenic text itself nor upon other texts borne by the

manuscripts. Obviously, the conclusions that I came up to could be either confirmed or

infirmed. In fact, further and closer researches provided enough evidences to make me

reconsider some of them. And that is exactly a research update that I shall propose in the

following pages. Its goal is to set the point of the present knowledge of the tradition of

the text of the scholia.

5 See his edition Hermogenis de Statibus, Travaux de la Socit des Sciences et des Lettres de Wroclaw,series A, nr. 1 (Wroclaw 1947).

6 In Anonymum Hermogenis Statuum interpretem (Rh. Gr. VII, 397-442 WALZ) cum Nilo (Par. gr. suppl. 670 sqq.36v-65r) collatum observationes criticae, in Eos 41, 1 (1940-1946), p. 173-184, and 42, 1 (1947), p. 195-211.

7 De Anonymo Hermogenis Statuum interprete (Rh. Gr. VII 320-397 W.) cum Nilo (Par. suppl. gr. 670 ff 1r-36r)comparato, in Analecta Hermogenica, Travaux de la Socit de Sciences et Lettres de Wroclaw, srie A, 42(1951), p. 17-43.

8 Il commentario a Ermogene attribuito a S. Nilus di Rossano (Par. suppl. gr. 670, ff. 1-179) , in Epeteris EtairiasByzantinon Spoudon 47, Athens, 1989, p. 253-274; Niliaca ab Anonymo Rh. Gr. VII W. non expressa, in Vichiana 3rdseries, 2, 1991, p. 263-264; Un nuovo capitolo del commentario a Ermogene attribuito a S. Nilus di Rossano, inVichiana 3, 1992, p. 189-198; Nuove ricognizioni sul commentario a Ermogene attribuito a S. Nilo di Rossano, in

Orpheus 21 1-2, 2000, p. 84-91.9 R. M. O. Duarte, Comentrios ao tratado sobre os Estados de causa de Hermgenes de Tarso por autorannimo, Aveiro, Universidade de Aveiro, 2006.


3/18

3

Now, a critical analysis of the Walz edition (defective regarding several aspects) shall

be provided; this analysis is justified by the fact that this work has been until today the

reference edition of the text of the scholia and the sole intermediary between this and

us.

The codices used by Walz were Pa, Pc (named by the abbreviation Par.1), Pb (Par.2),

Aa, Ne and Mb. In the introduction (introduction p. III), Walz states that he benefited

from a descriptive study of Mb, having hence done a scarce confrontation with Ne and

having corrected the commentaries based on Pc; so that, whenever the source of a

correction is not named, one should infer that it is Pc. It could also be perceived that W7deeply relies on Mb.

As for Pb, he states that this codex was not profoundly checked, but only in some

pages. Pa, however, was not used but occasionally. Two examples of omissions in Pc

were, as it is mentioned, restored through Pa.

The W7 edition is, for several reasons, an imperfect work, mainly because it almost

despises Pa, depending especially on apographs. There is no real apparatus, but footnotes

to the text, in which he sporadically quotes variants and transcribes scholia minora

without noticeable criteria. On the other hand, he presents plentiful omissions. The mostof these are due to homeoteleuton:

1.34.1-2 - omitted by W7 120.5 after || 1.35.11-12

- omitted by W7 121.3 after ) || 2.48 all the scholium

omitted by after W7 127.11 || 3.94.2 : omitted by W5 159.31 || 9.2.6-7

- omitted by W7 202.25 after || 13.6.5-6 -

omitted by W7 215 4 after .

As for some other variants and omissions W7 relies directly on apographs as the

source of the text:

1.19.2-4 - omitted in Mb after due to homeoteleuton,

whence also W7 113.26 || 2.73.1 omitted in Mb after

, whence W7 145.7 || 2.b.1 : Mb whence W7 130.17) || 2.75.5-6

- omitted in Mb after whence W7 145.30) || 3.94.2

: omitted in Mb (cf. W7 159.31) || 3.96.5-7 -

omitted in Mb due to homeoteleuton (cf. W7 161.17 after ) || 9.1.5-6 -

omitted in Mb due to homeoteleuton (cf. W7 202.5 after ).


4/18

4

There are still cases of misreading by Walz of the lesson he used:

1.2.1 Pc whence W7 and I: because of iotacism Pa Pb and Ne, in

which W7 erroneously read (cf. 105.19 n. 18) || 1.17.13 transferred after

in Pc, having W7 read instead of (cf.

