The Encheiridion of Epictetus and Its Three Christian Adaptations: Transmission and Critical Editions (Philosophia Antiqua)

THE ENCHEIRIDION OF EPICTETUS AND ITS T H R E E CHRISTIAN ADAPTATIONS

PHILOSOPHIA ANTIQUA A SERIES OF STUDIES ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY F O U N D E D B Y J . H . W A S Z I N K f A N D W.J. V E R D E N I U S f EDITED BY

J. MANSFELD, D.T. RUNIA J.C.M. VAN WINDEN

VOLUME LXXXII GERARD BOTER

THE ENCHEIRIDION OF EPICTETUS AND ITS THREE CHRISTIAN ADAPTATIONS

THE ENCHEIRIDION OF EPICTETUS AND ITS THREE CHRISTIAN ADAPTATIONS TRANSMISSION AND CRITICAL EDITIONS

BY

GERARD

BOTER

' 6 8^

BRILL LEIDEN · BOSTON · KÖLN 1999

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Epictctus. [Manual. English & Greek] The Enchciridion of Epictctus and its three Christian adaptations / transmission and critical editions by Gerard Botcr. p. cm. (Philosophia antiqua, ISSN 0079-1687 ; v. 82) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 9004113584 (alk. paper) 1. Ethics—Early works to 1800. 2. Conduct of life—Early works to 1800. I. Botcr, Gerard. II. Title. III. Series. B561.M52E5 1999 188—dc21 99-20798 CIP

Die D e u t s c h e Bibliothek - C I P - E i n h e i t s a u f n a h m e Boter, G e r a r d : The Enchciridion of Epictctus and its three Christian adaptations : transmission and critical editions / by Gerard Botcr. - Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill, 1999 (Philosophia a n t i q u a ; Vol. 82) ISBN 9 0 04 I I 3 5 8 4

ISSN ISBN

0079-1687 90 04 11358 4

© Copyright 1999 by Konmklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

ForJeanette

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements Preface

xi xiii

T H E TRANSMISSION O F THE TEXTS PART O N E THE AUTHENTIC

I. II.

III.

IV.

V. VI.

ENCHEIRIDION

Catalogue of'manuscripts of Epictetus' Encheirìdion T h e affiliation of the manuscripts and the editio prìncejjs of'Epictetus' Encheiridion T h e First family T h e lemmata in Sîô Tt T h e selection MSS (δ) T h e AC-group T h e second family U T h e editions after the editio princefjs and the manuscripts related to the editions From Haloander to Wolf T h e editions after Schegk and Wolf up to Schweighäuser Schweighäuser's editio maior Critical work on the Encheiúdion after Schweighäuser's edition Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheirìdion Catalogue of manuscripts T h e text of the lemmata in Simplicius' commentary T h e text of Simplicius' commentary T h e indirect tradition T h e constitution of the text of Epictetus' Encheiridion

3 19 19 22 23 25 31 51 55 58 58 71 82 84 87 87 93 111 114 118

PART T W O [NILUS]' ADAPTATION

VII. VIII. IX.

X.

XI.

Introduction Catalogue of manuscripts of [Nilus]'adaptation T h e authenticity and character of [Nilus]'adaptation Authenticity T h e Christian character of [Nilus]' adaptation O t h e r deviations from the authentic Encheiridion T h e affiliation of the manuscripts and the editio princef)s of [Nilus]' adaptation T h e relationship of M and Ρ G T h e stemmatical position of the MSS other than MP T h e constitution of the text of [Nilus]' adaptation

149 151 156 156 157 160 165 165 170 172 184

PART T H R E E THE PARAPHRASIS

XII. XIII. XIV. XV.

XVI. XVII.

CHRISTIANA

Introduction Catalogue of manuscripts of the Paraphrasis Christiana T h e character of the Paraphrasis Christiana T h e affiliation of the manuscripts and the editio princeps of the Paraphrasis Christiana T h e relationship of M and α T h e apographa of M T h e relationship of the other manuscripts T h e commentary on the Paraphrasis Christiana T h e constitution of the text of the Paraphrasis Christiana

197 199 206 213 213 215 216 237 239

PART FOUR THE ADAPTATION OF VATICANUS GR. 2231

XVIII. T h e adaptation of Vaticanusgr. 2231 Description of Vaticanus gr. 2231

257 257

CONTENTS

T h e character of the adaptation of Vaticanus gr. 2231 T h e constitution of the text of the adaptation of Vaticanus gr. 2231

IX

259 262

T H E TEXTS PART O N E EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRJDION

T h e organization of the apparatus criticus Conspectus siglorum Text and translation Lectiones variantes minores Lectiones variantes ad rem orthographicam pertinentes

267 270 276 342 346

PART T W O [NILUS]' ADAPTATION

Conspectus siglorum Text

351 353

PART THREE THE PARAPHRASIS

CHRISTIANA

Conspectus siglorum Text Lectiones variantes minores Lectiones variantes ad rem orthographicam pertinentes

369 371 389 392

PART FOUR THE ADAPTATION OF VATICANUS GR. 2231

Conspectus siglorum Text

395 396

INDICES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Index verborum Epicteti Encheiridii Index fontium Epicteti Encheiridii Index auctorum Epicteti Enchciridion laudantium Index locorum potiorum Epicteti Encheiridion [Nili] Encheiridion Paraphrasis Christiana Encheiridion Vaticani gr. 2231 Index codicum Index siglorum Bibliography

415 427 432 434 434 434 434 435 436 438 441

LIST OF STEMMATA Epictetus' Encheiridion stemma codicum et editionum Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheiridion stemma codicum et editionis principis [Nilus]' adaptation stemma codicum et editionis principis Paraphrasis Christiana stemma codicum et editionis principis Stemmata codicum

18 86 164 212 274

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the course of my work on the text of Epictetus' Encheiridion I have received help from many scholars and institutions. It is my pleasure to express my gratitude to them. Obviously, my work would have been altogether impossible without the reproductions of MSS I have received from the libraries in which they are preserved. For many MSS I have obtained microfilms from the collection of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes in Paris. A special word of thanks should be directed to Dr. E.K. Litsas of the Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki, who has sent me reproductions of two Athos MSS, as well as doing all he could to obtain p h o t o g r a p h s of E s p h i g m e n o u 3, which, alas, proved to be missing when Dr. J. Tavlakis visited the Esphigmenou monastery on my behalf. T h e librarians of the Biblioteca Marciana (Venice), the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (Florence), the National Library (Athens), the British Library ( L o n d o n ) , the Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden) and the Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris) have kindly given me the opportunity to study the MSS preserved in their libraries in situ. I have obtained codicological and palaeographical information f r o m various scholars and librarians: Dr. F. Arduini (Venice), Dr. E. Arnold (Munich), Dr. B.C. Barker-Benfield (Oxford), Dr. Chr. Baltoyanni (Athens), Prof. P. Canart (Vatican City), Dr. M. Eschler (Bern), Dr. P.G. Ferrara (Naples), Dr. Chr. Forstel (Paris), Dr. O. Gantier (Paris), Dr. M. G e r m a n n ( B e r n ) , Dr. G. G u i l l e m i n o t - C h r é t i e n (Paris), Dr. H. Haalberg (Uppsala), Dr. J.J. Hall (Cambridge), Dr. U. Kirsten ( D r e s d e n ) , Dr. D. Lecco (Paris), Dr. V. L e o n o v (St.Petersburg), Dr. E. Lugato (Venice), Dr. S. Marcon (Venice), Dr. G. Mathieu (Besançon), Dr. A. Fiber (Warsaw), Dr. K. Schellbach (Dresden), Dr. L. Selvaggi (Turin), Dr. M. Simpson (Edinburgh), Dr. M.C. Vicario (Florence). Prof. D. Harlfinger (Berlin) and Prof. E.V. Maltese (Albisola) have given me various pieces of information, and sent me xeroxes of works I was unable to get hold of in the Netherlands. Prof. I. H a d o t (Paris), whose edition of Simplicius' commentary

on Epictetus' Encheiridion has been on my desk ever since its publication, has e n c o u r a g e d me f r o m the outset; I owe h e r for many valuable remarks on several aspects of my work. Prof. A. Carlini (Pisa) has always been ready to c o m m e n t on problems about which I asked his opinion. In addition, he invited me to come to Pisa in October, 1995, to lecture on the Christian adaptations. O n this occasion I made the acquaintance of Carlini's pupil Dr. Francesco de Nicola (Pavia), with whom I have exchanged countless letters 011 the transmission and the text of the Paraphrasis Christiana, which was the subject of Dr. De Nicola's doctoral dissertation. Prof. M. S p a n n e u t (Lille) has given me information on the commentary 011 the Paraphrasis Christiana, and 011 the indirect tradition of Ench. With the m e m b e r s of the Amsterdamse Hellenistenclub I have discussed three papers, on [Nilus]' adaptation, on the Paraphrasis Christiana, and 011 the authentic Encheiridion. I have greatly profited from their remarks. I am especially indebted to Prof. C.J. Ruijgh, Prof. S.R. Slings and Prof. I. Sluiter, who have given me advice on many other occasions as well. T h e Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) has given me financial support for visiting libraries in Athens, L o n d o n , Paris, Rome and Venice. Mrs W.A. J o h n has undertaken the arduous task of correcting my English. Prof. D. den Hengst has been ready to correct my Latin. Finally, I wish to thank Prof. J. Mansfeld, Prof. D.T. Runia a n d Prof. J.C.M. van W i n d e n for a c c e p t i n g my b o o k in the series Philosoj)hia Antiqua. Amsterdam summer 1998

1. Brief sketch of the origin and reception of Epictetus 'Encheiridion Arrian is almost universally acknowledged as the a u t h o r of the Diatribes, but there has been much discussion about the extent to which he put his stamp on the text of the Diatribes. According to some scholars he presents us with a more or less stenographic account of Epictetus' lectures. According to others he follows the example of X e n o p h o n ' s Memorabilia, and moulds Epictetus' oral lectures into freely adapted written compositions. T h e r e are also many intermediate positions 1 . Stellwag 11-13, however, argues that Epictetus' Diatribes were c o m p o s e d by Epictetus himself; this hypothesis has recently been revived by Dobbin (xxi-xxiii). In a letter to Massalenus-, referred to by Simplicius (P 4-9, p. 192 H a d o t ) , Arrian states that in composing the Encheiridion h e picked out the most vital and necessary elements of Epictetus' philosophy, which would most strongly i n f l u e n c e the souls of the readers 3 . Simplicius adds that the same thoughts and the same formulations can also be f o u n d in the Diatribe54. In reality verbatim quotations from the Diatribes in the Encheiridion are few and far between. Comparison between the two is h a m p e r e d by the fact that the Diatribes are only partly extant 5 . Epictetus enjoyed a certain popularity both with pagan a n d christian authors in antiquity a n d in the Byzantine period 6 . In the 1 For Arrian's authorship see Arrian's letter to Lucius Gellius, which precedes the Diatribes in the codex Saibantinus = Bodleianus misc. gr. 251 (the source of all the other extant MSS). For the character of the Diatribes see Spanneut, RAC 600603; Radt 364-368 with references; Dobbin xx-xxiii with references. 2 Or Messalinus, as Saumaise conjectured; see Hadot's apparatus. 3 Τό δέ βιβλίον τοΰτο, τό 'Επικτήτου Έγχειρίδιον έπιγεγραμμένον, καί τοΰτο αΰτός συνέταξεν ό Άρριανός, τα καιριότατα καί αναγκαιότατα έν φιλοσοφία καί κινητικότατα των ψυχών έπιλεξάμενος έκ των 'Επικτήτου λόγων. 4 Τά δέ αυτά σχεδόν και έπ' αυτών τών ονομάτων σποράδην φέρεται έν τοις Άρριανοΰ τών 'Επικτήτου διατριβών γραφομένοις. Hadot, Simplicius 152-153, argues that it should not be taken for granted that the word διατριβών refers to the Diatribes as we have them. 5 See Spanneut, RAC 602. I hope to devote a special study to the relationship between the Diatribes and the Encheiridion. 6 An excellent survey is given by Spanneut, ÄAC616-675.

first place his name is m e n t i o n e d in various sources 7 . Next there are references to the Epictetean corpus. Direct quotations are not very frequent; the majority of them are f o u n d in Stobaeus, who quotes 21 passages f r o m the Encheiridion, against only four passages f r o m the f o u r extant books of the Diatribes·, this serves to illustrate that the Encheiridion gradually came to be the best known of the Epictetean writings 8 . In the sixth century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius, wellknown for his commentaries on Aristotle, devoted a full-scale commentary to the EncheiridiorP. In the preface he states that the Encheiridion often repeats phrases from the Diatribes (see above), but in his commentary he hardly ever refers to the Diatribes. Simplicius rather tries to explain the Encheiridion by itself, paying much attention to the c o h e r e n c e of the whole 1 0 . In a n u m b e r of places the text of the Encheiridion serves as a starting-point for reflections which exceed the scope of the commentary proper 1 1 . So great was the influence of the Encheiridion on monasticism that it was adapted to suit the needs of Christians on no less than three occasions. T h e first of these adaptations is falsely attributed to Nilus Ancyranus (Nil, first edited by J.M. Suarez [1673]), the second is known as the Paraphrasis Christiana (Par, first edited by M. Casaubon [1659]), the third one is f o u n d in Vaticanus gr. 2231 ( Vat, discovered by M. Spanneut, as yet unedited). N o n e of these adaptations can be dated with certainty; a terminus ante quern is furnished by the date of the oldest extant MSS 12 . In Nil and Vat the text of the authentic Encheiridion is only slightly modified, but in Par the text has underg o n e a complete metamorphosis 1 3 . 7

See the testimonia collected by Schenkl III-XV. For a discussion of the indirect tradition of the Encheiridion, see pp. 114-117; for a full list of authors referring to the Encheiridion, see pp. 432-433. 9 Fortunately, this commentary can now be consulted in the recent edition by I. Hadot, accompanied by a detailed and informative introduction. For a list of Simplicius' works, both extant and lost, see Hadot, Simplidus 4-6. 10 For a full philosophical analysis of Simplicius' commentary, see Hadot, Simplicius, chs. Ill and IV, pp. 51-113. For a discussion of the way in which Simplicius handles the text of the Encheiridion, see pp. 111-113 below. 11 The most interesting case in point is Simplicius' commentary on Ench 27 (Simplicius ch. XXXV), which for the greater part is a refutation of Manicheism (cf. Hadot, Simplicius, 114-144). 12 For iVi/Ven. Marc. gr. 131 (eleventh century), for Par Flor. Laur. 55,4 (tenth century), for Vat Vat. gr. 2231 (early fourteenth century). Vat must have been c o m p o s e d after Simplicius' commentary, because it borrows a phrase from Simplicius; see p. 260, n. 2. 13 For Nil see pp. 157-163, for ftzrsee pp. 206-211, for Vat see pp. 259-262. 8

T h e oldest extant MSS of the authentic Encheiridion belong to the f o u r t e e n t h century, and are thus much later than the oldest witnesses to the text of M / a n d Pari4. This might be taken as an indication that u p to ca. 1300 A.D. the Byzantine world paid more attention to the christianized versions of the Encheiridion than to the original text. From the f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y on we find an ever increasing n u m b e r of MSS of the Encheiridion, some giving a selection, others containing the complete text. In the fifteenth century it was translated into Latin twice, first by Niccolô Perotti in 1450, then by Angelo Poliziano in 1479 15 . Perotti's translation did not gain great popularity, but Politian's translation has been endlessly reprinted since the editio princeps of 1497. T h e first edition of the complete Greek text of the Encheiridion was published in 1529"'. Since then, there has been a constant flow of editions of the Greek text and of translations into many languages 1 7 . A real critical edition of the Greek text, however, has hitherto never been made. All the editions published in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries d e p e n d on the editio maim by J. Schweighäuser (1798). It is my aim to fill this gap.

2. Aim and method of the present work T h e need of the preparation of a critical edition of Epictetus' Encheiridion has long been felt i s , but at the same time scholars have recoiled from the enterprise because of the a m o u n t of work involved 19 . 14 Apart from the MSS mentioned in note 12 (p. xiv), there are other MSS written before 1300 A.D., especially for Par (see the catalogues, pp. 151-153 and 199-205). 15 See Oliver, Perotti; —, Poliziano·, Boter, Translations. Cf. pp. 28, 99-100, 104. 16 In the editio princeps of Simplicius' commentary (1528), the chapters of Ench have been added as lemmata, but in many cases these lemmata are abbreviated (see pp. 106-107). 17 See Oldfather, Contribuions and Supplement, nrs. 114-725, for the years up to 1952; for later years see L'Année Philologique. 18 Cf. Carlini 215, η. 4. 19 See for instance Oldfather (Loeb edition) II, 480, n. 2: "Another [reason] is the very slight probability that any really notable contributions to knowledge might result therefrom. As an intellectual problem the preparation of a new edition of the Encheiridion presents certain interesting features, but as a practical undertaking it is outranked by a good many other possible investigations." Maltese XXVII: "(...) un compito davvero poco seducente, che non promette all'editore risultati pari alia fatica." Oliver, Politian 186: "(...) a text that has a manuscript tradition so complex that it has dismayed the courage, or baffled the perseverance, of prospective editors for the past century and a half."

W h e n I envisaged the preparation of a critical edition of Ench in 1987, I decided at the outset that the edition should be based on all t h e sources available to me. T h e r e f o r e my p r o j e c t necessarily included the preparation of critical editions of the three Christian adaptations of Ench as well. Fortunately a new edition of Simplicius' commentary was already in preparation by I. Hadot; it was published in 1996. But because the tradition of the lemmata in the MSS of Simplicius' commentary differs from the tradition of the text of the c o m m e n t a r y itself—as Mme H a d o t wrote me—, I had to study the lemmata in all the Simplician MSS myself. Despite the great n u m b e r of MSS (over one h u n d r e d in all) I have not excluded any MS from my investigations, not even MSS written in the 16th-18th centuries. In the First place I wanted to be absolutely certain that I had not neglected any primary source; in the second place these MSS reflect the scholarly activities of the periods in which they were produced. For the identification of MSS I have consulted Friedrich-Faye in the first place; further, I have checked many catalogues myself; finally, I have f o u n d some MSS in Sinkewicz. With the exception of Leid. Voss. gr. Q 54, Loud. Add. 11887 a n d Venetus Marcianus gr. App. Cl. XI 13 (which I have collated in situ), I have studied all the MSS on p h o t o g r a p h s or microfilm. Dresdensis Da 55 was heavily damaged in the Second World War, and is nowadays hardly legible; I have used Heyne's collation, which is reported by Schweighäuser; Dr. Kerstin Schellbach has c h e c k e d s o m e readings on my behalf. I have consulted most of the major primary MSS in situ. For Ench I have seen Τ [Atheniensis 373], A [Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1164], SiC [Vaticanus gr. 327], SiG [Venetus Marcianus gr. 261], Π [Laurentianus 31,37], Φ [Parisinus gr. 3047] ; for Nil I have seen both M [Venetus Marcianus gr. 131] a n d Ρ [Parisinus gr. 1220]; for Par I have seen M [Laurentianus 55,4], Ρ [Parisinus gr. 1053], V [Venetus Marcianus gr. 127] and A [Atheniensis 521]; for Vat I have consulted the codex unicus V [Vaticanus gr. 2231]. I have also briefly inspected a n u m b e r of secondary MSS in situ. I have invented a system of labelling the MSS with sigla which, I h o p e , will be convenient for the user of this book. T h e sigla themselves are always printed in bold type; when it must be made clear to which tradition a given MS belongs, this bold siglum is p r e c e d e d by an italic siglum: £ or Ench (the authentic Encheiridion), Ν or Nil ([Nilus]' adaptation), Ρ o r Par (the Paraphrasis Christiana), Vor Vat

(the adaptation of Vaticanus gr. 2231), S (Simplicius' original lemmata), Si (the supplemented lemmata in Simplicius' commentary), Simp (Simplicius' commentary itself). But, for instance, when discussing the transmission of Par, I have not d e e m e d it necessary to add the italic siglum Par on every occasion. In collecting the material of the indirect tradition I have profited f r o m the discussions in S p a n n e u t ' s informative articles in DS a n d RAC. Prof. S p a n n e u t has given me some additional information per litteras·, the same goes for Prof. E.V. Maltese. T h e discussion of the transmission of the text is roughly the same for Ench, Nil, Par and Vat. First t h e r e is a brief catalogue of MSS, in which the essential information about a MS is presented. I have not u n d e r t a k e n a fullscale codicological study myself: as a rule I only give the information available to me from other sources. T h e affiliation of the manuscripts is depicted in a stemma codicum et edilionum. Some MSS of Ench derive from later editions; these MSS are not always represented in the stemma. T h e discussion of the stemmatological relationship of the MSS is meant to be exhaustive. I primarily rely on the internal evidence, that is, the readings of the MSS; but whenever there are other indications, such as omissions corresponding exactly to one or more lines of text in the exemplar, I mention these as well. Vat constitutes an obvious exception, because this text is transmitted in one MS only. For each of the four texts there is a chapter on the constitution of the text, in which I explain the editorial principles followed by me; next, there is a philological discussion of a n u m b e r of individual readings. In the case of M / a n d Vat, all the information about the readings of the MSS is given in the apparatus below the text. But for Par, and to a much higher degree for Ench, the n u m b e r of witnesses would make this way of presenting the material ill-digestible. T h e r e f o r e the orthographical variant readings and the readings of the less promin e n t primary MSS are reported in two separate apparatus after the text itself. Even so, the apparatus of Ench does not make for easy reading; however, I would rather bear the odium of giving too much information to the user of my text than incur the reproach of withholding essential information.

For all the texts I have maintained the chapter n u m b e r s f o u n d in previous editions, in o r d e r to avoid confusion with the existing secondary literature. In cases where o n e c h a p t e r in the previous editions should in fact be split into two chapters, as for instance Ench 14, I have n u m b e r e d these chapters as 14a a n d 14b. In the opposite case the current chapter n u m b e r is added in the text between square brackets (for instance Par 58-[59]); in such cases the line numbers of the bracketed chapter continue those of the preceding chapter. T h e r e is no internationally accepted standard for the punctuation of o u r classical texts. I have decided for a very sober punctuation, adding c o m m a s only when they appear to be indispensable. Initial capitals are used for the first word of a chapter and for proper names. T h e English translation accompanying the Greek text of Ench is my own, but, not being a native speaker of English, I have constantly consulted existing translations, especially those by Oldfather, White a n d H a r d . In many cases I have a d o p t e d p h r a s e s f r o m these translations: I have aimed at clarity, not at originality. T h e book is concluded by a n u m b e r of indexes: an index verborum of Ench, an index of source passages in the Diatribes and fragments, an index of authors referring to Ench, an index locorum potiorum, an index codicum and an index siglorum. Finally there is a bibliography.

T H E TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXTS

PART O N E THE AUTHENTIC

ENCHEIRIDION

CHAPTER ONE

CATALOGUE OF MANUSCRIPTS OF EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRIDION

This catalogue offers a brief description of the MSS containing the text of Ench, I will indicate the date, scribe, material, size, n u m b e r of folia, folia on which Ench is found, n u m b e r of lines per page, sigla, and give some bibliographical references. T h e stemmatic position of the MSS is indicated summarily. 1. Atheniensis Benaki Museum 45 (T.A. 16) (olim Edirne, Gymn. 1135 (124)) 15th century; paper; 195 χ 137 mm.; ff. IV, 87; Ench ff. l r -9 v ; 26-28 lines; siglum Mm. At the bottom of fol. I1 there is an owner's note έκ τών του 'Ιγνατίου σαράφ όγλού άδριανοπολίτου. See Lappa-Zizika 8c Rizou-Kouroupou 85-87. Mm derives from HPC [Laur. 55,7]; Mm is the source of the common ancestor of R [Laur. 74,13] and Vv [Vat. gr. 100]. See pp. 34-36. 2. Atheniensis National Library 373 15th century; oriental paper; 114 χ 75 mm.; ff. 209; Ench ff. 166'-196 v ; 13-16 lines; siglum T. The MS is heavily damaged by moisture, and in many places very difficult to decipher. See Sakkelion-Sakkelion 63-64. Τ is a primary MS; it derives from the same source as the supplemented lemmata in SiC [Vat. gr. 327], See pp. 19, 51-53. 3. Bern, Bürgerbibliothek, Bernensis 691 second half of the 16th century; paper; 152 χ 105 mm.; pp. 81; Ench pp. 1-70; 16 lines; siglum V. See Hägen 502; Omont, & m e n r . 122. V derives from G [Uppsal. gr. 25], See pp. 63, 65-66.

4. Berolinensis gr. 175 (Phill. 1579 = Meerm. 289 = 21 ? Clar. = 125'Pel.) 15th-16th century; paper; 192 χ 140 mm.; ff. 17; Ench ff. l r -13 v ; 25 lines; siglum O. See Studemund-Cohn I 77. Ο derives from HPC [Laur. 55,7], See pp. 34-35. 5. Besançon, Bibliothèque Munidpale 420 (Gollob nr. 12) 16th century; (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 86, nr. 192 (= I 144)); paper (parchment binding); 164 χ 110 mm.; ff. 32; Ench ff. 1-32 (= the whole MS); 15 lines; gilt-edged; siglum Aa. See Gollob, Bes. 18. Aa derives from a lost apograph of N e [ed. Paris 1540], See pp. 6162. 6. Bucharest gr. 645 (78) A.D. 1771; paper; 210 χ 250 mm.; ff. 62; Ench ff. 25' -42' ; siglum Ii. See Litzica 358. Ii is a gemellus of J j [Buch. gr. 1030]; the lost source of these MSS derives f r o m the edition by Maire 1651 (or o n e of its n u m e r o u s derivatives). See p. 77. 7. Bucharest gr. 1030 (miscellaneus) 18th-19th century; paper; 190 χ 145 mm.; ff. 224; Ench ff. 93'-105 v ; siglum Jj. See Camariano 160-164. J j is a gemellus of Ii [Buch. gr. 645]; the lost source of these MSS derives f r o m the edition by Maire 1651 (or o n e of its n u m e r o u s derivatives). See p. 77. 8. Cantalnigiensis 1920 (Ii. VI. 41) 17th century; paper; 133 χ 75 mm.; ff. 90; Ench ff. 2'-23 r ; 25-28 lines; siglum Kk. See Babington 539-540. Kk derives from SzHe [Heinsius 1639/1640 edition of Simplicius' commentary]. See pp. 75-76. 9. Dresdensis Da 55 14th century; oriental paper; 227 χ 160 mm.; ff. 8; contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22-29 4 , 31, 33 9 , 33'^, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b with scholia; siglum Γ. T h e MS was b o u g h t in 1754 "ex auctione Boerneriana Lipsiae habita". In the great fire of Dresden at the end of the Second World War, Γ was heavily damaged by water, and in many places it has become quite illegible; the MS c a n n o t be r e p r o d u c e d . Fortunately, Γ was collated by Heyne, whose

collation is reported by Schweighäuser. In a n u m b e r of places Frau Kerstin Schellbach of" the Sächsische Landesbibliothek has checked Γ on my behalf. See Schnorr von Carolsfeld I 297. Γ derives from ς, which goes back to δ; Γ is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25-28. 10. Edinburgh, University Library 234 16th century; paper; 103 χ 73 mm.; ff. 258; Ench ff. l v -79 r ; contains the Greek text on the left pages, Politian's translation on the right pages; 14 lines; siglum Hh. Hh derives f r o m the same lost MS as Ρ [Escor, gr. 39] a n d Ff [Lond. Burney 80]; this lost MS derives from HPc [Laur. 55,7], See pp. 34-35, 37, 39-40. 11. Edinlmrgh, University Library 3076 (La.III.437) second half of the 16th century; (cf. Besançon 420); paper; 153 χ 105 mm.; ff. 29; Ench ff. 1·-29 ν (= the whole MS); the text breaks off at c. 5 2 ' , 3 ό τοΰ μή ψεύδεσθαι, at the e n d o f f . 29 v (the last folium); 25 lines; gilt-edged; siglum Nn. See <Sharp-Finlayson> 519. Nn derives from a lost apograph of Ne [ed. Paris 1540]. See pp. 6162. 12. Esconalensis gr. 39 (R.III.5) A.D. 1514 (notes on f. l r and f. 77 v ); J u a n Vergara; paper; 208 χ 150 mm.; ff. 98 (+ 23a, 31a, 67a, 94a); Ench 2'-20 r ; 22 lines; siglum P. See Revilla I 163-167. Ρ derives from the same lost MS as Hh [Edinburgh Univ. Lib. 234] and Ff [Lond. Burney 80]; this lost MS derives from HPC [Laur. 55,7], See pp. 34-35, 37-38. 13. Florentinus Laurentianus 31,37 (miscellaneus) 14th century; paper; 225 χ 150 mm.; ff. 377; Ench ff. 156'-159 v (numbers at the top of the page, repeated at the bottom of the page below the right corner of the text) = 158'-161 v (numbers at the right corner of the page); f. 156 is displaced 1 , and belongs after f. 159; 38 lines; 1

The composition of f. 156 is rather confusing: f. 156 v contains Ench 48-51, and thus gives the sequel to f. 159v; f. 156 r starts with a text on the tusks of the elephant, then has a blank of a few lines, after which follows Ench 52; the text of Ench 52 is surrounded by scholia which have nothing to do with our text, and deal with words like όσφύες, ισχία etc.

contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17-19b, 22-29 4 , 31, 33 9 , 33'*, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52; siglum Π. See Bandini II 114-119. Π is a gemellus of Ψ [Vat. gr. 1314]; the lost source of these MSS d e p e n d s on ρ, and thus on δ; Π is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25-26. 14. Florentinus Laurentianus 55,7 14th-15th century; paper; 2 2 8 / 2 3 0 χ 150/155 mm.; ff. 438; this MS has two folio numberings: Ench is f o u n d on ff. 271 v -278 v (top of the folio) = 277 v -284 v (bottom of the folio); 33 lines; siglum H . See Bandini II 244-268. Η derives from A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164]; the n u m e r o u s corrections in Η are mainly borrowed from NiL Η is the source of Ο [Berol. gr. 175], M m [Athen. Benaki Museum 45], a n d the lost c o m m o n ancestor of Ρ [Escor, gr. 39], Ff [Lond. Burney 80] a n d Hh [Edinburgh Univ. Lib. 234], See pp. 33-35, 37. 15. Florenlinus Laurentianus 74,13 15th century; paper; 206 χ 128/132 mm.; ff. 346; there are three folio numberings in this MS: at the top and at the bottom of the folio and in the extreme u p p e r corner (cut off on some folia): Ench is f o u n d on ff. 191 r -199 v (top of the folio) - 212'-220 v (bottom of the folio) = 222 r 230 v (extreme u p p e r c o r n e r of the folio); 29 lines; siglum R. See Bandini III 102-115. R is a gemellus of Vv [Vat. gr. 100]; the lost source of R and Vv derives from Mm [Athen. Benaki Museum 45], R is the source of S [Rom. Angel, gr. 80], See pp. 35-36. 16. Florentinus Laurentianus 81,22 3 0 / 1 1 / 1 5 1 3 (Rome); J o h a n n e s Phroulas (subscription on f. 146'; cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 111-112, nr. 189); p a r c h m e n t ; 225 χ 150 mm.; ff. II, 146, I; Ench ff. l'-12 r ; 22 lines; also contains Simp·, siglum N. See Bandini III 234-235; Hadot, Tradition 27-31, 105. Ν derives from Y [Neap. III.E.29]. See p. 48. 17. Florentinus Laurentianus CS 163 16th century; paper; 131 χ 86 mm.; ff. 60; Ench ff. 6'-38 v ; 16 lines; siglum W. See Rostagno-Festa 164. W derives from G [Uppsal. gr. 25]. See pp. 63, 65-66.

18. Florentinus Laurentianus Redianus 15 (miscellaneus) Ench 15th century, probably a b o u t 1490 (the text of Ench in Β was written by Antonios Damilas, who also copied .SJ [Par. gr. 1960] a n d SH [Bon. 2359]; SJ is dated 2 7 / 8 / 1 4 9 1 by Damilas, SH 2 3 / 2 / 1 4 9 0 ; all t h r e e MSS were copied in Crete); Antonios Damilas (subscription o n fol. 31 v ; cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 37-38, nr. 22); paper; 208 χ 153 mm.; ff. II, 221, I; Ench ff. 14'-31 v ; 25 lines; siglum B. See Rostagno-Festa 219-220. Β derives f r o m ε, a n d thus goes back to C [Ambr. gr. 481]. See pp. 40-42, 108-109. 19. Karlsruhe K. 508 16th century; paper; 222 χ 161 mm.; ff. 10; Ench ff. l'-lO 1 (= the whole MS); 27-33 lines; siglum Ee. This MS comes f r o m the library of Christ. J o a c h . Haller von Hallerstein. See Brambach 95. Ee is a gemellus of H a [ H a l o a n d e r ' s editio princeps 1529]; the lost source ol Ee a n d H a derives f r o m Y [Neap. III.E.29]. See pp. 48-50. 20. Kozani, ΧΣ 13 18th century; Ench ff. 81 v -96 v , breaking off after 34,7 καί; 20-21 lines; siglum Oo. See Sigalas (I have not been able to consult this work). O o derives f r o m Mh [ed. Maire 1646]. See pp. 77-78. 21. Leidensis Perizonianus gr. Ο 5 s e c o n d half of the 16th century; p a p e r ; 161 χ 107 mm.; ff. I, 24; Ench ff. 2'-22 v ; watermark Briquet 207; 18 lines; siglum Z. O n f. I v t h e r e is a note: "31 d'agosto B e r n a r d i n u s Midius d o n o dedit Fabio B e n e v o l e n t i o . 7 5." S u b s e q u e n t owners are Jos. Scaliger, Daniel Heinsius, J. Rutgers, P. Francius a n d J. Perizonius. See De Meyier, Per. 116. Ζ is a gemellus of Xx [Vat. gr. 1862]; the lost source of these two MSS derives f r o m the edition by Trincavelli 1535 (or o n e of its derivatives), b u t t h e r e are cases of a g r e e m e n t with o t h e r late MSS. See pp. 63-64, 76, 79. 22. Londiniensis Add. 11887 s e c o n d half of the 16th century; (cf. Besançon 420); paper; 164 χ 110 mm.; ff. IV, 33 (+ 9 il ), IV (between ff. 9 a n d 10 t h e r e is o n e u n n u m b e r e d folio); watermark: m o n o g r a m IG o n a c r o w n e d e s c u t c h e o n with the n a m e I. G u é r a r d (Briquet

9458); Ench ff. 1-33 ( - the whole MS); siglum Pp. Previous owners: prince Galatzin, Butler. See Additions 2, 15; Richard, Inventaire 20. P p derives from a lost apograph of Ne [ed. Paris 1540], See pp. 6162.