113.8 n. 22) || 1.21.8 whence W7 and I: reads W7 in Pc (cf. 114.13

n. 5) || 2.79.27 whence I: W7 perhaps based on Pb (cf. W7 148.17) || 11.1.2

codices whence I: W7 reads erroneously in Mb (cf. 205.21 n. 1) || 13.10.48

Pc whence W7 and I: Pa, having W7 in Pb misread

(cf. 218.12 n. 27) || 16.a scholium to be transferred after 16.2: after the scholium 5 in Pa

after the scholium 1 in Pc and not omitted in this codex as W7 declares (cf. 234.20 n. 1) ||

16.a.23 whence W7 and I: Pb where erroneously W7 reads (cf.

235.24 n. 16).

W7 however, gives some good lessons, from his own conjecture or taken from the

manuscripts. It is worthwhile to quote all of them, since they were all taken as valid

lessons for the establishment of the text:

1.49.4 correctly restored W7 127.16 and I from Demosthenes First Olinthiac1.23:

in all the codices || 2.59.6 before correctly added by VhMb, whence

W7 136.4 whence I, cf. below 2.59.7-8 : omitted in || 2.68.13

PaNe thus correctly W7 142.1 cf. n. 47 (though he did not check Pa) whence I:

in the other codices || 2.85.9 W7 152.3 whence I: in thecodices || 4.7.11 W7 181.11 whence I cf. the source of the scholium (W4 210.6):

codices || 5.9.2 corr. Pb1 whence W7 186.12 and I: in genitive in the

other witnesses possibly by homeoptoton with || 6.12.3 whence W7

191.23 and I: Pa || 7.9.13 correctly W7 199.2-3 whence I:

Pa Pc || 9.2.20, 32 correctly W7 203.18, 204.2 and I:

Pa Pc || 14.10.9 Pa equally W7 225.13 and I: in

the other testimonies || 15.2.12 corrected by W7 227.26 based on Demosthenes

Third Philippic 9.5 and equally I: Pa . Pc || 15.2.12

suppressed by W7 228.1 based to Demosthenes loc. citand equally || 15.2.12 Pa

whence and equally W7 loc. cit and I.: in the remaining codices || 16.2.1

corrected by whence W7 231.8 and I: in the other

codices.

However, other conjectures, corrections and additions of his were not considered

acceptable. Because thy were not relevant for the establishment of the text, it is not

useful to give here but a sample (over seventy-five variants)10:

10 See a more exhaustive list in my thesis p. 52-53.


5/18

5

1.6.1 after added by W7 107.11 || 2.54.19 whence I:

W7 132.25 || 2.84.4 whence I: W7 151.5 || 2.87.54 whence I:

W7 154.29 || 3.98.17 after added by W7 165.3 || 3.16.9

whence I: W7 174.14 || 4.8.6 before added by VhMb whence

W7 182.14-15 || 6.10.2 whence I: W7 191.7 || 7.8.1

whence I: W7 198.11 || 9.2.20 before added W7 203.17 || 12.1.3

whence I: W7 206.18 || 12.1.22 before added by W7 207.19 || 13.1.16

whence I: Mb whence perhaps W7 210.8 || 13.7.5 before possibly by

homeoteleuton added by W7 215.12 || 13.10.39 whence I: W7

217.30-31 || 14.8.18 after added by W7 223.13-14 || 15.1.14 whence I:

W7 227.5 || 15.4.12 before added by W7 228.28 || 16.5.10

whence I: W7 233.17 || 16.d scholium signed with number 15 by W7 242.8 and f. ||

16.d.9 whence I: W7 ib. || 16.f.14 whence I: Pc || 16.f.15 whence I: W7 244.28.

Other W7 errors relate to the numbering of the codices:

3.90-99 as 100-109 || 3.20 marked with number 8 || 4.3 scholium not numbered.

In conclusion, the W7 edition is on the whole an imperfect work, in spite of the good

conjectures. It relies essentially on the apographs of Pa and on Mb as well, almost

neglecting Pa itself, and omitts a great number of textual materials. Therefore, as far asthe text's reconstitution is concerned, this work is not but seldom useful.

The family of codices designated by Hugo Rabe has, as its most ancient known

witnesses, two codices, both from the eleventh century: Parisinus graecus 1983 (Pa);

Parisinus graecus 2977 (Pc). Still more recent codices belong to this family, dated from the

thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries, out of which six were examined: Parisinusgraecus

2916 (Pb = Par.2 W7); Neapolitanus (= Farnesinus) II.E.5 (Ne); Ambrosianus P 34 sup. [graecus

617] (Aa); Vaticanus graecus 2228 (V); Palatinus Vaticanus graecus 23 (Vh); Monacensisgraecus 8 (Mb).