23. Londiniensis Burney 80 16th century; c j o h a n n e s Phroulas> (see Hadot, Addenda 394-395); paper; 205 χ 135 mm.; pp. 116; Ench pp. 71-116; 20 lines; a 17thcentury collation of this MS is f o u n d in Leidensis Perizonianus gr. O. 3, ff. 11 -8V; siglum Ff. See Forshall I, ii, 35-36. Ff derives f r o m the same lost MS as Ρ [Escor, gr. 39] a n d Hh [ E d i n b u r g h Univ. Lib. 234]; this lost MS derives from HP c [Laur. 55,7]. Ff is the source of Gg [Oxon. Bodl. 16991], See pp. 34-35, 3739. 24. Mediolanensis Ambrosianus gr. 481 (L 43 sup.) 15th century; paper; 232 χ 155 mm.; ff. V, 272, I; Ench 117'-132 r ; 25 lines; siglum C. On f. 272 v there is a note Ioannis Dominici Zoni archipreslryterj sancti Martinj de Liuiano Liber; the MS was bought in Venice in 1603 (possibly by Gabriele Severo). See Martini-Bassi I 574-576. C is a gemellus of Ww [Vat. gr. 894]; their c o m m o n source is a gemellus of A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164]; thus C is a primary witness; it is the source of a lost MS, which is the direct or indirect ancestor of many other MSS. See pp. 19-21, 31-32, 40. 25. Monacensis gr. 529 14th century; oriental paper; 226 χ 140 mm.; ff. 256; Ench ff. 132'134 r ; 17-24 lines, with scholia beside and below the text; contains chs. 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52 with scholia; siglum Γγ. Large parts of Γγ are heavily d a m a g e d by moist, a n d have become quite illegible. Γ γ comes f r o m the Alte Stadtbibliothek in Augsburg. See Hardt V 318329. Γγ is closely related to A [Vat. gr. 1823], and thus derives via ς from δ; Γγ is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-20, 25, 27-28. 26. Monacensis gr. 567 16th century; paper; 175 χ 110 mm.; ff. 60; Ench ff. l r -32 v ; 16 lines; siglum D. See Hardt V 438-439. D derives f r o m ζ, a gemellus of Β [Laur. Red. 15]; the lost source of these MSS derives from C [Ambr. gr. 481]. See pp. 40, 42-43.

27. Neapolitanus II.C.37 (Barb. 96, Farnesianus ; miscellaneus) late 14th-ear1y 15th century; paper; 220 χ 144 mm.; ff. Ill, 486, III; Ench 212 v -232 v (numbers written above the right u p p e r c o r n e r of the text) = 234 v -254 v (numbers written in the extreme right u p p e r corner of the folia); 26-27 lines, with many interlinear scholia; contains chs. 3, 5b, 5a, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22, 23, 27, 24, 25, 26, 28, 291"4, 31, 33 y , 33 1 2 , 34, 35, 38, 42, 39, 43, 46, 48a, 48b with scholia; siglum Δ . See Mioni, Neap. I 1, 254-262. Δ is a gemellus of θ [Vat. gr. 952], and thus derives from δ via τ a n d ς; Δ is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25, 27-30. 28. Neapolitanus III.E.29 (Borb. 351) 16th century (before 1513); paper; 300 χ 220 mm.; ff. Ill, 87, II; Ench l'-8 v ; 30 lines; also contains Simp] siglum Y. See Cyrillus II 466; Hadot, Tradition 27-32, 105. Y is a gemellus of L [Vind. phil. gr. 37]; the lost source of these two MSS d e p e n d s indirectly on C [Ambr. gr. 481]. Y is the source of Ν [Laur. 81,22] and of a lost MS ji, which was the ancestor of Ee [Karlsr u h e K. 508] and Ha [Haloander's editio princeps 1529]. See pp. 43-45, 47-49. 29. Neapolitanus Girolamini C.F. 2.11 (olim XXII. 1) 15th century; paper; 290 χ 210 mm.; ff. Ill, 474, II; Ench 130'-132'; 36 lines; contains chs. 3, 5b, 5a, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22, 23, 27, 24, 25, 26, 28, 291"4, 31, 33 9 , 33'*, 34, 35, 38, 42, 39, 43, 46, 48a, 48b; siglum Σ. See Martini I 2, 397-415. Σ derives from the same lost MS as Ξ [Vat. gr. 1858] and the lost source of Δ [Neap. U.C.37] and θ [Vat. gr. 952]; thus Σ derives via τ a n d ς f r o m δ; Σ is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25, 27-30. 30. Oxoniensis Bodhdanus 16991 (=D'Orville 113 = Auel. X 1.4,11) ca. 1500 A.D.; paper; 210 χ 156 mm.; ff. I, 336; Ench 157'-167 r ; 22-23 lines; siglum Gg. See Madan IV, 64-65. Gg derives from Ff [Lond. Burney 80]. See p. 39. 31. Oxoniensis Canonicianus gr. 23 e n d of the 14th century; paper; 172/176 χ 118/124 mm.; ff. 136; Ench 132 v -134 v ; 23-28 lines; c o n t a i n s chs. 11-21, 24^,10-11 (τίς-αύτός),

24M5-18 (όρατε-άξιοΰτε), 29·Γ>"7, 30, 33 4 , 33 W '\ 33 9 , 33'°, 3 3 " , 3313*16, 34-37, 43, 45,2-5, 48b,1-6 (Σημεΐα-λαβείν), 51; siglum Tt. T h e selection from Ench begins at the top o f f . 132v, without any title. See Coxe, Bodl. Ill, col. 31-32. Tt derives f r o m the same source as A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164], C [Ambr. gr. 481], δ a n d Sib, although it shows traces of contamination with Τ [Athen. 373] ; Tt is a primary witness. See pp. 19, 23-25. 32. Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 247 16th c e n t u r y (after 1519); (cf. GamillschegHarlfinger I 49-50, nr. 47); ff. 131; Ench ff. l r - l l v ; 25 lines; paper; 2 2 7 / 2 2 9 χ 159/161 mm.; also contains Simp·, siglum Q . Cardinal Reginald Pole was the first owner of Q . See Coxe, Coll. 89; Hadot, Tradition 20-22, 25-27, 103. Q is a gemellus of Κ [Vat. Barb. gr. 76], a n d thus d e s c e n d s indirectly from C [Ambr. gr. 481]. See p. 45. 33. Parisinus gr. 1054 (Fontebl.-Reg. 2992) 14th-15th century; paper; 211 χ 132 mm.; ff. Ill, 286, III; Ench and Nil ff. 180 v -182 v ; 24-28 lines; siglum Ss; catalogued as containing excerpts f r o m Ench, Ss has Ench 3, 5a and 5b, while its remaining contents belong to Nil (chs. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31a); cf. pp. 170-171. See O m o n t , Inventaire I 212. In Ench 3, 5a and 5b Ss is related to τ. See pp. 30-31. 34. Parisinus gr. 2072 (Colb. 4348, Regius 3114) (miscellaneus) first q u a r t e r of the 16th century; c j o h a n n e s Phroulas> (see Hadot, Tradition 12); paper; 208 χ 145 mm.; ff. II, 282, V; Ench ff. l r -15 r ; 24 lines; also contains Simp; siglum Ε (Schweighäuser's Pe.\ for the lemmata in Simp Schweighäuser indicates this MS with the siglum Pc.). See O m o n t , InventaireU 187; Hadot, Tradition 7-13, 16-20, 100-101. Ε is a gemellus of F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023]; their lost c o m m o n ancestor, λ, is a gemellus of J [Vat. Pal. gr. 149], and thus derives indirectly from C [Ambr. gr. 481], See pp. 43-44. 35. Parisinus gr. 2122 (Bigot.-Reg. 3487,2) 16th century; <Manuel Probatares> (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 135, nr. 350 (= I 254)); paper; 143 χ 94 mm.; ff. IV, 40, XXIX; Ench 3'35 r ; 16 lines; siglum X (Schweighäuser's Pd.). See O m o n t , InventaireU 197. X derives from G [Uppsal. gr. 25], See pp. 63, 65-66.

36. Parisinus gr. 2123 (Teller. Rem.-Reg. 3487,3) second half of the 16th century; (cf. Besançon 420); paper; 154 χ 102 mm.; ff. VII, 38, IX; Ench ff. 1 '-38' (= the whole MS); 15 lines; gilt-edged; siglum Bb (Schweighäuser's Pf.). See O m o n t , InventaireU 197. Bb derives from a lost apograph of Ne [ed. Paris 1540], See pp. 61-62. 37. Parisinus gr. 2124 (Mazarin.-Reg. 3487) early 16th century (Dr. Chr. Forstel of the Bibliothèque Nationale writes me that the watermark is similar to Piccard, Anker V 214 (Görz 1511); the o t h e r watermarks of the same type shown by Piccard b e l o n g to t h e p e r i o d 1501-1527); (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 75, nr. 156 (= I 119)); paper; 166 χ 120 mm.; ff. I, 18, I; Ench ff. l'-18 v (= the whole MS); 21 lines; siglum U (Schweighäuser's Pg.). See O m o n t , InventaireU 197. U is primarily based on SiC [Vat. gr. 327], but has u n d e r g o n e intensive contamination from a n u m b e r of other MSS. See pp. 55-57. 38. Parisinus gr. 3047 (Medic.-Reg. 3357) A.D. 1420; Georgius Chrysococces (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 56, nr. 95); paper; 219 χ 140 mm.; ff. II, 200, I; Ench ff. 76v-83v; 25 lines; contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 11, 15, 19a, 19b, 22, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 23-29 4 , 31, 33 9 , 33 12 , 18 (iterum), 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52; siglum Φ . See O m o n t , Inventaire III 99. Φ is a gemellus of Ω [Vat. Urb. gr. 132]; the lost c o m m o n ancestor of these two MSS is a gemellus of the lost source of Π [Laur. 31,37] a n d Ψ [Vat. gr. 1314], and thus is descended indirectly from δ; Φ is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 2527. 39. Parisinus Sufjpl. gr. 200 second half of the 16th century; (cf. Besançon 420); paper; 161 χ 107 mm.; ff. 30; watermark: m o n o g r a m IG on a crowned escutcheon with the n a m e I. G u é r a r d (Briquet 9458); Ench ff. l r -30 r (= the whole MS); 15 lines; gilt-edged; siglum Cc. See O m o n t , Inventaire III 230. Cc derives from alost apograph o f N e [ed. Paris 1540]. See pp. 61-62. 40. Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1023 (Coisl. 332) first quarter of the 16th century; <Johannes Phroulas> (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 106, nr. 248 (= I 189)); paper; 206 χ 140 mm.; ff.

VI, 192; Ench ff. l'-15 r ; 24 lines; also contains Simp·, siglum F. See Astruc-Concasty III 105; Hadot, Tradition 7-13, 16-20, 101-102. F is a gemellus of Ε [Par. gr. 2072]; their lost c o m m o n ancestor, λ, is a gemellus of J [Vat. Pal. gr. 149], a n d thus derives indirectly from C [Ambr. gr. 481], See pp. 43-44. 41. ParisinusSuppl.gr. 1164 (olim Athous) early 14th century; Ench is written in two hands: the first scribe copied f. 22' and the first part of f. 24v, the second scribe the rest; all corrections and variant readings are due to the first scribe; paper; 275 χ 190 mm.; ff. 48 (the blank folia 34 and 35 were inserted later); Ench 22 r 27 r ; 33-35 lines; siglum A. See Astruc-Concasty III 328-330; Bühler 4153, 315-327. A is a gemellus of the c o m m o n source of Ww [Vat. gr. 894] a n d C [Ambr. gr. 481], and thus a primary witness; it is the source of Η [Laur. 55,7], See pp. 19-21, 31-33. 42. Parisinus Dupuy 902 second half of the 16th century; (cf. Besançon 420); paper; 163 χ 106 mm.; ff. II, 39, I; Ench l'-39 v (= the whole MS); 15 lines; watermark: m o n o g r a m IG on a crowned escutc h e o n with the name I. Guérard (Briquet 9458); gilt-edged; siglum Dd. See Dorez II 643. Dd derives from a lost apograph of Ne [ed. Paris 1540]. See pp. 61-62. 43. Parisinus Mazarineus 4459 (olim 1233) first half of the 16th century; the same scribe as Κ [Vat. Barb. gr. 76] and M [Vind. phil. gr. 234]; paper; 211 χ 158 mm.; ff. I, 216; Ench ff. 1'-17V; 20 lines; also contains Simp\ siglum I. T h e first folio of I is missing; the text of Ench starts at 2 1 ,4 [περιπί]πτων. See Molinier III 355; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 104. I derives from Κ [Vat. Barb. gr. 76]; it is the source of M [Vind. phil. gr. 234], See pp. 46-47. 44. Rome, Angelicus gr. 80 15th century; paper; 280 χ 220 mm.; ff. 282; Ench ff. 27L'-282V; 23-24 lines; siglum S. See Franchi d e ' Cavalieri—Muccio 126-127 (= Samberger II 140-141). S derives from R [Laur. 74,13]. See p. 36. 45. Uppsalensis gr. 25 16th century; paper; 134 χ 88 mm.; ff. VI, 47; watermark Piccard, Lilie

950; Ench Ι'-40 1 ; 16 lines; acquired in 1817 from the auction of the library of E.M. Fant; siglum G. See Graux-Martin 339. G derives from Tr [ed. Trincavelli, 1535]; G is the source of V [Bernensis 691], W [Laur. CS 163] and X [Par. gr. 2122], See pp. 6365. 46. Vaticanus gr. 100 (olim 111; miscellaneus) 14th-15th century; paper; 227 χ 147 mm.; ff. IV, 298; Ench ff. 295'298' ; 35-39 lines; contains chs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14a, 14b, 16, 19-21, 29 r>7 , 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 50, 53; siglum Vv. See Mercati—Franchi de' Cavalieri 113-115. Vv is a gemellus of R [Laur. 74,13]; the lost c o m m o n ancestor of these two MSS derives from Mm [Athen. Benaki Museum 45]. See pp. 35-36. 47. Vaticanus gr. 894 (olim 962) e n d of the 15th century; written in Florence (note on f. 43); paper; 212 χ 148 mm.; ff. I, 120 (re vera 119); Ench ff. 110M13 1 ; 21 lines; contains chs. 8, 21, 334"9, 3 3 " , 33 13 , 46, 5a, 5b, 18, 53, 35, 40, 48a, 53, 5a, 5b (chs. 5a, 5b and 53 twice); siglum Ww. See Schreiner 64-66. Ww is a gemellus of C [Ambr. gr. 481], and thus a primary witness. See pp. 19, 32-33. 48. Vaticanus gr. 952 15th century; paper; 220 χ 142 mm.; Ench ff. 51v-65v; 27-28 lines with many interlinear scholia; contains chs. 3, 5b, 5a, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22, 23, 27, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29', 33 9 , 33'*, 48b with scholia; siglum Θ. θ is a gemellus of Δ [Neap. U.C.37], and thus d e p e n d s via τ and ς on δ; θ is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21,25,27-30. 49. Vaticanus gr. 1314 3 / 1 2 / 1 4 4 9 ; (cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 3536, nr. 18); paper; 219 χ 140 mm.; ff. IV, 280; Ench ff. 216 v -220 v ; 29 lines; contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17-19b, 22-29 4 , 31, 33", 3 3 3 4 , 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52; siglum Ψ . Ψ is a gemellus of Π [Laur. 31,37]; the lost source of these MSS derives from ρ, and thus from δ; Ψ is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25-26.

50. Vaticanus gr. 1823 (miscdlaneus) 13th-16th century (the whole codex), 14th century (Ench); paper; 225 χ 140 mm.; ff. 282; Ench a. 136-139, 146-151, 140-145 (the folia are in disorder; the folio containing chs. 26-29 4init has got lost); 19-23 lines with scholia s u r r o u n d i n g the text; contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22-25, 29 4 (starting at 1. 22 ώς), 31, 33l->, 331*, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52 with scholia; siglum A. See Canart 224-240. Λ is closely related to Γγ [Monac. gr. 529] and thus derives via ς from δ; A is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25, 27-30. 51. Vaticanus gr. 1858 (miscdlaneus) 14th-16th century (the whole codex), first quarter of the 15th century (Ench)·, paper; 215 χ 145 mm.; ff. I, 263; Ench ff. 148'-152' ; 61-65 lines; contains chs. 3, 5b, 5a, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19a, 19b, 22, 23, 27, 24, 25, 26, 28, 291"4, 31, 33«, 33>a, 34, 35, 38, 42, 39, 43, 46, 48a, 48b with scholia; siglum Ξ. See Canart 356-358. Ξ derives from the same lost MS as Σ [Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11] and the lost source of Δ [Neap. II.C.37] and θ [Vat. gr. 952]; thus Σ derives via τ a n d ς f r o m δ ; Ξ is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25, 27-30. 52. Vaticanus gr. 1862 (miscellaneus) 15th-16th century (the whole codex), 16th century (Ench); paper; 170 χ 120 m m . ; ff. 159; Ench ff. 98'-102 v (Canart remarks: " o r d o restituendus: 101, 98-99, 102, 100"); 18 lines; contains chs. 24 3 -28, 3031 4 , 47-49,5 επεσθοα; siglum Xx. See Canart 375-384. Xx is a gemellus of Ζ [Leid. Perizon. gr. Ο 5]; the lost source of these two MSS derives from the 1535 edition by Trincavelli (or o n e of its derivatives); there are cases of agreement with other late MSS. See p. 63. 53. Vaticanus gr. 1950 first half of the 14th century; oriental paper (ff. 394-396a occidental paper); 243 χ 165 mm.; ff. Ill, 548; Ench 392 v -393 v ; 27-29 lines; contains Ench 1-3, the rest of the Epictetean text is Par, the transition f r o m Ench to Par being indicated by a line of crosses after Ench 3 (the catalogue wrongly states that the whole text is Par); siglum Yy. T h e MS is nowadays b o u n d in two volumes. See Canart 762-766.

Yy derives f r o m a lost MS which was the ancestor of a n u m b e r of primary MSS of the first family: A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164], C [Ambr. gr. 481], Ww [Vat. gr. 894], a n d the eleven derivatives of δ; it is also possible that the source of Yy should be located between AC and δ. Thus Yy is a primary witness. See pp. 21-22. 54. Vaticanus Barbmnianus gr. 4 early 14th century; paper; 128 χ 85 mm.; ff. Ill, 187 (+ 186 a ); f. 19v contains Ench 33 1 6 ; 18-30 lines (the folio containing the f r a g m e n t from Ench has 23 lines) ; siglum Uu. See Capocci I 2-6. Uu is a derivative or a gemellus of Τ [Athen. 373]. See p. 52. 55. Vaticanus Barbmnianus gr. 76 16th century; the same scribe as I [Par. Mazar. 4459] and M [Vind. phil. gr. 234]; paper; 211 χ 151 mm.; ff. I, 233; Ench l r -19 r ; 20 lines; also contains Simp; siglum K. O n f. l r there is an owner's note: J u a n Bautista geafron (?); Diomelo D ( o n ) f e r n a n d o Aluia, De Castro en L(i)x(bo)a a. 1614. See Capocci I, 95-96; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 103104. Κ is a gemellus of Q [Oxon. Coll. Nov. 247], a n d thus derives indirectly from C [Ambr. gr. 481]; it is the source of I [Par. Mazar. 4459], See pp. 45-47. 56. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 149 ca. 1500 A.D.; E m m a n u e l Zacharidès (subscription on fol. 163v; cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 76-77, nr. 114); 213 χ 151 mm.; ff. 318; Ench ff. 149 r -163 v ; 22-23 lines; siglum J. See Stevenson, Pal. 80-81. J is a gemellus of the lost c o m m o n ancestor of Ε [Par. gr. 2072] and F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023]; the lost c o m m o n source of J E F derives indirectly from C [Ambr. gr. 481]. See p. 43. 57. Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 132 A.D. 1420 (subscription on f. 144 v ); the same scribe as Φ [Par. gr. 3047], that is, Georgius Chrysococces; parchment; 184 χ 110 mm.; ff. 144; Ench ff. 139 v -144 v ; 19 lines; contains chs. 3, 5a, 5b, 11, 15, 19a, 19b, 22, 24-29 1 , 31, 33 9 , 34, 35, 43, 48b, 42; siglum Ω. See Stornajolo 236-238. Ω is a gemellus of Φ [Par. gr. 3047]; the lost c o m m o n ancestor of these two MSS is a gemellus of the lost source of Π [Laur. 31,37] and Ψ [Vat. gr. 1314], and thus d e p e n d s indirectly on δ; Ω is a primary witness with restricted i n d e p e n d e n t value. See pp. 19-21, 25-27.

58. Vindobonensis phil. gr. 37 16th century; paper; 310 χ 2 0 5 / 8 mm.; ff. I, 295; Ench ff. 165 r -l7l v ; 30 lines; also contains Simp; siglum L. See H u n g e r I 162-163; Hadot, Tradition 27-35, 105. L is a gemellus of Y [Neap. III.E.29]; the lost source of these two MSS is descended indirectly f r o m C [Ambr. gr. 481], See pp. 43-45, 47-48. 59. Vindobonensis phil. gr. 234 16th century; the same scribe as Κ [Vat. Barb. gr. 76] a n d I [Par. Mazar. 4459]; paper; 210 χ 150 mm.; ff. I, 227; Ench l r -18 v ; 22 lines; also contains Simp; siglum M. See H u n g e r I 342-343; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 104. M derives from I [Par. Mazar. 4459], See pp. 46-47. Lost manuscripts Argentoratensis Schweighäuseri: this MS contained both Ench and Simp; see Schweighäuser XCII-XCIV; Schweighäuser tells us that he bought the MS f r o m the Huberiana section of the Basel Library, and that h e gave it to the University Library at Strassburg. H e r e is Schweighäuser's description: "Constat foliis bombycinis nonaginta, majoris formae: eleganter 8c adcurate a d m o d u m e m e n d a t e q u e sub finem seculi XV, ut mihi videtur, scriptus; literae initiales scite minio pictae. Subscripsit in fine n o m e n suum scriba verbis: ' Ε λ ά χ ι σ τ ο ς Νικόλαος πανεύφημος, τάχα δέ καί θύτης, καί ταύτην την βίβλον έν Κρήτη ξυνέγραψεν, ουκ άνευ δέ μισθού." Schweighäuser states that this MS is closely related to Par. gr. 2072 (my E). Schweighäuser uses the siglum Arg. for this MS; for the lemmata in Simp, however, he indicates it Ax. Schweighäuser reports an owner's note on the inside of the j a c k e t : "Reverendo & clarissimo viro, Dn. M. I o h a n n i Rodolpho Wetstenio, Professori Graecae Linguae in Academia patria dignissimo, vetus hoc Graecanicae literaturae m o n u m e n t u m , in amicitiae m o n u m e n t u m D.D. Iohannes Iacobus Werenfels, Ecclesiae ad D. Martin, minister. 17 Februar, a n n o 1639." T h e MS got lost in a fire during the war of 1870. Codex Gerdesianus: see p. 76. Petropolitanus 150: destroyed by fire in Warsaw in the Second World War; Schenkl LX states "est cur suspiceris h u n c librum affinitatis q u o d a m vinculo coniunctum esse cum Meibomii Hafniensi". Trabzond 1, Μονή Περιστερά: lost in the war of 1922; see Kolia 212. T h e subscription of this MS (quoted by Kolia) is the same as in Η

[Laur. 55,7] (and its derivatives Ο [Berol. gr. 175], Ρ [Escor, gr. 39] and Ff [Lond. Burney 80]). Taurinenses B.VI.49 (olim b.1.26) and B.VII.15 (olim b.1.20): lost in the fire of 1904. Taurinensis C.VI.3 (olim c.1.42): partly destroyed in the fire of 1904; the folia which contained fragments of Ench (ff. 202-205) are lost. Venetus Marcianus gr. App. cl. XI 13 must have contained Ench on some folia which have got lost (the twelfth quinio); see H a d o t , Tradition 106. Villebrune's MSS nrs. 7 and 8. Villebrune, p. 206, gives the following description: "7. Codex in Italia ante u n d e c i m a n n o s collatus, membranaceus et antiquissimi aevi, cujus, et sequentis 8, mihi lectiones utendas reliquerat, tum juvenis, Berger Germanus. 7. m. Variae lectiones h u j u s codicis. 8. Alter codex ab e o d e m collatus, n o n melioris notae."

Stemma codicum et editionum Epicteti Encheiridii

τ

SiC

? Uu

Ο

Mm χ

Ρ Ff Hh

/ \ R

Q Ν

Κ I

Ee

Ha

Tr G

/I\

V w X

SI

Sc

Ne Χ

ι ζ / \Xx

Wo

M

Aa Bb Cc Dd Nn Pp

S

χ

Β

ζ D

I Vv

Gg

θ

J

CHAPTER TWO

T H E AFFILIATION OF T H E MANUSCRIPTS AND T H E EDITIO PRINCEPS OF EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRIDION

As can be seen on the accompanying diagram (p. 18) the MSS of Ench are divided into two families. T h e first family consists of all the MSS with the exception of Τ [Atheniensis 373] 1 , which (together with the s u p p l e m e n t e d lemmata in Simplicius' commentary as f o u n d in SiC [Vat. gr. 327]) r e p r e s e n t s the second family. T h e first family is accompanied by the supplemented lemmata in Sib, the main representatives of which are SiG [Ven. Marc. gr. 261], Sz'H [Bonon. 2359] and SeJ [Par. gr. I960], T h e sixteenth-century editions after the editio princeps by Haloander (1529) and the MSS d e p e n d i n g partly or completely on one or more editions will be discussed in a separate chapter; see pp. 58-85.

The first family T h e first family is split into two sub-families. T h e first consists of only o n e MS, namely Tt [Oxon. Canon, gr. 23], which contains a selection f r o m Ench; T t w i l l be discussed below (pp. 23-25). T h e second comprises all the other members of the first family. T h e second sub-family consists of two branches. T h e first branch is r e p r e s e n t e d by A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164] a n d C [Ambr. gr. 481] (indicated by means of the collective siglum γ ) , which are the direct or indirect sources of the other MSS and the editions (C's gemellus Ww [Vat. gr. 894], which contains a selection, will be discussed below; see pp. 32-33). T h e second branch consists of a g r o u p of eleven MSS (collective siglum δ) containing a selection from Ench: Γ [Dresd. Da 55], Γγ [Monac. gr. 529], Δ [Neap. II.C.37], θ [Vat. gr. 952], Λ [Vat. gr. 1823], Ξ [Vat. gr. 1858], Π [Laur. 31,37], Σ [Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11], Φ [Par. gr. 3047], Ψ [Vat. gr. 1314], Ω [Vat. Urb. gr.

1

Uu [Vat. Barb. gr. 4], which only contains ch. 33 16 , appears to be related to T; see p. 52.

132] 2 . Here are a n u m b e r of readings which prove that both branches derive from a c o m m o n source, which I will indicate β: 5a,4 5a,4 9,1 121,! 19b2,4 253,13 26,2 312,7 339,23 512,12

εκείνο τό δεννόν έστιν o m . (et Stob. ) τ α ρ α σ σ ώ μ ε θ α ] σπαραττώμεθα AC: σ π α ρ α σ σ ώ μ ε θ α δ δέ]δέδόξα έπιλογισμούς] διαλογισμούς εχει] εξει δν o m . ά λ λ ο υ ] του γείτονος ά λ λ ο (του γείτονος ά λ λ ο υ Vat ut vid.) οφης άπό] άποστής (et Nil Vat) τά alteram o m . μέμνησο] καί μέμνησο

I have not noted errors which unmistakably find their origin in the misreading of majuscule script.

T h e AC-group and the g r o u p of selection MSS both have separative errors of their own. First, I will quote some readings peculiar to the selection MSS3: 5a,5 12 2 ,9 22.6 242,9 255,19 26,4-5 313,15 3312,33 42.7 461,4 482,6

άλλον] άλλους οτι]καίοτι χώραν] τ ά ξ ι ν πολίτας 'Ρωμαίων] ρωμαίων πολίτας τό-είσόδου o m . οτε-κατεάγη] οταν-καταγη ώσπερ] οθεν μ ά λ ι σ τ α ] καί μ ά λ ι σ τ α οτι o m . άφηρήκει π α ν τ α χ ό θ ε ν ] πανταχόθεν άφηρήκει καόισταμένων] καθεστώτων

In o n e place the r e a d i n g of δ appears to result f r o m conjectural emendation: at 31 4 ,17-18 Γ Δ Α Ξ Σ read καί πολυνείκην καί έτεοκλέα τοΰτ' έποίησε πολεμίους άλλήλοις. That the words πολεμίους άλλήλοις were interpolated is also suggested by the fact that Π Φ Ψ Ω have τοΰτο

2 These MSS do not all have exactly the same contents: chs. 49, 51, 52 are only found in Λ Π Φ Ψ Γ γ ; ch. 10 only occurs in Π Φ Ψ ; Φ has some irregularities in the order of the chapters; θ and Ω miss a number of chapters (not the same ones) which are present in most other members of the group. Γγ only has chs. 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52. Six of the MSS ( Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ and Γγ) have numerous glosses and scholia. Cf. the catalogue of MSS, pp. 3-17. 3 I will not specify those places where some members of the group do not join the rest, as a result of contamination or conjectural emendation.

πολεμίους άλλήλοις έποίησε, Γ Δ Λ Ξ Σ reading τοΰτ' έποίησε πολεμίους άλλήλοις. H e r e are some characteristic readings of AC (= γ). I will also quote readings of γ in places where the selection MSS are absent, as these readings serve to separate γ f r o m T. T h e places where the selection MSS are present are marked with an asterisk. 14,12 22,10 4,5 8,2 *12 2 ,7 12 2 ,10 *24 5 ,27 30,5 *31 2 ,11 *31 4 ,22 32 1 ,2 36,2-4 *39,2 *39,3 40,3 *48b 3 ,7 53 2 ,6

τη λικούτων ] τη λικούτου ουδέν om. εύθΰς οτι] οτι ευθύς εύροήσεις] εύ ποιήσεις απάθεια] ευπάθεια α λ λ ' ] καί άποτελεσθείς] άποτελεΐσθαι τάξιν] πραξιν μέμφεσθαί] μέμψασθαί έπιμελείται] έπιμελεΐσθαι αύτδ πευσόμενος] άποπευσόμενος προς-άξίαν om. τούτου] τούτοις έπι] ύπο συγκοιμώνται] συγκοιμάσθαι ήρκεν] ήρηκεν καλώς] κακώς

In some cases the reading of γ appears to be based on conjectural emendation. T h u s at 14a 1 ,3 γ omits the words οϋτω-άμαρτάνειν, as a result of which the words μωρός εί remain isolated: this problem is solved by the insertion of εί before θέλεις in line 2. At 26,2 γ has τοΰ γείτονος άλλο for άλλου; τοΰ γείτονος looks like a gloss on άλλου. At 53 ! ,1 γ has έπί παντός προχείρου εύκτέον (C: εύκταΐον Α) ταΰτα: I guess that first πρόχειρον was corrupted into προχείρου (an easy slip after παντός); thus έκτέον ταΰτα became senseless, which lead to the conjecture εύκτέον. It should be stressed that it also possible that these readings were already in β, the c o m m o n source of γ and δ, which is valid for all readings in those passages where δ is absent. Yy [Vat. gr. 1950] Yy contains only chs. 1-3 of Ench; after this it has the text of Par (siglum Ρ Ζ, see pp. 230-231). In a n u m b e r of places Yy agrees in error with ACÔ (δ only has ch. 3 in c o m m o n with Yy): 14,12 1 4 ,17

τηλικούτων] τηλικούτου περιγίνεται] παραγίνεται

1 5 ,21 3,1

έστιν-ήμίν alterum om. χρείαν] χρείας (non ita ΠΦΨΩ)

On the other h a n d AC have separative errors against Yy: 1 4 ,17 2 2 .9 2 2 .10 3,1 3,3

έλευθερία και ευδαιμονία] ευδαιμονία και έλευθερία άτυχείν] εύτυχεΐν ουδέν om. παρεχόντων] παρασχόντων άρξάμενος] αρχόμενος

δ has only o n e slight e r r o r against Yy, namely 3,3 σμικροτάτων] μικρότατων (but, as I already stated, Yy and δ only have ch. 3 [five lines of text] in c o m m o n ) . Yy, in its turn, has separative errors against ACÔ; some instances: 13,9 1 3 ,12 l 4 ,17 3.4 3.5

ώσπερ έστίν, άλλότριον om. πείση] ποιήση μόνων] μόνον καταφιλης] καταφιλεΐς (et RS Π) καταφιλεΐς] καταφιλής

T h e r e are no separative errors of ACô against Yy; therefore Yy may either be a gemellus of AC or of ACÔ. Accordingly, Yy is a primary witness. In the places where Yy agrees in error with ACÔ (just quoted above), the reading of ACôYy is not f o u n d in Sz'ô, which is a gemellus of the lost c o m m o n source of ACÔYy. It is to be regretted that from Ench 4 on the scribe of Yy decided to copy Par instead of Ench: if he had continued to copy Ench, we could have r e c o n s t r u c t e d the readings of β in those places where δ is absent.