6/18

6

The scholia had up till now one only edition, published by Christian Walz, in the

volume 7 of the Rhetores Graeci collection, pp. 104-696 (W7).

The manuscripts that bear the scholia will be examined right away. As Pa and Pc were

the codices the constitutio textus in my thesis was mainly based on (regardless of a few

good corrections provided by the apographs), they are worth a more detailed account.

Parisinus graecus 1983 (Pa), Paris, Bibliothque Nationale de France, parchment, 260 x

215 mm, 295 folios, tenth-eleventh century11.

The hermogenic text, which occupies the folios 44-284 (the scholia edited in my

thesis, corresponding to W7 104-245.4, being found in folios 44r-59v), is written in a

circumscribed space, vertically centred on the page, and close to the line of margin of

the spine, the rest of the space being reserved for the writing of the scholia, which

occupy 55 to 62 lines, from the top to the bottom, around the text of Hermogenes. Thisone occupies circa one sixth of the total written space, which show that the folios were

especially prepared to receive not only the text of the rhetor but also the scholia (known

asscholia maiora or greater scholia). Both the hermogenic text and the text of the scholia

were apparently copied by the same hand; the size of the scholias handwriting is smaller

than that of the hermogenic text and the ink colour is light brown, whereas the

hermogenic text is dark brown. The handwriting is well taken care of, well drawn and

regular from the top to the bottom of the folios. The scholia relate to the text through

numerical note references marked with red ink in the interlinear space of thehermogenic text, and retaken at the margin of it. The space between the text of

Hermogenes and that of the scholia was left blank in order to receive other scholia, with

characters of inferior size. The note references of the later ones consist of graphic signs.

These facts, in addition to the disposition of these scholia (between the main hermogenic

text and the greater scholia), make us think that the scholar community of the

Hermogeness readers of that time would consider these scholia of secondary

importance. Due to this, these scholia are known as scholia minora (smaller scholia)12. The

text of the scholia is divided in several parts, which in my edition are considered as

chapters, similarly to what has been done in W7. The titles of the chapters, when they

appear, stand out detached, in darker ink and in bigger size, either laterally to the

hermogenic text, or over him, or in the scholia text itself, separated by the rest of the

text in the line by larger spacing. Over the line corrections were made here and there by

the same hand that copied the scholia (Pa1), some others were made by a second hand

(that I designate as Pa2) using darker ink. Still there are marginal notes and corrections

11 For a summary of the contents of the codex see our thesis, p. 39-41, M. PATILLON, Corpus rhetoricum,

Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2008, p. L-LIII and G. AUJAC, Recherches sur la tradition du deDenys dHalicarnasse, in Revue dhistoire des textes 4, 1975, p. 32-35.12 See the edition of WALZ.


7/18

7

from a third hand (Pa3). To this hand are due text restorations in several places, because

of severe deterioration of the material. This hand uses an ink colour similar to the one

used in Pa2, but with different character drawing, less careful and bigger in size. The

second hand dates probably from the twelfth-thirteenth centuries, so it is necessarily

earlier to the copy of the codices Pb and Ne, which depend on it. One can date the third

hand, based on the handwriting, from the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. The work of

Pa3 is necessarily later than the copy of the model of, for in none of them are there

evidences of having used versions of Pc, which in the texts tradition are considered to

be unique. The interventions of the third hand are the following:

1.5.3 in the other witnesses whence I: Pa3 || 1.21.4 Pc whence

I: Pa3 unreadable Pa || 1.21.11 in all the witnesses: Pa3 || 2.53.1

: Pa3 || 3.97.10 : Pa3 || 16.3.2 Pa3.

Parisinus graecus 2977 (Pc = Par.1 W7), Paris, Bibliothque Nationale de France,

parchment, 232 x 169 mm, 344 folios (with a second folio 305), eleventh century.