The lemmata in Siô T h e ACÔ(Yy)-family is j o i n e d by the supplemented lemmata in Sib, f o r which see p p . 100-102. I have n o t e d the following cases of agreement between Sib and £ A C ( ô ) : 12s,8 16,3 19b 2 ,3 22,7 29 332,4

περιγίνεται] παραγίνεται (non ita AC) ευθύς] ευθύς διαίρει παρά σεαυτώ καί λέγε (et Vat) αγαθού] απαθούς θαυμάσονται] θαυμάσουσιν habent (Εδ tantum 291"4; totum caput habent et Nil Vat) παρακαλούντος] παρακολουθούντος (et Vat ; καλούν SG1*8')

3310,28 462,8 49,7 49,12 512,13 52 2 ,11 53*,1 53],2

σ υ γ κ ι ν ε ΐ σ θ α ι ] έπικινεΐσθαι (et Vat, συγ SiG1 *sl) ä] ö έξηγησόμενον]έξηγούμενον όταν τις] τις οταν t/ ι »/ οτι] ετι άποδείκνυται] δει ά π ο δ ε ι κ ν ύ ν α ι πρόχειρα] προχείρου αγου] αγε

O n the other h a n d there are many places where EACb have a separative error against Siô; some instances: 5a,4 9.1 12 1 ,1 19b2,4 26,2

εκείνο το δεινόν έστιν o m . δε] δε δ ό ξ α έπιλογισμούς] διαλογισμούς εχει] εξει ά λ λ ο υ ] τού γείτονος ά λ λ ο

In the chapters where E b is absent, there are a n u m b e r of errors of AC; some instances 4 : 14,12 22,9 8.2 12 2 ,10 14a1,3

τηλικούτων] τηλικούτου άτυχεΐν] εύτυχεΐν εύροήσεις] εύ ποιήσεις ά λ λ ' ] καί οϋτω-άμαρτάνειν o m .

Sib has separative readings of its own (see p. 101). T h e conclusion is that Sib is a gemellus of EACb, and must therefore be regarded as a primary witness to the text of Ench. In AC6&'6 there is a tendency to add particles and pronouns; see for instance 51 ^ 3 εδει συμβάλλειν] εδει σε συμβάλλειν.

Tt [Oxon. Canon, gr. 23] Tt contains only a selection from Ench (cf. pp. 9-10). It takes u p a position between ACbSib and Τ [Athen. 373], sharing errors with both. T h e cases of agreement in error with the AC bSib group, however, are more striking than the agreements in error with T. Therefore, I think it most likely that Tt derives from the same source as ACÔ& Ô, and has been contaminated with a congener of T.

4 The instances quoted all occur in the earlier chapters, because from ch. 24 on the text of Ench in SiH is abbreviated, while .SJ often agrees with Ε AC as a result of contamination.

First, I will list a n u m b e r of readings c o m m o n to T t a n d the (in the places marked with an asterisk δ is present):

ACÔSZÔ ' group 13,5 16,1 16,4 *18,2 *19b 2 ,3 33 13 ,37 36.4 45.5 *51 1 ,3

άλλ' άνάγκη-άμελήσαι] άλλά-άμελήσαι πάσα ανάγκη ϊδης] ϊδης τινά ευθύς] εύθύς διαίρει παρά σεαυτώ καί λέγε λέγε] λέγε οτι αγαθού] άπαθούς έντιναχθήσονταί] έκτιναχθήσονταί κοινωνικόν] κοινόν λαμβάνειν] καταλαμβάνειν έδει] έδει σε

Further, Tt has ch. 295"7: ACS* δ have the whole of ch. 29, Eb has sections 1-4; the whole chapter is absent from Τ and its gemellus S C [Vat. gr. 327]. To my mind, ch. 29 is interpolated; see p. 127. In a few places Tt agrees significantly with Sib, esp. SiG\ some instances: 122,10 296,26-27 297,36

καλώς] καλώς, ολως δέ σοι καλώς (et Vat) ομοίως όργίζεσθαι habent Tt SiG Nil Vat: om. ACSzJ περί habent Tt SiG Nil Vat. om. ACSzJ

O n the other hand, instances: *121,5

30.3 33 Π ,31 33 13 ,39 *34,8

ACÔSZÔ have

a n u m b e r of errors against Tt; some

Kaiom.

κακός πατήρ] πατήρ κακός είκη] ήκε έλθών om. (habet SiG) post αύτού add. και ηδύ

In the following places Tt agrees in error with Τ (and sometimes with SiC, a gemellus of T, as well): 122,10 243,17 30,7 34,9 35.1 35.4 36.2 36.3 43,1-3 512,14

σέ μη] έμέ (et Simp Stob.) αύτά ταύτα] ταύτα αύτά μή σύ] σύ μή συνειδέναι] συνειδήσαι (et SiG) μηδέποτε] μηδεπώποτε (et SB Nil) φεύγε] φύγε (et SiC) άπαξίαν] άναξίαν (et Vat\ άνα[4] SiC) μείζω] μείζονα (et Simp) λαβάς-λαβή] βλάβας-βλάβη καί alterum om.

T h e reading at 34,7 shows beyond d o u b t that Tt has u n d e r g o n e contamination: εΰκαιρον TSiC: σοι καιρός ACÔSZÔ: εΰκαιρόν σοι Tt.

Tt has a large n u m b e r of separative e r r o r s of its own; see for instance: 11,3-4 14b 2 ,3 19b 2 ,3 297,32 30,6 33 13 ,40 43,2 48b 2 ,2 511,1

άλλά-άφελόμενος om. φευγέτω] φθεγγέτω ή] εύ παιδία] παιδάρια τί] οτι ίδιωτικον γαρ] γαρ ίδιωτικον 6 αδελφός έάν άδικη] οταν άδικεΐ (sic) ό άδελφός δντος] όντα βέλτιστων] μεγίστων

My conclusion is that Tt is a gemellus of AC bSib, which has underg o n e contamination with T. T h u s Tt must be regarded as a primary witness. In a few places Tt has been corrected by a later hand.

The selection MSS (δ) T h e offspring of δ can be divided into two branches. T h e first of these is constituted by Π [Laur. 31,37], Φ [Par. gr. 3047], Ψ [Vat. gr. 1314], Ω [Vat. Urb. gr. 132]; collective siglum ρ. T h e second by the other MSS: Γ [Dresd. Da 55], Γγ [Monac. gr. 529], Δ [Neap. II.C.37], θ [Vat. gr. 952], Λ [Vat. gr. 1823], Ξ [Vat. gr. 1858], Σ [Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11]; collective siglum ς. Both g r o u p s of MSS have conjunctive errors, which have separative value against the o t h e r group. First I will list some readings peculiar to ρ: 15,1 15.3 17.4 243,17 244,24 252,5 292,5

σε δει] δει σε πόρρω] πόρρωθεν γάρτοΰτ' om. (deest Ω) μάλλον om. αυτός άνωφελής αν] άν αυτός άνωφελής εχειν om. σκόπει] σκόπει και (deest Ω)

In some places ρ does not have errors f o u n d in ς and AC: 3,1 χρείαν h a b e t ρ: χρείας AC ς; 26,3 πρόχειρον h a b e t ρ: πρόχειρόν é o u A C ς; 49,12 όταν τις habet ρ (deest Ω): τις όταν AC Λ Γ γ (desunt Γ Δ Θ Ξ Σ ) ; 51',3 συμβέβληκας habet ρ (deest Ω): συμβέβηκας AC Α Γ γ (desunt Γ Δ Θ Ξ Σ ) . Such readings may be d u e to c o n j e c t u r e or coincidence, but they may also result f r o m contamination. H e r e are some distinctive readings of ζ:

15,1 17,2 24^3 24 2 ,8 254,17 293,15 33 12 ,33 39,4-6 462,11 48a 1 ,2.4

ώς om. βραχύ] βραχύν δι' άλλον om. τό om. εί om. είτα] νυν δέ έν om. γίνεται-έστιν om. (deest θ ) έσω] ένδον (deest θ ) προσδοκά] προσδοκάν (deest θ )

T h e f o u r MSS Π Φ Ψ Ω are divided into two g r o u p s of two MSS, namely Π Ψ and Φ Ω ( Φ and Ω have been copied by the same scribe). Π Ψ have four distinctive readings, three of which are very slight: 28.1 311,6 42,3 49.2

άπαντήσαντι] άπατήσαντι εγκαλέσεις] έγκαλίσεις τω alteram] τό σεαυτόν] σαυτόν

Φ Ω have the following distinctive readings: 3,2 31 1 ,! 312,10 315,24 339 ,23 339 ,23 34.3 48b 2 ,2 48b 3 ,8

όποιον έστιν om. τό om. καί περιπίπτης οίς ού θέλεις om. έπισεσυρμένως] έπισεσηρμένως γαρ] καί προσόντα μοι] μοι προσόντα παρά] περί ούδενί] ούδένα μετατέθεικεν] μετατέθηκεν

Π a n d Ψ are gemelli, as appears f r o m the fact that they both have separative errors against each other; Π has only two errors against Ψ : 34,8 51 3 ,13

αύτοΰ] αύτό 'Ολύμπια] όλύπια

Some instances of readings peculiar to Ψ : 11.4 243,17 292,6 314,22 42.5 48b 2 ,3

δια τίνος σε ό δούς] ό δούς γάρ σε (conjecture?) μή om. ακόλουθα] έπόμενα (glossema) έν] ώς έν ψεύδος] ψεύδει έμποδισθή] έμπλησθη

Φ a n d Ω, too, are gemelli, as is shown by their distinctive readings; first I will list the few separative errors of Φ: 254,16

εϊ σοι λυσιτελεΐ όσου πωλείται] όσου πωλείται εϊ σοι λυσιτελεΐ

26,6 31 4 ,19-20

εϊποι] εϊπη δια τοΰτο ό έμπορος om.

Φ has been contaminated f r o m Par, witness the addition of οί οίρτοι άπόλλυνται before επίλεγε at 12 2 ,7. T h e errors of Ω are the following: 19b 2 ,3 24 4 ,23 25^4 27,2 48b2,3

έν om. πιστον om. σύ om. γίνεται] τίθεται τι alterum om.

T h e c o m m o n source of the other MSS, ς, appears to have had double readings in some places; see for instance 46 2 ,9 οίσθα] ήσθα Δ 1 ι Τ ί 8ΛΞΣ (deest θ , lectio Γ et Γγ n o n constat). Λ has the following errors against the other members of the group: 11.4 18.5 24 3 ,15 34,9 38,2 46 1 ,1 46 2 ,9 48b 3 ,8 52 2 ,8

τίνος] τί άποβαίνη] άποβαίνοι δέ] δαι (sic, sine accentu) άντιτίθει] άντιτίθη στρέψης] στρέψεις εϊπης] ε'ίποις εϊπη] εϊποι άπαντα] άπαντας δέ om. (desunt Γ Δ Θ Α Σ )

Most of these readings do not tell us very much, but the readings at 11,4 and 48b 3 ,8 are conclusive: A cannot be considered the source of the other MSS. Γγ, which contains only chs. 43, 46, 48a, 48b, 49, 51, 52, is closely related to Λ, but it is hard, if not impossible, to determine its position within the g r o u p more specifically, because in ch. 48a and 48b Γγ is flatly illegible, while in chs. 49, 51, 52 Γ Δ Θ Λ Σ are absent. T h e only conjunctive error of Λ and Γγ in the parts where all MSS are present (with the exception of Θ) is 46 2 ,9 εϊπη] εϊποι; although this is a very slight error, it seems to suggest that Λ and Γγ derive f r o m a c o m m o n ancestor. Here are the other readings f o u n d in A and Γγ exclusively: 49,9 49,12 52 2 .8 52 2 .9 52 2 ,11 52 2 ,11

τό om. (vix legibile in Γγ) εϊπη μοι] ε'ίποιμι ημείς] καί ημείς ήμιν om. ούοηι. έχομεν] ούκ έχομεν Γγ 1 Λ l m 8

Γγ has two errors of its own (51^6 ραθυμήσης] ραθυμήσεις and 51 3 ,17 γε είναι om. (nisi fallor) ), while A omits 49,9 τό. Therefore I conclude that Λ and Γγ are gemelli. Another indication of the close relationship of Λ a n d Γγ is constituted by the fact that in both MSS the selection from Ench is followed by what is remarkably called επικτήτου έγχειρίδιον δεύτερον, a selection f r o m the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius 5 . Γ (which in many places is hardly legible, cf. pp. 4-5) too has some readings of its own, which separate it from the other MSS: 11,1 12 2 ,8 24 2 .10 24 2 .11 25 3 ,11 25 3 ,11 31 3 ,11 42,1 46 2 ,10

εϊπης] ε'ιποις προίκα δέ ούδέν περιγίνεται om. ( e t A a c l ) ούχί] ού έχει] σχή λάβη] λάβοι λάβης] λάβοις γαρ om. τίς σε] τις εις σε φέροντα] ήγουν ούκ έξεμοΰντα χόρτον s.l.

In Boter, Translations 173-174, I have shown that Γ (or a lost relative of Γ) is o n e of the two MSS used by Politian for his translation of Ench. T h e remaining four MSS Δ Θ Ξ Σ (collective siglum τ) clearly stand apart against the others, as is shown by the large n u m b e r of their conjunctive errors (about 50) which separate t h e m f r o m the other MSS; some instances: 3,1-2 9,1-2 12 2 ,8 19b 2 ,1 24^3 25*,3 25 4 ,14 35.1 39,4 43.2 46 2 ,10

ή στεργομένων om. έάν μή αύτή θέλη om. προίκα] ανευ δόσεως προίκα (glossema) "Ορα] ορα ούν δύνασαι] δύναμαι αύτών έκεΐνος] αύτός έκείνων όσου] πόσου μηδέποτε] μήποτε υπέρ om. (deest θ ) ό] ό ούν (deest θ ) χόρτον φέροντα om. (deest θ )

In a few places Τ does not have an error f o u n d in the other members of the g r o u p (and in AC as well): 9,1 ου] δόξα, οΰ AC ΓΛρ (deest Ω); 25 3 ,13 öv om. AC Γ Λ Π Ψ : habet T (et Φ Ω ) . These divergencies may well result f r o m c o n t a m i n a t i o n or c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n . T h e following readings look like conjectures: 25 4 ,16 όσου πωλείται] τό 5

Cf. Farquharson I, xxxii.

πωλούμενον; 26,8 έγώ] έγώ βοά. At 25 3 ,11-12 τ has εχειν έλαττον for ελαττον έχειν with Α. Ξ has only two e r r o r s of its own, the first of which is quite negligible: 314,18 34,9

τυραννίδα] τυρανίδα άντιτίθει] άντίθει

As will be illustrated below, Δ Θ go back to a lost c o m m o n ancestor. It is very difficult indeed to establish the relationship between Ξ on the o n e h a n d and Δ Θ and Σ on the other. Either Ξ is the source of a lost c o m m o n ancestor of Δ Θ and Σ, or Δ Θ , Ξ and Σ go back to a lost MS (τ) independently 6 . T h e following observations plead for the derivation of Δ Θ Σ f r o m Ξ: 1. Ξ has only o n e serious e r r o r against the o t h e r three, which might have been restored ope ingenii (άντίθει for άντιτίθει); 2. at 3,5 Δ Θ Σ add αύτοΰ after αποθανόντος. O n the o t h e r h a n d , there are the following arguments against the derivation of Δ Θ Σ from Ξ: 1. apart from the addition of αύτοΰ at 3,5 Δ Θ Σ do not share conjunctive errors; 2. at 42,1 Ξ Σ Δ 1 ι η 8 have καλώς for the second κακώς (Δ has κ α κ ώ ς in the text; θ is absent): this situation can be explained m o r e easily by supposing that τ h a d a variant reading καλώς, which f o u n d its way into the text of Ξ and Σ and into the margin of Δ , than by assuming that Δ was contaminated independently 7 (we have already seen that τ contained conjectures in a few places); 3. although E's error άντίθει is only slight, it is an error all the same; 4. at 48b 2 ,1 Γ Θ Α Ξ have σημείον (with Nil), whereas Δ Σ read σημεία (with the other witnesses); the agreement between Δ and Σ h e r e can be explained by assuming that the source of Δ Θ Ξ Σ had both readings; on the o t h e r h a n d , it is hard to account for on the hypothesis that Δ Θ and Σ derive f r o m Ξ. With m u c h hesitation I have o p t e d for the second hypothesis; in this way the risk of unduly discarding primary witnesses is avoided. With regard to the addition of αύτοΰ at 3,5 I assume that this reading already was in t , but was neglected by Ξ 8 . 6

The possibility that Δ Θ and Σ go back to Ξ independently is refuted by their common reading αύτοΰ at 3,5 (see below) and by their reading καλούμενον in the title (see below, n. 8): if Ξ, being the source of Α Θ and Σ, had λεγόμενον in the title, it is excluded that both Δ Θ and Σ changed this independently into καλούμενον. 7 In Ξ and Δ'"8 there is a gloss ήτοι έπαινή above καλώς λέγη, whereas in the text Δ has the gloss ήτοι ΰβρίζη above κακώς λέγη. 8 There are a few cases that could be explained on either hypothesis. Δ Θ Ξ Σ have the title γνωμολόγιον έπικτήτου τό καλούμενον έγχειρίδιον, but Ξ has λεγόμενον

Δ and θ have a few errors in c o m m o n ; in combination with the fact that each of the two has separative errors against the other, this shows that they are gemelli, deriving f r o m a lost c o m m o n ancestor. First I will quote the conjunctive errors of Δ Θ : 5a,3 11.5 243,15 25 4 ,15

Σωκράτει] σωκράτη μέχρι] άχρι ύμείς om. θεραπείας πωλεί om.

Δ has only three errors of its own: 15.6 24^6 339,23

παρατεθέντων] παρατεθέντω έν om. έπεί om.

θ has a lot of separative errors, many of which c o n c e r n the orthography; some instances: 12^3 12 2 ,6 12 2 .9 24^6 24 2 .10 48b3,8

ά λ υ π ο ν ] άλουπον οίνάριον] ίνάριον ποιήσαι] ποιή έση] έστι έτέρφ] αίτέρω άνειμένη] άγγειμή (sic)

At 24 Χ ,3 Δ Θ omit the words δ ι ' άλλον ού μάλλον; θ has μάλον (sic) after δύνασαι, and thus reads ού δύνασαι μάλον έν κακώ είναι ή έν αίσχρώ; the addition of μ ά λ ο ν may well result f r o m c o n j e c t u r a l emendation. Σ has the following separative errors: 29 2 ,4 293.13 293.14 29 3 .15 34,4 46^4

θέλεις] μέλει σοι Δ Ξ : μέλλει σοι Σ (deest θ ) παιδία] παιδεία μονομάχους] μονάχους μονομάχος] μονάχος έπειτα] είτα άφηρήκει π α ν τ α χ ό θ ε ν Σωκράτης] καί σωκράτης π α ν τ α χόθεν άφηρήκει Σ : π α ν τ α χ ό θ ε ν άφηρήκει και σωκράτης

ΓΔΛΞΠΦΨΓγ Ss [Par. gr. 1054], which contains Ench 3, 5a a n d 5b, is related to τ, as appears f r o m the following readings:

instead of καλούμενον: neither καλούμενον nor λεγόμενον is certain to be the original reading. At 3,5 ΔΘΞ 1 5 ' read καταφιλώ: this too may well be explained by assuming that καταφιλώ stood in the common source of Δ Θ Ξ Σ , came into the text of Δ Θ , above the line in Ξ, and was neglected by Σ; but Δ Θ could also have accepted the reading of E sl .

3,1-2

ή στεργομένων om. Ss ΔΘΞΣ

3,5 3,5

καταφιλεΐς] καταφιλώ Ss Δ Θ Ξ 8 ' γαρ] γαρ αύτοΰ Ss Δ Θ Σ H a

5a,3

διότι] οτι Ss ΔΘΞΣ Tr etc.

For the rest of its Epictetean contents Par. gr. 1054 has the text of Nil; see pp. 170-171.

The AC-group (γ) T h e offspring of γ can be divided into two branches: the first o n e is constituted by A and its derivatives, the second by C and its descendants. That A and C are gemelli, is proved by the fact that both MSS have separative errors against each other. First I will quote a n u m b e r of readings peculiar to A: 7,7 25 3 ,11-12 29 3 ,13 31 4 ,17 32 2 ,5 33 7 ,16 3314,43 40,1 40,5 48a1,2

και] ή (et SiC Vat) ελαττον έχειν] εχειν ελαττον (et t Vat) τό] τώ μήοπι. μάντιν] μάτιν παραλάμβανε] παραλαμβάνει (-ειν C) τό-έστιοπι. ύπό] άπό (et SG) άλλφ] άλλο φιλοσόφου] φιλολόφου (sic)

T h e text of A has been written by two scribes (cf. Bühler 50-51); their h a n d s look very similar, but nevertheless they can be clearly distinguished. T h e first scribe copied f. 22 r (1 1 ,1 τών — 4,4 άσφαλέστερον) a n d the first half of f. 24 v (29 3 ,13- 7 36 έρχου-ίδιώτου); the second scribe copied the rest. T h e corrections and marginal additions were probably all written by the first scribe, also in those parts of the text that were copied by the second scribe. Because the two scribes apparently worked f r o m the same source, I have not distinguished them in reporting the readings of A and APC. Here are some of the distinctive readings of C: 22,9 4,3 7,3 11.4 13.5 19b 2 ,2 21,1

τε om. άπορραίνοντας] άπορρέοντας κοχλίδιον] μοχλίδιον διά τίνος] διότι τοΰ prius] τόν συναρπασθείς] συνεπαρθείς τάάλλαοπι.

31 3 ,11

τοΰτο] to

42,4

Kctiom.

46 2 ,11 49,13

εφαγεν] εφαγον μήοηι.

In C I have not noted substantial corrections or additions by later hands, although at 33 1 0 ,29 the change of δσα into οσω (nisi fallor) seems to have been made by a later hand. Both A and C have a n u m b e r of descendants. Before discussing the affiliation of these MSS I will pay attention to Ww [Vat. gr. 894]. Subsequently I will first deal with the offspring of A, then with the derivatives of C. Ww [Vat. gr. 894], which contains a selection f r o m Ench, proves to be a gemellus of C (for the contents of Ww see p. 13). It is certain that Ww belongs to the g r o u p ACÔ, as a p p e a r s f r o m the following readings: 5a,4 8.1 8.2 18,4 335,12 338,19

έκεΐνο το δεινόν έστιν om. Ww ACô θέλε]θέλειν WwAC (deest δ) εύροήσεις] εύ ποιήσεις Ww AC (deest δ) μου om. Ww ACÔ ενόντων] όντων Ww AC (deest δ) ων] ώς WwAC (deest δ)

T h e comparison of Ww with AC on the one h a n d and δ on the other is complicated by the fact that there are only a few passages in Ww where δ is present (chs. 18, 33 9 , 46). Even so, δ has the following separative errors against Ww (and AC): 18,3 33 9 ,24 46 1 ,4 46^5-6

σωματίω] σώματι ταΰτα μόνα] μόνα ταΰτα άφηρήκει πανταχόθεν Σωκράτης] πανταχόθεν άφηρήκει και σωκράτης ώστε-παρορώμενος om.

At 33 9 ,23 Ww omits γάρ with δ against AC. O n the o t h e r h a n d , Ww agrees in error with AC at 5a,3 τοΰ om. Ww AC: habet δ; and at 18,2-3 ουδέν έμοί] έμοί ουδέν AC Ww, there are n o separative errors of AC against Ww. In a few places Ww agrees in error with C: 33 7 ,16 53^2

παραλάμβανε] παραλαμβάνειν καί alterum om.

C has one separative error against Ww, namely 46 2 ,11 εφαγεν] εφαγον. T h e r e f o r e Ww c a n n o t derive f r o m C, and must be r e g a r d e d as a gemellus of C.

T h e r e is occasional agreement between Ww and other MSS; I think that such cases should be regarded as coincidental; some instances: 5b,2 46!,3 46 2 .9

ήργμένου] ήργμένον (et S) μή] μηδέ (et U ) δηχθης] δειχθής (et Σ Ψ JM)

Ww has some separative errors of its own; some instances: 5b, 1 18,3 33 4 .10 33 6 ,16

άλλοις] τοις άλλοις ή prius] έν γέλως] έλω (sic) ών om.

Ww is a primary source of restricted value. The descendants of A T h e only derivative of A that goes back to A via recta is H [Laur. 55,7]. H follows A almost everywhere; the only places where H does not take over a reading in A are 3 2 ^ 5 μάντιν] μάτιν A; 41,1 Άφυϊας] ευφυές A: άφυές H; 48a 1 ,2 φιλοσόφου] φιλολόφου Α. T h e two errors at 3 2 ^ 5 and 48a 1 ,2 are of course very easily corrected; at 41,1 εύ is written per ligaturam in A, and could also be interpreted as ά. It is remarkable that in a n u m b e r of places APC agrees with HPf. T h u s in three places the stem κατεαγ- is changed into καταγ- (per rasuram) in both A and Η (3,3; 26,2.4); at 2 9 ^ 3 both MSS originally had ηύξεις, which was changed into ήξεις (sic) by erasing the υ. It is possible that the same scribe erased a letter in both MSS simultaneously; alternatively, the letters may have been erased in both MSS independently. Here are some separative errors of H: 11,1 17,3 25],5 25 4 ,16 29 5 ,22 31 2 ,9 31 5 ,23 3314,44

47,1

αύτό o m . σε o m . ήμίν] ϋμίν όσου]όσον όποιον] ποιον τι] τοι καί alteram om. συμβεβηκότων] συμβευηκότων (item 16,4 συμβευηκός et 51 1 ,3 συμβέυηκας) ήρμοσμένος] ήρμοσμένως

Η has been intensively corrected and provided with variant readings. These are usually written with dark brown ink (which does not always have the same shade as the ink of the text), but some readings are written in red ink (I have inspected Η in situ). Even so, I believe that

both types of readings were introduced by the scribe himself, after the copying of the text. T h e red ink is not only used for readings which are clearly i n t e n d e d as glosses (such as 20,4 διατριβής] σχολής s.l.), but also for variant readings (for instance 1 3 ,12 ουδέ] ού, add. δέ s.l. minio). Many of the variant readings in Η come f r o m Nil, but I have not been able to single out one of the extant MSS of M / a s the source of these readings in H; some instances: 1 1 .3 1 3 ,11 14,15 14a 1 ,3 18,6 24 5 ,25

δόξαι] δόξα HPC Nil ούχ] ούδένα Η5 ' Nil αρχειν et πλουτεΐν signis transposuit H (sicut Nil) ουτω-αμαρτανειν om. (et AC): add. in mg. Η ούτω καί τον παΐδα έάν θελήσης μή άμαρτάνειν (= Nil) ώφεληθήναι άπ' αύτού] αύτό καλώς θέσθαι H m S Nil τον] σεαυτόν HPC Nil

A few other readings look like glosses; see for instance: 6,2 20.4

οίστόν] ύπομονητόν H s l : καρτερικόν H m S διατριβής] σχολής H s1

A third g r o u p of variant readings has the a p p e a r a n c e of being conjectures; some instances: 14,13 4.5 5b,2 7.6 15.3 24 4 ,24 36.4

τα μέν άφιέναι] τα μέν έφιέναι (et A C ) : τών μέν έφίεσθαι HPC λούσασθαι] καί λούσασθαι H s l ήργμένου] αρχομένου H s1 καί prius del. HPC πόρρω] πόρρωθεν H s1 post αύτός add. τοιούτος ων H m S άπαξίαν] άταξίαν HPC

T h e n u m b e r of corrections and variant readings strongly diminishes after ch. 29. H is the source of three MSS: Ο [Berol. gr. 175], Mm [Athen. Benaki Museum 45 (T.A. 16)] and the lost c o m m o n source of Ρ [Escor, gr. 39 (R.III.5)], Ff [Lond. Burney 80] and Hh [Edinb. Univ. Libr. 234]. These MSS follow Η closely, although some obvious orthographical errors in Η are tacitly corrected in the derivatives of H ; see for instance 1 3 ,6 μέμνησο] μέμνοσο Η ; 16,4 συμβεβηκός] συμβευηκόςΗ. H ' s derivatives also r e p r o d u c e the corrections and variant readings a d d e d in Η after the text was copied; see for instance 24 4 ,24 αύτός] αύτός τοιούτος ων Η m g O M m P F f H h ; 36,4 ά π α ξ ί α ν ] ά τ α ξ ί α ν HPC

O M m P F f H h . But sometimes a correction in H is overlooked or neglected by o n e or m o r e of the derivatives; see for instance 2 9 ' , 3 τών έξης έντεθυμημένος h a b e n t HPC (signis transpositionis additis s.l.) Ο Mm: έντεθυμημένος τών έξης HPFfHh; 29 2 ,9 ίατρώ HPC OPFfHh: ίατρόν H a c Mm (sed in Η cum ίατρώ tum ίατρόν intellegi potest). All three derivatives of Η have separative errors of their own. First I will quote some readings peculiar to Ο [Berol. gr. 175]: 14,13 1 5 ,21 7,8 12^2 28,3 33 3 ,8 3310,28 36,6 40.2

μετρίως om. ούκ om. έκεΐνα] έκεΐνο διατροφάς] διατριβάς έάν λοιδορήσηταί] ένλοιδορήσηταί ούν o m . παντελώς] παντελώ την om. ά λ λ ο om.

T h e second derivative of Η is Mm [Athen. Benaki Museum 45 (T.A. 16)]; h e r e are some separative errors of Mm: 1^2 14a 1 ,4 24 4 ,19 26,4-5 33 1 0 ,31 48a 1 ,2-3 53^3

όρεξιςοπι. μωρός] ήλίθιος αβοήθητος έσται πάλιν] πάλιν έσται άβοήθητος τοιοΰτον-κατεάγη o m . εις] δι' άλλ'-βλάβην om. είμι] έστί

In some cases the scribe of Mm appears to notice an e r r o r m a d e by himself: thus at 30,1 Mm has καταμετρείται for παραμετρείται, b u t adds παρα above the line; at 25 3 ,11 the second μή is written above the line. Mm is the source of the lost c o m m o n ancestor of Vv [Vat. gr. 100], which contains a selection f r o m Ench (see p. 13), and R [Laur. 74,13]; the existence of this lost MS is proved by the conjunctive errors of Vv and R: 21.3 33^31 3315,45 53ί,2 53 3 ,8

ένθυμηθήση] ένθυμήση μή είκη om. (vix legibile in Mm) ικανός] ίκανήν σύ] σή τοις θεοίς om.