The contents of this codex are similar to those of Pa. Compared to this one, the

preparation of the codex, as well as the handwriting, is less cared for. One can notice the

intervention of one hand only, which used brown ink. To this hand are due as well some

supralinear corrections. The mode of edition is similar to the one of Pa. The Hermogenes

text (copied seemingly by the same hand), which occupies the folios 60-326r (the scholia

edited in my thesis being found from folios 60r-79v), is written in a circumscribed spacevertically centred on the page, and close to the line of the spine margin. The rest of the

space of the page is reserved to the writings of the scholia, which occupy about 48-55

lines, from top to the bottom, around Hermogenes text. Hermogenes text occupies only

about one sixth of the total written area. The handwriting of the scholia has smaller

dimensions compared to the hermogenic text. The scholia have also numerical note

references. Besides these scholia, there are the scholia minora, that occupy an empty

space between the text ofHermogenes and the greater scholia. The text of the scholia is

equally divided into chapters as in Pa. The titles of the chapters stand out detached in

darker ink and larger size, either in the text of the scholia itself separated from the rest

of the text with larger spacing, or at the either margin.

Parisinus graecus 2916 (Pb = Par.2 W7), Paris, Bibliothque Nationale de France, paper,

thirteenth century13.

The edition mode is similar to that of Pa and Pc. The scholia surround the frame of

the text reserved to the text of Hermogenes. The system, however, is not strict: though

13 For a more summary of the contents of the codex see our thesis p. 41-43, and M. P ATILLON, op. cit.,LIII.


8/18

8

the Hermogenes text frame has been always prepared close to the spine margin, its

position relating to the pages height, as well as its dimension, vary. There are cases of

pages exclusively with text of scholia (71r, 86v, 90r, 92r).

The text of the scholia edited in my thesis is found in the folios 68r-95r.

Neapolitanus (= Farnesinus) II.E.5 (Ne), Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele

III, paper, thirteenth century.

The edition mode is similar to that of Pa and Pc. The text of the scholia is written

around the frame of the text reserved to the text of Hermogenes, which occupies a space

of about one sixth of the total written area, vertically centred on the page, from top to

bottom, and limited by the line of the spine margin. The space left over is reserved to the

writing of the scholia. The preparation of the folio, the rulings and the handwriting are

more cared for than in Pb.The text of the scholia edited in my thesis can be found in folios 58r-77v.

Palatinus Vaticanus graecus 23 (Vh), Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, paper,

end of the thirteenth century.

The edition mode is similar to the Pa and Pc. The text of the scholia is written around

the frame of the text reserved to the text of Hermogenes by the edge of the spine

margin. However, the delimitation of areas for the text and the scholia is not strict, as it

can be seen in other manuscripts. The text positioning, relating to the pages height, aswell as its dimension, vary. On folio 86r, the frame of the hermogenic text is situated at

the bottom of the page.

The text edited my thesis can be found in folios 73r-88r.

In the other codices only the scholia were copied, not the text of Hermogenes.

Vaticanus graecus 2228 (V), Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, paper,

fourteenth century.

A compilation of continuous commentaries, in which selected scholia (entitled

) were mixed up with others scholia from another commentator, which

can be found on the Vindobonensis phil. graecus 130 (Wc) as well14. As far as an exam could

be made, the scholia are introduced by quotations from the of

Hermogenes, which could be identified as the lemmata of the scholia. Occasionally the

titles of the chapters appear, in larger handwriting and darker ink. The selection criteria

14 Cf. H. HUNGER, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der ster. Nationalbibliothek, I, Wien, 1961, 148-149);S. LILLA, Codices Vaticani Graeci, codices 2162-2254, Vatican, 1985, p. 307-313S. GLCKNER, ber den Kommentar II

8-12; Zur Komposition sp. 6; for a description, H. RABE, Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften. 5. Des Diakonenund Logotheten Johannes Kommentar zu Hermogenes , Rheinisches Museum 63,1908, p. 127.151, sp. 128-130.


9/18

9

of the scholia, as in the case ofAmbrosianus sup. P 34 [graecus 617] (see the following

commentary on this manuscript), are not understandable. The textual materials

corresponding to the scholia 1.3 (= W7 106.9), etc., until 16.13 (= W7 241.28) can be found

between the folios 122r to 147r.

Ambrosianus P 34 sup. [graecus 617] (Aa), Milan, Bilioteca Ambrosiana, paper, 212 x

155 mm, fifteenth-sixteenth centuries.

Between the folios 285-298, there have been compiled scholia from 1.1.9-10 (= W7

104.15-16), 1.2.5-1.3.5 (= W7 106.5-13), until 9.2.7-8 (= W7 202.26-203.1), in a rapid and

incoherent way, proceeding from this point on in Latin.