Vv and R follow Mm closely, but in a n u m b e r of cases they correct an error in Mm; because in some of these cases the error of Mm is also f o u n d in H (and often in A as well), this does not argue against the d e p e n d e n c e of VvR on Mm; some instances:

15,20 22,10 10,4 12 2 ,7 49,9 52 2 ,9

τούτφ h a b e n t VvR: τοΰτο M m (et A a c H ) τω habet R: τό Mm (et H) : o m . Vv λοιδορία habent VvR: λοιδορίαν Mm (et ACH) πωλείται habet R (deest Vv): έπωλεΐται Mm έξηγείσθαι habet R (deest Vv): έξηγησαι Mm εκείνον] habet R (deest Vv) : εκείνων Mm (et A C H )

Such cases may be explained either by conjectural e m e n d a t i o n or by c o n t a m i n a t i o n . C o n j e c t u r e can be seen at work at 3 3 Π , 3 1 είς άκροάσεις] διακροάσεις (sic) Mm: δι' ακροάσεις VvR. Mm omits 48a 1 , 2-3 άλλ'-βλάβην as the result of le saut du même au même, VvR omit the words 3-4 έξ έαυτοΰ προσδοκά, which are r e d u n d a n t without ά λ λ ' β λ ά β η ν , as well. C o n t a m i n a t i o n is certain at 33 1 2 ,33 συμβάλλειν] συμβουλεύειν R l m s (et ΘΛΞΣ; deest Vv). Vv has the following separative errors: 15,18 14b 2 ,3-4 29",35 53 4 ,9

ευθύς] εύθείς μήτε φευγέτω τών έπ' άλλοις] τών έπ' άλλοις μήτε φευγέτω φιλοτεχνειν] φιλοσοφείν δύνανται] δύναται

H e r e are the separative errors of R: 3,1 17,3 24^5 24 : \24-25 25 2 ,8 29 4 ,21 31 !,2

εκάστου] έκάστω (et Sa) ï v a ] ένα έφ']είς φησίν έξω χώραν] φησί χώραν εξω ταΰτα om. ούτω δύναται] δύναται οϋτως έκεΐνό έστιν] εστίν έκεΐνο

All the separative errors of R are f o u n d in places where Vv is absent; therefore o n e might tend to assume that Vv d e p e n d s on R, instead of being its gemellus, but this is contradicted by the situation at 47,1, where Mm and Vv have ήρμοσμένως (with H ) , while R has the correct reading ήρμοσμένος. R is the source of S [Rom. Ang. gr. 80]; S follows R closely, and adds a large n u m b e r of errors of its own; some instances: 13.7 22,10 7,4-7 242,11 30.8 33 3 ,8 42,6 50,2

ϊδια] άίδια άφορμάν] έφορμάν πάντα-καλέση om. ά] δ τότε δέ] τόδε οιός] οΐς ορμώμενος] δρώμενος παραβής] παραλάβης

T h e third derivative of H is the lost c o m m o n ancestor of Ρ [Escor, gr. 39 (R.III.5)], Ff [Lond. Burney 80] and H h [Edinb. Univ. Libr. 234], T h e s e MSS follow HPC closely, a n d have a n u m b e r of conjunctive errors. Some instances: 6,4 245 24\5 295,25 33 10 ,29 33 1 2 33 48b 2 ,5 49,12

ώσθ' όταν] αλλ' ούν PFf: άλλ' ούν αν τα Hh τοΰτ'] τοις PFf: illegibile in Hh δέ] δέ σέ P ac (σέ del. PPC) Ff ac (ut vid.): δέ σύ FfPcHh όσφύν] σφύν (Ff ac ) γεγενημένων] γενημένων μέλλτις] θέλης PHh: θέλλεις (sic) Ff απολογείται] άπολεΐται έρυθριώ]έρυθριώς

T h e source of PFfHh contained at least some of the variant readings in H ; see for instance 15,6 π α ρ α τ ε θ έ ν τ ω ν HlP velcov έκκλίνεις for ο έκκλίνεκχι; in reality Koraes' proposal refers to the text of Par: Koraes suggests reading ου έκκλίνεις instead of φ έκκλίνεις in Par 3 4 ,7, referring to ών έκκλίνεις in Pari1,2. 43 For instance l 3 ,11-12 ουδείς σε βλάψει, έχθρόν ούχ εξεις] έχθρόν ούχ εξεις, ουδείς σε βλάψει with Nil. 44 The same opinion has recently been expressed by Maltese XXVII: "(...) un compito dawero poco seducente, che non promette all'editore risultati pari alia fatica." 42

Stemma codicum et editionis principis Simplicii commentarii in Epicteti Encheiridion

A

CHAPTER FOUR

SIMPLICIUS' COMMENTARY ON EPICTETUS' ENCHEIRIDION

Catalogue of Manuscripts The transmission of Simplicius' bulky commentary on Ench is described minutely by I. Hadot in her 1978 article (Hadot, Tradition She lists (pp. 2 f.) 28 MSS containing the complete or almost complete text; further, she mentions three MSS containing only the introduction of the commentary, and three others containing fragments. Finally, there is the editio púnceps of 1528. Hadot gives full codicological data of all the MSS in the Supplément codicologique (p. 89108), to which I refer the reader for detailed information. I will confine myself to giving a summary list of the MSS that are relevant for the text of Ench, mentioning date, place (if known), scribe (if known), material, size, folio numbers, number of lines, siglum 2 , reference to catalogue; I take my information from Hadot. Following Hadot, I have excluded Bruxellensis 2302 and Parisinus gr. 2073; the first is a copy of Vaticanus Pal. gr. 276 and the editio pnncep$, the second derives from the editio púnceps. I have also excluded the six fragment MSS, because they do not contain material that is vital for the text of Ench. The stemmatic position of each MS is briefly indicated. 1. Bononiensis 2359 (olim 218) 23/2/1490, Crete; Antonios Damilas (subscription f. 119 r ); paper; 300 χ 205 mm.; ff. I, 119; Simp ff. l r -119 r ; 29 lines; siglum H 1

See also the brief résumé in Hadot, Simplidus 163-180. In Boter, Translations, I used sigla different from those adopted by Hadot; thus I designated Vat. gr. 327 (Hadot's C) as SS, and Marcianus gr. 261 (Hadot's G) as SB. I have come to regret this, and I have now decided to use Hadot's sigla, in order to prevent confusion: I think it is better to turn half-way than to persevere in error. Even so, I designate the editio princeps with the siglum S Sa, although Hadot uses the siglum Σ, because I always use such sigla for printed editions. I have also invented my own sigla for reconstructed MSS (Greek minuscules). 3 See also Hadot, Addenda 390-392, where she corrects the statement in the catalogue of the Brussels MSS that Brüx. 2302 derives from Pal. gr. 276 exclusively. 2

(Schweighäuser's Pi.). H once belonged to the monastery of San Salvatore in Bologna. See Olivieri-Festa 408 (= Samberger I 21); Hadot, Tradition 7-16, 102. H goes back to η, and thus ultimately to δ, which is a primary witness to the text of Ench in the supplemented parts of the lemmata. Η is probably the source of the editio princeps. See pp. 101-102, 104, 106-108.

2. Elorentinus Laurentianus 81,22 30/11/1513, Rome; Johannes Phroulas (subscription on f. 146r; cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 111-112, nr. 189); parchment; 225 χ 150 mm.; ff. II, 146, I; Simp ff. 12v-145v; 22 lines; also contains Ench\ siglum N. See Bandini III 234-235; Hadot, Tradition 27-31, 33-35, 105. Ν is a gemellus of Ο [Lond. Reg. 16.C.XIX], and thus derives from Y [Neap. III.E.29]. See p. 110. 3. Londiniensis Add. 10064 (miscellaneus) 15/11/1469, Venice; Johannes Rhosos (subscription on f. 146 r ); paper; 280 χ 196 mm.; ff. X, 168; Simp ff. l r -146 r ; 30 lines; siglum U. See Additions 1, 8; Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 96. U derives from C [Vat. gr. 327]. It is the source of V [Perus, gr. 173]. See p. 98. 4. Londiniensis Regius 16.C.XIX (olim Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 248) first half of the 16th century; <Johannes Phroulas> (XVIII 45 - XXIX 44: Bernardinos Kremonaios); paper; 208 χ 140 mm.; ff. VI, 127, II; Simp ff. 3 r -127 r ; 24 lines; also contains Ench·, siglum O. Cardinal Reginald Pole was the first owner of O. See Warner-Gilson II 186; Hadot, Tradition 27-31, 33-35, 105-106. Ο is a gemellus of Ν [Flor. Laur. 81,22], and thus derives from Y [Neap. III.E.29]. See p. 110. 5. Neapolitans III.E. 29 (Borb. 351) 16th century, before 1513; paper; 300 χ 220 mm.; ff. Ill, 87, II; Simp ff. 8V-85V; 30 lines; also contains Ench, siglum Y. See Cyrillus II 466; Hadot, Tradition 27-35, 105. Y is a gemellus of Ρ [Ven. Marc. gr. App. cl. XI 13]. It is the source of the lost common ancestor of Ν [Flor. Laur. 81,22] and Ο [Lond. Reg. 16.C.XIX]. See pp. 108 n. 14, 110.

6. Neapolitanus III.E.30 (Borb. 352) 16th century (after 1528); paper; octavo; ff. Ill, 223, III; Simp ff. l r 223' ; 20 lines; siglum Z. See Cyrillus II 466; Hadot, Tradition 64-66, 9495. Ζ derives from Β [Vat. gr. 326]. See p. 96. 7. Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 247 16th century (after 1519); (IV 38 - V 53: Bernardinos Kremonaios); paper; 227/229 χ 159/161 mm.; ff. 131; Simp ff. 12r-130r; 25 lines; also contains Ench; siglum Q. Cardinal Reginald Pole was the first owner of Q. See Coxe, Coll. 89; Hadot, Tradition 20-22, 25-27, 103. Q is a gemellus of the lost common source of Κ [Vat. Barb. gr. 76] and M [Vind. phil. gr. 234], See pp. 108 n. 14, 110. 8. Parisinus gr. 1959 (Fontebl.-Reg. 2126) first quarter of the 16th century; Constantios (according to Omont); paper; 320 χ 220 mm.; ff. Ill, 298, II; Simp ff. 161r-297v; 29 lines; siglum R (Schweighäuser's Pa.) \ this MS once belonged to Jean des Pins (see Hadot, Tradition 45). See Omont II 171; Hadot, Tradition 35-45, 100. R derives from S [Ven. Marc. gr. 253]. See p. 103. 9. Parisinus gr. 1960 (Med.-Reg. 2653) 27/8/1491, Crete; Antonios Damilas (subscription on f. 114r) and an unidentified second scribe (see Hadot, Tradition 102); paper; 295 χ 210 mm.; ff. IV, 114, II; Simpff. l r -114 r ; 30-31 lines; siglum J (Schweighäuser's Pb.). J. Lascaris was the first owner of J. See Omont II 171; Hadot, Tradition 7-12, 20, 102-103. J derives from θ , and thus goes back indirectly to δ, which is a primary witness to the text of Ench in the supplemented parts of the lemmata. See pp. 101, 104, 108-109. 10. Parisinus gr. 2072 (Colb. 4348, Regius 3114) (miscellaneus) first quarter of the 16th century; <Johannes Phroulas>; paper; 208 χ 145 mm.; ff. II, 282; Simp ff. 15r-166r; 24 lines; also contains Ench ; siglum Ε. Ε once belonged to J. Aug. de Thou. See Omont II 187; Hadot, Tradition 7-13, 16-20, 100-101. Ε is a gemellus of F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023], See pp. 104-105.

11. Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1023 (Coisl. 332) first quarter of the 16th century; cjohannes Phroulas>; paper; 206 χ 140 mm.; ff. VI, 192; Simp ff. 15r-186r; 24 lines; also contains Ench; siglum F. F once belonged to the Bibliothèque de Saint-Germain-desPrés, Congr. S. Mauri 1653 (note on f. 1). See Astruc-Concasty III 105; Hadot, Tradition 7-13, 16-20, 101-102. F is a gemellus of Ε [Par. gr. 2072]. See pp. 104-106. 12. Parisinus Mazarineus 4459 (olim 1233) first half of the 16th century; the same scribe as Κ [Barb. gr. 76] and M [Vind. phil. gr. 234] and three other scribes; paper; 211 χ 158 mm.; ff. I, 216; Simp ff. 20r-216r; 20-22 lines; also contains Ench, siglum 1.1 once belonged to the Institution de l'Oratoire in Paris. See Molinier III 355; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 104. I derives from M [Vind. phil. gr. 234]. See p. 110. 13. Parisinus Mazarineus 4460 (olim 1234) second half of the 15th century; (see Hadot, Tradition 62); paper; 278 χ 195 mm.; ff. I, 132, I; Simp ff. l r 132r; 30 lines; siglum D. D once belonged to the Institution de l'Oratoire in Paris. See Molinier III 355; Hadot, Tradition 61-62, 9899. D is a gemellus of C [Vat. gr. 327], and thus a primary witness. See pp. 94-97. 14. Perusinus gr. 173 (= C 56) 8/6/1471, Venice; Johannes Rhosos (subscription on f. 147r); paper; 290 χ 204 mm.; ff. I, 148; Simp ff. l r -146 v ; 30 lines; siglum V. V once belonged to Prosper Podianus. See Mioni, Bibl. Ital. II 301-302; Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 96-97. V derives from U [Lond. Add. 10064]. See pp. 98-99. 15. Vaticanus gr. 326 (olim 669) second half of the 12th century (first scribe), ca. 1250 (second scribe); paper; ca. 202 χ 135 mm. (the MS is heavily damaged, see Hadot, Tradition 92 ff.); ff. I, 209; Simp ff. l r -209 r ; 19-24 lines; siglum B. See Mercati—Franchi de' Cavalieri 489-490; Hadot, Tradition 6367, 92-94; —, Addenda 393-394. Β goes back to a, and is accordingly a primary witness. See pp. 9497.

16. Vaticanus gr. 327 (olim 194) 15th century (before 1468); , additions and corrections by Johannes Rhosos (see Hadot, Tradition 49); paper; 295 χ 204 mm.; ff. 95; Simp ff. l'-93r; 32 lines; siglum C. See Mercati— Franchi de' Cavalieri 490; Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 95. C is a gemellus of D [Par. Mazar. 4460], and thus a primary witness. C is a primary witness to the text of Ench in the supplemented lemmata from Ε 3,3 on; the text of these lemmata is related to the text as found in ET [Athen. 373]. C is the source of Τ [Vat. Pal. gr. 276], U [Lond. Add. 10064] and W [Vat. Pal. gr. 100], See pp. 52-55, 97-100. 17. Vaticanus gr. 2231 between A.D. 1317-1338; paper; 206/7 χ 140 mm.; ff. II, 281; Simp ff. 75v-221r; 29-30 lines; siglum A. See Lilla 328-333; Hadot, Tradition 6364, 67-81, 89-92. A is a primary witness; it is the sole representative of one of the two branches of the tradition. See pp. 94-96. 18. Vaticanus Barbmnianus gr. 76 first half of the 16th century; the same scribe as M [Vind. phil. gr. 234] and the first scribe of I [Par. Mazar. 4459]; paper; 211 χ 151 mm.; ff. I, 233; Simp ff. 20r-219v; 20 lines; also contains Ench, siglum K. On f. l r there is an owner's note: Juan Bautista geafron (?); Diomelo D(on) fernando Aluia, De Castro en L(i)x(bo)a a. 1614. See Capocci I 95-96; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 103-104. Κ is a gemellus of M; it is the source of I. See pp. 108 n. 14, 110. 19. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 100 (miscellaneus) first half of the 16th century; paper; 203 χ 136 mm.; (see Hadot, Tradition 51); ff. 145; Simp ff. l r -124 r ; 25 lines; siglum W. See Stevenson, Pal. 49; Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 97. W derives from C [Vat. gr. 327] ; it is the source of X [Vat. Ross. 1023], See pp. 99-100. 20. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 276 2 0 / 3 / 1 4 6 8 , Venice; Johannes Rhosos (subscription on f. 144 v ); paper; 291 χ 213 mm.; ff. 144; Simp ff. l r -144 r ; 30 lines; siglum T. See Stevenson, Pal. 152; Hadot, Tradition 47-61, 95-96. Τ derives from C [Vat. gr. 327]. See p. 98.

21. Vaticanus Rossianus 1023 (olim XI. 172) (miscellaneus) first half of the 16th century; paper; 215 χ 140 mm.; for the greater part of the MS; ff. 231; Simp pp. 1-415; 23 lines; siglum X. See Gollob, Ross. 70-72 (nr. 22); Hadot, Tradition 4761,97-98. X derives from W [Vat. Pal. gr. 100], See pp. 99-100. 22. Venetus Mardanus gr. 253 (coll. 621) (miscellaneus) 15th century (before 1472, possibly between October, 1468 and April, 1469; see Hadot, Tradition 43-45, 99-100); (see Hadot, Tradition 100); parchment; 265 χ 179 mm.; ff. Ill, 285, II (+ 36bis, - 52-57); Simp ff. 121v-215v; 36 lines; siglum S; on f. IIIV there is an ex libris by Bessarion. See Mioni, Ven. I 367-368; Hadot, Tradition 35-45, 99-100. S derives from G [Ven. Marc. gr. 261]; it is the source of R [Par. gr. 1959], See p. 103. 23. Venetus Mardanus gr. 261 (coll. 725) (miscellaneus) 15th century (before 1468; see Hadot, Tradition 43-45, 99); and (see Hadot, Tradition 99); paper; 290 χ 254 mm.; ff. IV, 284, III; Simp ff. 241'-283r; 38 lines; siglum G; on f. IVv there is an ex libris by Bessarion. See Mioni, Ven. I 376-377; Hadot, Tradition 35-45, 99. G is a gemellus of ε, the source of a large number of MSS. Thus G goes back to δ, which is a primary witness to the text of Ench in the supplemented parts of the lemmata. G is the source of S [Ven. Marc, gr. 253], See pp. 101-103. 24. Venetus Mardanus gr. App. Cl. XI 13 (coll. 1009; olim monast. ss. lohannis et Pauli LXFV) 16th century (before 1517); Caesar <Strategos> (subscription on f. 192v); parchment; 310 χ 210 mm.; ff. I, 193 (+ 124bis); Simp ff. l l l r 192v; 31 lines; this MS originally also contained Ench, cf. Hadot, Tradition 106; siglum P. Marcus Musurus was the first owner of P. See Mioni, Ven. App. III 95-96; Hadot, Tradition 27·-35, 106. Ρ is a gemellus of Y [Neap. III.E.29]. See pp. 108 n. 14, 110. 25. Vindobonensis phil. gr. 37 (miscellaneus) first quarter of the 16th century; paper; 310 χ 2 0 5 / 8 mm.; ff. I, 295; Simp ff. 172v-245v; 30 lines; also contains Ench; siglum L. L once

belonged to Joh. Sambucus. See Hunger I 162-163; Hadot, Tradition 27-35, 105. L is a gemellus of the lost common source of Y [Neap. III.E.29] and Ρ [Ven. Marc. gr. App. cl. XI 13]. See pp. 108 η. 14, 110. 26. Vindobonensis phil. gr. 234 first half of the 16th century; the same scribe as Κ [Barb. gr. 76] and the first scribe of I [Par. Mazar. 4459]; paper; 210 χ 150 mm.; ff. I, 227; Simp ff. 19r-226r; 22 lines; also contains Ench·, siglum M. M once belonged to Joh. Sambucus. See Hunger I 342-343; Hadot, Tradition 20-27, 104. M is a gemellus of K; it is the source of I. See pp. 108 n. 14, 110. 27. editio princeps 1528, Venice; Johannes Antonius de Sabio and his brothers; siglum Sa. See Hadot, Tradition 13-16. Sa probably derives from H [Bonon. 2359]. See pp. 101, 104, 106107. Lost manuscript Argentoratensis Schweighäuseri (see p. 16; cf. Hadot, Tradition 12, 108); paper; folio; ff. 1-90; destroyed by fire in 1870.