Monacensis graecus 8 (Mb), Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Mnchen, paper,

sixteenth century.It is an apograph of Vh, as it will be shown further on. Out of all apographs, this is

the most recent one and the only one, among the ones that only transmit the text of the

scholia, where there was a concern in copying the text as it was, without contaminating

it with others of different origins.

The text corresponding to that edited in my thesis occupies the folios 140r-192r.

I have resumed above the threefold conclusion I could formerly get to, concerning

the tradition of the text. I shall now take up the discussions on these subject matters,

with the reformulations that need to be done.

(1) After a comparative examination of the codices Pa and Pc, I came to the

conclusion that these manuscripts represent each one of them a distinctive and parallel

branch of the tradition depending on a common archetype . The collation of all the

above listed manuscripts, and the divergences found between them, allowed me to group

them under two main divergent lines descending from , each group depending

necessarily on a lost hyparchetype, and : to the -branch belong Pc and V, the rest of

the witnesses are grouped in .

These divergences are related to a great number of variants and other aspects. In my

thesis15, it was assumed that V belonged to the -branch, given the variants taken into

15 See in our thesis 45, 48 and the stemma 50.


10/18

10

account, but a closer comparative analysis of the witnesses has imposed another

conclusion: it belonged to the same branch as Pc. Evidences can be found not only in the

scholia but also in other texts borne by the manuscripts.

Separative variants between and are, for instance, the following:

1.48.4-5 ... ... whence I: -... -...

-16 || 2.76.1 whence I: || 2.76.9 whence I: thus ||

3.92.3 I from the source (see below) and thus corrected by Pb: PaVh thus probably

unreadable in Ne omitted in Pc V || 3.17.9 whence I: || 6.1.18 Pc

whence I: omitted in V.

The case of 3.92.3 (alternation / ) is due to the confusion between the

respective abbreviations. Indeed these sometimes may be confounded in a faster trace. Asimilar case is the lesson 2.79.30 : W7 presents , maybe based on Pb.

A digitalized image of the former in Pa is here presented, where can be seen:

Pb has clearly (with a rude spirit), perhaps based on (unsure, due to the

unreadableness in Ne):

The examination of the context and the consultation of the source (Syrianus R2

40.17-2017) led to the conclusion that the correct lesson is and not :

Lemma St. 34.2-8]

3.92.1-3 . -

, ,.

This type of matter is classified in the impossibility and is the contra-diction of the history. It is constituted by all the parts, but it only includes a defective examrelatively to the persons, considering that in the given example the dead appear as beingalive.

16 The sigla , , and are used whenever the lesson of a lost manuscript can be reconstructedwhether upon the accord of all the witnesses of the respective branch that bear the given lesson, or uponthe most part of the witnesses, regardless of corrections made in any of their descendants.

17 Syrianus, Syriani in Hermogem commentaria, ed. H. RABE, RhetoresGraeci vol. 2, Leipzig, Teubner, 1893.

See apparatus ad locum. On this variant and other questions related to the practice of palaeography andtextual critic of the scholia , see R. M. O. DUARTE, Aventuras de um editor de textos crticos gregos, in gora 3,2001, p. 25-49 sp. p. 33.

.

.


11/18

11

The error in reading and the confusion therefore was probably of the model , hence

the agreement of Pa and Vh.

Some of the cases above listed of oppositions versus are not uncommon:

/, or even indicative/conjunctive (thematic vowels / /). By themselves,

variants like these are insufficient as separative. Nevertheless, what is striking is the

accumulation of them. Such an accumulation is probably not casual, but seems rather

evidence of distinct tradition branches.

As for evidences from other texts borne by the manuscripts than the scholia, I rely

on Rabe and in his edition of Prolegomenon sylloge (R14). In the preface18, he expressly

states that Pc and V have the same model (even though the later is a worse witness).The manuscripts Rabe used were mainly Pa, Pc and V, among others. On the following

pages, I present the variants registered in the critical apparatus on the texts 15 (238.1-

255.3) and 16 (255.4-258.12) of Rabes edition of the prolegomena to the Hermogenic

, that corroborate the separation between and :

Text 15: 238.2-3 Pa whence R14: || 238.6 whence R14: Pa ||

238.7 Pa whence R14: || 238.11

whence R14: Pa || 238.13 Pa whence R14: || 238.13-14

whence R14: omitted in Pa || 239.1 Pa: omitted whence R14 || 239.4 Pa whence R14: || 239.12-13 whence R14:

Pa || 239.13 the first Pa whence R14: omitted in || 239.16 the first Pa

whence R14: omitted in || 239.20 Pa whence R14: || 241.6

whence R14: Pa || 241.17 Pa whence R14: omitted in || 241.23 Pa whence R14:

241.23 omitted in || 241.25 Pa whence R14: omitted in || 242.4 Pa whence

R14: || 242.8 before omitted in Pa whence R14: added in || 242.10

whence R14: Pa || 242.14 Pa whence R14: V Pc || 242.15

Pa whence R14: || 243.5 : Pa || 243.23 whence R14:

Pa || 245.5 Pa whence R14: || 246.2 Pa whence R14: ||

246.5-6 whence R14: Pa || 246.13 whence R14: omitted

in Pa || 246.20 whence R14: Pa || 247.6 whence R14:

Pa || 250.1 whence R14: Pa || 250.6 whence R14: Pa || 250.11

Pa whence R14: || 250.13 whence R14: Pa || 250.18

Pa whence R14: || 250.22 Pa: whence R14 || 251.3 Pa

whence R14: omitted in || 251.12 R14: Pa || 251.14

Pa whence R14: || 251.18 whence R14: omitted in Pa || 252.13

18 R14 p. LXIX.


12/18

12

Pa whence R14: || 252.26 Pa whence R14: ||

252.27 inc. - 253.11 des. omitted in || 253.26 Pa whence R14:

|| 254.25 whence R14: Pa.

Text 16: 255.12 Pa whence R14: || 256.13 whence R14: Pa

|| ib. whence R14: Pa || 256.14-15 Pa whence R14:

|| 256.18 Pa whence R14: || 257.15 Pa whence

R14: || 257.22 Pa (cf. Herm. Id. 225.10) whence R14:

|| 258.2 Pa whence R14: .

Though some of the above cases are examples of trivial error types such as iotacism

(one case), anastrophe or inversions of the order of two words or syntagmata (one case),

for and vice versa (five cases) , they were quoted for the purpose of clearly

demonstrating the divergence between the traditions branches, specially when Pc and

V altogether (= ) agree against Pa.There are nevertheless others cases in which whether V or Pc disagrees with one

another and agrees with the variant of the other branch:

Scholia : 1.3.7 corrected over the

line by Pa1 whence - also Pc - V.

Prolegomena to the Hermogenic (R14):

Text 15: 239.1 PaV whence R14: Pc || 244.24 PaPc whence R14:

V || 247.22-23 PaPc whence R14: V || 248.14 PaV whence R14:

Pc || 248.15 PaV whence R14: Pc || 249.14 PaPc whence R14: V ||251.11 PaV whence R14: Pc || 254.12 PaV whence R14:

Pc.

Text 16: 255.15 PaV whence R14: Pc || ib. PaPc whence R14: V || 256.19-

20 PaV whence R14: Pc19.

Since V does not transmit of the scholia but some extracts, the analysis that follow

of the opposition between and is all based on evidences from Pc. These other

differences are the frequent omissions of Pc comparing to Pa (one hundred and seventy

one cases), but few and not very significant are the opposite cases (thirty-eight). Indeed,

some of the omissions of Pc are very extensive: eight cases correspond to two or more

lines in my text: 1.22.11-13, 1.27.2-6, 2.83.7-10, 2.87.53-55, 3.92.2-4, 3.98.20-21, 4.6.15-16,

13.4.4-7. Some of the omissions (four) are due to homeoteleuton: 2.83.7-10, 4.6.15-16,

19 The tradition of the texts was seemingly complex and, so to speak, multigenic. In the cases where Paand V agree against Pc one could think of contamination of V with a tradition of the text represented bythe branch . See e.g. variants for R14 254.12, 255.15, or 256.19-20. On the other hand, there are caseswhere Pa and Pc oppose to V; in such cases, the contamination would have been of Pc with a tradition of

the text represented by the branch . See e.g. variants for 244.24, 247.22-23. Cases of iotacism 248.14/) singulier/plural 251.11 /, 255.15 /, or even feminine/masculine 249.14 /should no be considered as strong evidence, because they are common variant alternatives.


13/18

13

13.1.7; 13.4.4-720. Other differences come from common error types (iotacism,

inversions). Others are related to the edition of certain textual materials among the

scholiamaiora, in one of the witnesses, and among the minora on the other: such as the

cases 1.19-20, 2.53, 3.14, 11.2, 16.d. There are also cases of transposition of textual

material, sometimes of whole scholia: 2.c, 16.a, 16.b, 16.c and 16.d.

(2) Rabe suggested that Vh would not depend on Pa, but on a manuscript close to this

one21. The textual materials among the folios 36-41 (previously listed with the numbers

8-12) are in the wrong order in Pa and Pb, but in the correct order in Vh. For Glckner,

on his turn, Vh would depend on Pa, but with at least one intermediary22. His conclusion

is based on the textual extract 2.75.5-6 . ,

. , that is, the three

inferior lines of f. 48r in Pa. Originally omitted in Vh, it is further on added to the lineand to the margin of the scholium. Another evidence is the omission of the material W7

307.14-16 in Vh.

Rabes insight, as I believe, is correct. Vh effectively depends on a manuscript close to

Pa and with the same model as this one. I named that manuscript. Its date is uncertain.

The divergence of the two tradition lines Pa and (meaning the agreement of all the

three manuscripts or, at least, of Vh and Aa) can be conjectured on the basis of the sum

of separative variants like the following ones:

1.11.2 whence I: omitted in || 2.52 title of the chapter correctlybefore the 2.52 in Mb: at the margin of the in Pc omitted in Pa over the text of

Hermogenes in Vh || 3.95.2 Pc whence I: thus Pa equally ||

3.16.10 Pc whence I: Pa || 3.19.8 P whence

I: 3.20.1 Pa whence I: equally .

The strongest evidence of the separation between the traditions branch represented

by Pa and the one represented by Vh is the omission of the title of the chapter 2 in Pa

and their apographs. In fact, if in Pa the title were missing, the copyist of would

necessarily have before him another codex, in spite of being close to Pa.

However, another lesson could be accounted as a counter-example, leaving by now

opened the hypothesis that Vh as well as would depend, in fact, on Pa:

1.6.3 whence I: Vh omitted in the rest of the manuscripts.

This form is an aorist participle of shiver with cold. A digitalized image of

that place of Pa is presented here

20

See apparatus ad loca.21 H.RABE, Rhetoren-Corpora 324 and n. 1.22Op. cit. 6-7.


14/18

14

Over the letter one can see a straight horizontal stroke (with accent). This is one of

the possible ways to abbreviate . I would have , a hapax. Pc has an arched stroke

with the form of a tilde over the , an abbreviation that can be used for , whence

23. Would Pa have mistaken? In general, the copyist of this manuscript worked

carefully, therefore the reading appears as strange and unusual and resulting

from confusion between the abbreviations and . This situation is neither frequent nor

unique. In the following folio and very close to each other, one can find the lessons

and . In these situations the accentuated was similarly written with

straight horizontal stroke over the previous letter. Both cases are obvious, for they are

very common words and of a basic Greek lexicon, so that under no circumstance wouldthey be read and .

This variant is not enough so as to set forth the hypothesis of Vh depending on Pa

because, as it could be seen, the evidences that Vh depends instead on , are stronger.

This is a mere confusion between abbreviations probably committed by the copyist of.

From Vh obviously derives Mb, because it reproduces variants and errors of Vh, to

which still it adds its own errors. Rabe had already noticed this filiation24.

(3) The readings shared by Pb and Ne against Pa allow sustaining the conjecture of an

intermediary between Pa and these codices25. I identify that codex, written between the

twelfth and thirteenth centuries, with the abbreviation .

This codex can be reconstituted upon the evidence provided by the following

variants:

1.35.11 Pc and whence I: Pa || 1.35.17 Pa whence I:

all the other witnesses || 1.48.4-5 Pc

whence I and thus corrected by : -... -... - || 2.c after scholium 2.59

Pc whence I and thus corrected by : after 2.61 in || 2.76.1 Pc whence I and thus

corrected by : Pa || 2.76.9 Pc whence I thus corrected by : Pa ||

2.87.86 whence I: || 3.94.4 Pc whence I: omitted in Pa

over the line Pb as well seemingly Ne || 3.97.10 I based on Herm. St. 34.15:

Pa3 || 4.1.1 Pa whence I: equally Vh omitted in

|| 5.14.1 Pc whence I: Pa || 15.2.12 I based on Demosthenes

23 As well as for , which is improbable in this context.24

H. RABE, Rhetoren-Corpora, loc. cit.25 On the dependencies of the apographs to Pa cf. the studies of RABE, Rhetoren-Corpora loc. cit. n. 1and GLCKNER, loc. cit.

.


15/18

15

On the Halonnesus 7.5: Pa || 15.4.10 4.10 whence I:

|| 16.a after 16.2: after 16.5 Pa among the minora in || 16.2.1

whence W7 231.8 and I: in the other codices || 16.b after 16.4 my

conjecture: after 16.a Pa among the minora || 16.c after 16.b in my conjecture: among

the minora || 16.d after 16.7 my conjecture: after 16.14 after 16.12 .

These codices follow the second hands interventions (Pa2) in Pa and some

corrections done by the first hand (Pa1). The dating of Pa2 (twelfth century) forms the

terminus post quem of the dating of. The variants dependent on Pa2 are:

2.54.21 Pa whence I: corrected over the line by Pa2, whence

|| 16.5.33 Pc whence I: thus Pa2 whence seemingly Pa.

The variants depending on Pa1 are:

1.3.7 the vulgate whence I: thus corrected over the line by Pa1whence . Pa || 1.5.7-8 the vulgate whence I: thus corrected over

the line by Pa1 whence . Pa.

As for the rest, depends on Pa.

The hypothesis the comparative examination of the shared readings of Pb and Ne

allows is that both depend directly and separately on the same model. No variants were

found as evidences to sustain the possibilities either that Pb would be an apograph of Ne,

or the reverse.

represents the lost model of the tradition of the scholia. This codex would be a

minuscule and not an uncial. That is evidences found through comparative analysis of

the separative variants of Pa and Pc allow to conclude. Such are the cases of confusion

between similar abbreviations, for instance, the already analysed 1.6.3 and

3.92.3 the alternation / in Pa and its apographs.

Other situations are the result of the confusion being this one more common

between the abbreviations of and :

2.76.1 Pc whence I: || 3.17.9 Pc whence I: || 6.1.18 Pc

whence I: .

It is also the confusion between similar abbreviations that explains the following

case:

14.6.1 Pc: whence I Pa.


16/18

16

Another case is a misreading, because of the similarity in the minuscule writing

between the palaeographic traces of and :

2.65.2 Pa whence I: Pc.

In the archetype the previous stick of would probably be linked to and the copyist

of Pc would have read it as a ligature of and . The posterior stick would naturally have

been read as a .

The conclusions drawn together throughout the exam of the tradition of the scholia

can be reduced to the following newstemma codicum:


17/18

17

Pa

11th cent. Pa1

Pc

12th cent.

Pa2

13th cent.

Pa3

Pb Ne Vh

14th cent.

V

15th cent. Aa

16th cent. Mb


18/18

18

W4 = Marcellinus, Sopater and Syrianus, , ed. Christian

WALZ, Rhetores Graeci vol. 4, 39-846.

W5 = Sopater , ed. Christian WALZ,

Rhetores Graeci vol. 5, Stuttgart e Tbingen, 1-211.

W7 = Anonymous, , ed. Christian WALZ, Rhetores Graeci vol. 7,

Stuttgart e Tbingen, 1832-1836, 104-696.

An. = Anonymous.

R2 = Syrianus, Syriani in Hermogem commentaria, ed. H. RABE, Rhetores Graeci

vol. 2, 1893.

R14 = Prolegomenon sylloge, ed. Hugo RABE, Rhetores Graeci vol. 14, Leipzig,

Teubner, 1931.

Pa = cod. Parisinusgraecus 1983, parchment, tenth-eleventh century.

Pa1 = corrections by the first hand.

Pa2 = corrections by the second hand.

Pa3 = corrections by the third hand.

Pc = cod. Parisinusgraecus 2977, parchment, eleventh century.

Pc1 = corrections by the first hand.

= accord of and , i.e. the supposed lessons of the archetype.

= supposed model of Pa and.

= supposed model of Aa, Vh and Mb, and an apograph of.

= supposed model of Pb and Ne and apograph of Pa.

= supposed model of Pc and V.

Pb = cod. ParisinusGraecus 2916, paper, thirteenth century = Par.2 Walz.Aa = cod. Ambrosianus P 34 sup. (graecus 617), paper, fifteenth-sixteenth

centuries.

Mb = cod. Monacensisgraecus 8, paper, sixteenth century, ff. 140r-192r.

Ne = cod. Neapolitanus (= Farnesinus) II.E.5, paper, thirteenth century, ff. 58r-

77v.

Vh = cod. PalatinusVaticanus graecus 23, paper, end of the thirteenth century,

ff. 73r-88r.

V = cod. Vaticanus graecus 2228, paper, fourteenth century, ff. 122r-147r.

the transmission of the text of the p scholia to hermogenes ΠΕΡΙ ΣΤΑΣΕΩΝ - new version

Documents