The text of the lemmata in Simplicius ' commentary The description of the relationship of the MSS of Simplicius' commentary as given by Hadot is convincing, and I see no reason to depart from her conclusions with regard to the stemma 4 . But to complicate matters, the tradition of the lemmata in the MSS of 4

I principally disagree with Hadot on one point: she argues for the existence of three extant or reconstructible representatives of her family β' (Tradition 7-35); yet when drawing up the table of the primary MSS ("témoins indépendants") she only attributes a primary status to Ε and F (the two representatives of the first sub-family of β') and to Η (the only primary representative of the second sub-family), denying a primary status to the MSS constituting the third sub-family; however, as most of these MSS are not derived from extant MSS, they are "témoins indépendants", whether we like it or not. In her edition, Hadot assigns a primary status to J, of which she gives a full report in the apparatus, but the readings of J's gemellus are not noted. The discarding of these MSS hardly affects the constitution of the text, though, and it significantly simplifies the critical apparatus. In my apparatus the readings of these MSS are reported with the collective siglum κ (I [Par. Mazar. 4459], Κ [Vat. Barb. gr. 76], L [Vind. Phil. gr. 37], Ρ [Ven. Marc. gr. App. cl. XI 13], Q [Oxon. Coll. Nov. 247], Y [Neap. gr. III.E.29]).

Simplicius' commentary does not run parallel to that of the text of the commentary itself: in two cases (C and δ) the original lemmata have been supplemented from another source, and in even more cases contamination has been at work. Therefore it has been necessary for me to study the lemmata in all the extant MSS. I will first give a description of the original lemmata, i.e. the lemmata as they appear in the three primary MSS where there are no additions: A [Vat. gr. 2231], Β [Vat. gr. 326] and D [Par. Mazar. 4460] 5 . Then I will discuss the text of the lemmata in C [Vat. gr. 327] and its derivatives, and finally I will deal with the lemmata in δ and its numerous progeny. a. The original lemmata As has already been stated above, the lemmata of the archetype can be reconstructed from the lemmata as they stand in ABD; the text covered in the lemmata is almost identical in these three MSS. Exact indications of these lemmata can be found in the apparatus to the text of Ench. (The original lemmata are printed in Hadot's edition of Simplicius' commentary.) As a rule the lemmata consist of coherent portions of text6. In some cases one or two MSS break off in the middle of a phrase; see for instance 10,1-2 έφ'-εχεις BD; 49,1-3 οταν-ώ D. In a few cases D has more text than the other two, for instance at 1 1 ,l-3 and l 2 ,4-6; this may result from contamination. The text of the lemmata, as was only to be expected, shows some remarkable divergencies from the text as found in the other witnesses. In a number of places peculiar readings in the lemmata are also found in the text of Simplicius' commentary (cf. below, p. I l l ) ; in the case of such readings we can be sure that they represent what Simplicius read in his copy of Ench; I have noted the following cases: 14b2,2 24 1 ,! 5

την om. (XXII 8) έγώ om. (XXXII 18; et Nil)

The relationship of A towards the other MSS is not the same in the whole of Simplicius' Commentary: see Hadot, Tradition 72-79; Simplicius 171. 6 The only exception is ch. 15, where ABD have μέμνησο-περιφερόμενον; the last word belongs to the next sentence. But probably Simplicius took περιφερόμενον with the preceding σε: AB have no punctuation mark between άναστρέφεσθαι and περιφερόμενον (I have not been able to consult D on this point). In C and HJ, in which the original lemmata have been supplemented, there is a stop after περιφερόμενον; in G, which goes back to the same source as HJ, there is a stop after άναστρέφεσθαι, but this stop may have been added after the text was copied.

28,1 36,1 462,10

άπαντήσαντι] ύπαντήσαντι S: ύπαντώντι Simp (XXXVI 11) «ήμερα έστί» καί «νύξ έστι»] ήτοι ημέρα ή νύξ έστι (LIV 8.12-13-26-27.30-31; sed SB legit ήμέρα έστί καί νύξ) αρχη] ήρξω (LXIV 49; et Par)

There is a remarkable state of affairs at 2 1 ,!. In the lemma the MSS have επιτυχία (with Nil Vat), but in the commentary we read τό τυχείν (which is also found in Par, and is related to τό έπιτυχείν of the MSS of Ench). This suggests the possibility that in some places the lemmata have undergone contamination, but I admit that the evidence is slight. In a few cases we can see that scribes confronted the text of the lemmata with the text of the commentary. At 16,2 A has άπολωλεκότα in the lemma and in the commentary (XXIV 9), while α has άπολωλεκότος in both places. At 24 ] ,1 the lemma in α has έσομαι for έγώ βιώσομαι, while A has βιώσομαι (both without έγώ); in the commentary (XXXII 18) only Β has έσομαι, the others having βιώσομαι: here the scribe of Β (or one of his predecessors) must have introduced έσομαι into the text of the commentary because of its occurrence in the lemma. In other cases, the reading in the lemma cannot be checked in the commentary, because Simplicius does not quote or paraphrase the passage in which the variant reading occurs. In such cases it is possible that the variant reading originated in the tradition of Simp, and thus it does not necessarily represent the text consulted by Simplicius. In some cases there is agreement with other branches of the tradition, notably Par·, but we can only guess at the causes of such agreement (consultation of a common source, contamination of Simp from Par or vice versa). Some instances: 12,4 15,18 7,1 7,1 30,1 49,1

έστι om. φαντασία τραχεία] τραχεία φαντασία Καθάπερ] ώσπερ (et Par) πλω] πλοίω AB (πλώ habent CDJ: λιμένι cett.; πλοίφ habet et Par) ώς έπίπαν om. (et Par) δύνασθαι om. (sed habet Β)

Generally speaking, the readings of the primary MSS in the lemmata confirm Hadot's stemma for the text of the commentary. I will quote a number of readings peculiar to each primary source.

separative errors of A 11,3 8,2 15,1

ένι] έν ένί γίνεται] γίνονται άναστρέφεσθαι] άνατρέφεσθαι

separative errors of a (= the source of BD and the other MSS) 13,6 15,18 5a,2 14a1,2 20.2 27,1

δούλα ελεύθερα] έλεύθερα δούλα μελέτα] μάθε των πραγμάτων] αύτών (et Par) πάντως om. τούτων] τούτου (sed τούτων Ε) προς το άποτυχεΐν ού τίθεται] ού τίθεται πρός το άποτυχεΐν (τό om. Ε)

separative errors of Β 14a1,1 31 ϊ,Ι 34,1 36,1-2

Έάν] καν κυριώτατον] κυριώτερον "Οταν] καν μέν-πρός om.

Hadot, Tradition 64-66, shows that Ζ [Neap. III.Ε.30] is a direct copy of B; in the lemmata too Ζ follows Β closely, and adds some separative errors of its own; see for instance: 12.3 18,1 33^.31

δόξαι] δόξα αϊσιον] αίτιον είκρ] παρήκε

Hadot, Tradition 64, states that in Simp Ρ 1-25, where there is a lacuna in B, Z's text is closely related to Sa [ed. princ. 1528] ; in the text of the lemmata too there are indications of contact between Sa and Z: 3313,36 52U 52J,1

τινα] τινας (et £ζ, 5Sa) έστιν om. (et SFHSa) 6om. (etSSa)

separative errors of β (= the source of all the MSS except AB) 337,16 339,21 44,1

της om. σοι άπαγγείλη] άπαγγείλη σοι Ούτοι] ούτοι δε CDFHJ (non ita EG)

separative errors of γ (= the source of CD) 31 1 37,1 38,1 50,1

το om. πρόσωπον] ασωπον C : άσωτον D ηλφ] ολως τούτοις om.

separative errors oj'D 19b2,1 3313,36 38,2

προτιμώμενον] τιμώμενον μέγα] μή έπιβής] μεταβής

In a number of cases contamination must have been at work in the lemmata. This is especially the case in Β; I have noted the following instances: 32',2 3314,41 34,2 35,1 35,1 36,1 44,1 49.1 49.2 49.3 511,1

οιδας habet Β: ονσθα AD σαυτοΰ τίνων] τινα τών αύτοΰ Β (et Vat: τινα τών αύτοΰ vel αύτοΰ vel έαυτοΰ et Ε AC SHlimJ) συναρπασθής habet Β : συναρπασθήναι AD τι habet Β : om. AD έστι habet Β: έστί σοι και AD ήμέρα έστί και νύξ έστι] ήτοι ήμέρα ή νύξ έστι AD: ημέρα έστί καί νύξ Β είμι habet Β: om. AD δύνασθαι habet Β: om. AD βιβλία habet Β: om. AD είχεν ούτος habet Β: αύτος (αύτώ D) είχεν AD έτι habet Β: ούν AD

At 5a,2 α has αυτών for τών πραγμάτων with Par. b. The lemmata in C [Vat. gr. 327] and its derivatives In C the lemmata have been supplemented from two different sources7, but the original lemmata (that is, the lemmata as found in ABD) have not been supplanted. For the first two chapters of Ench C has the text of Par, the source of the text of C in these chapters is to be sought in the neighbourhood of PK [Vat. gr. 1142]; in fact it is quite possible that PK itself was the source of C, because PK does not have separative errors against C. In the following places C agrees with PK alone (references are to Par) : 31,1-2 3J,2 7

τραχείαν μελέτα έπιλέγειν] έπιλογήν μελέτα τραχείαν εί] ή

Hadot, Tradition 50, n. 2, remarks: "Dans le Vat. gr. 327, le texte des chapitres du Manuel qui sont intercalés était partiellement celui de ce que l'on appelle la Paraphrase chrétienne (...) et partiellement celui du Manuel dit de Nil (...)". In Boter, Translations 169, n. 30,1 denied the validity of this thesis by stating that C is "heavily contaminated with the Anonymous Christian Paraphrase (...) and, to a lesser degree, with the paraphrase attributed to Nilus". As will appear, this statement is not quite correct: C has the text of Par in Ench 1-2, and shows signs of contamination with Par in some other places.

33,4 34,8 34,8 4 3 ,6

των alterum] περί των όδυνηθήση] άτυχης (PKsl) γελασθήση] δυστυχής (ΡKsl) όρέγη] όρθή

In the opening lines of Ench 3 the text of .SC is a conflation of Par and Ench; thus C has έπιλέγειν with Ench, but σμικροτέρων with Par. From Ench 3,3 on (αν χύτραν στέργης κτέ) C has the text of Ench. For the supplemented lemmata in C I use the siglum SiC. These supplemented lemmata have been borrowed from a MS which is closely related to EI [Atheniensis 373]; thus SiC can be regarded as a gemellus of ÜT; accordingly, SiC is a primary witness to the text of Ench\ see pp. 52-55. The derivatives of C Hadot, Tradition 47-61, discusses the relationship of C and its derivatives. Her conclusions are fully supported by my study of the text of the lemmata, but in the lemmata in V [Perus, gr. 173] there are unmistakable traces of contamination, as will be shown below. Τ [Vat. Pal. gr. 276] is the first of the three copies made by Rhosos from C. Τ follows C faithfully, and adds a very few errors of its own8: 15,6 30,10 332,5-6 339,22

λάβης] βλάβης εΰρήσεις] έβρήσεις μή prius-άθλητών om. κακώς] καλώς

U [Lond. Add. 10064] is Rhosos' second copy of C; like T, U has only a very few errors of its own: 295,25 46^3 48b2,2 533,7

όσφύν] όσφρύν λέγε] λέγεται ούδένα] μηδένα σοφος] σοφώς

For Rhosos' corrections and additions in U see Hadot, Tradition 51 ff. The text of the passages that are missing in C was probably borrowed from a relative of Ε A [Par. Suppl. gr. 1164], as appears from 46 2 ,11, where U has εφαγε with EA against εφαγον of EC. V [Perus, gr. 173] is Rhosos' third copy of C. According to Hadot, Tradition 55 f., V is a direct copy of U. In the lemmata, however, V

8 Rhosos was a commendably accurate scribe. In the de luxe copy of the complete Plato, executed by Rhosos for Bessarion (Ven. Marc. gr. 184 (coll. 326)), Rhosos adds a very restricted number of errors of his own: see Boter, Plato's Republic, 146, 155.

shows countless traces of contamination against U, and therefore I assume that Rhosos used U and a copy of Ench simultaneously. Some instances of readings of V departing from U (and its relatives): 4,6 21.3 315.24 533,7

προαίρεσιν κατά φύσιν έχουσαν τηρήσαι habet V: κατά φύσιν έχουσαν τηρήσαι προαίρεσιν CTUWX ένθυμηθήση habet V: ένθυμηθήσεται CTUWX καθαρώς habet V: καί καθαρώς CTUWX σοφός habet V: σοφώς U

V has a number of errors of its own, not found in any other extant MS; it is not excluded that such readings already figured in the copy of Ench consulted by Rhosos for V. Some instances: 12M 24 1 ,! 36.4 42,4 48b3,9

καί] δέ μήοηι. άπαξίαν] έπαξίαν καί om. ένί τε] ένίοτε

W [Vat. Pal. gr. 100] and its direct copy X [Vat. Ross. 1023] were both executed by Konstantinos Mesobotes, according to D. Harlfinger apud Hadot, Tradition 51. Hadot, Tradition 57, shows that W is a direct copy of C. W adds a number of errors of its own: 15,20 6,4 7,2 8,2 14b2,3 26.2 315.25 323,19 335,11 38.3 49,3

τούτω bis deinceps έπαίρη] χαίρη (έπ s.l.) ύδρεύσασθαι] ίδρεύσασθαι εύροήσεις] εύρήσεις τι] τις οίον] οία γλίσχρως] γλύσχρως τοιγαρούν] τί γάρ ούν εις άπαν om. έφ'] άφ' έγεγράφει] γεγράφει

In Boter, Translations 167-173, I have illustrated that Politian's translation is partly based on (a relative of) SiC. At p. 173, n. 42, I noted that the omission of εις άπαν at 33 5 ,11 in SÏW is also found in Politian's translation of Ench. I argued that this omission must be coincidental, because Mesobotes' activities as a scribe started only about 1508, while W is a direct copy of C; Politian made his translation in 1479. I did not venture to discard Harlfinger's very positive statement that Mesobotes executed W, but I expressed my uneasiness with regard to the omission of εις άπαν at 33 5 ,11. But I did not mention that the other readings peculiar to W do not exclude the

possibility of the dependence of Politian's translation on W9 (see the list above). Secondly, in chapters l 5 and 2 Politian always follows the second version in C, which was added at the bottom of the page; W has this alternative version in the text, omitting the original version altogether 10 . Therefore my uneasiness has only grown since the time I wrote my article: I now tend to think that Politian consulted (a relative of) W rather than C, even if this means that I should be compelled to disagree with Harlfinger, whose authority is of much weight 1 1 . But let the student (and future editor?) of Politian's translation decide for himself. X, a direct copy of W (see Hadot, Tradition 58 f.), follows W faithfully, and adds a number of errors of its own: some instances: 15,21 22,10 5b,1 11,5 14a1,4 26,5 312,8-9 34,2 42,1

τι om. καί άφορμάν om. άλλοις] αλις δ' om. άλλ' om. κατεάγη] κατεάγην τό κακόν] τώ κακώ μή] καί ποιή] ποιοΰ

Given the fact that W and X were copied by the same scribe, it is remarkable that the number of errors in X is much larger than in W. For another MS that primarily derives from C, namely E\J [Par. gr. 2124], see pp. 55-57. c. δ: the common ancestor of the other MSS The relationship of the MSS which go back to δ is discussed at length by Hadot, Tradition 7-45 (her group ß). In the lemmata I see no reason to depart from Hadot's conclusions, but the situation is complicated by the circumstance that the MSS vary as regards the 9 W's reading εύρήσεις for εύροήσεις at 8,2 could easily have been emended by Politian with the help of Simplicius' commentary, where ch. 8 is quoted a number of times (Politian has prosper eris). 10 W also leaves blanks at the large omissions, like its exemplar C. The small blanks are often left out; for instance at 20,5, where C has δια[4]κατέχης for διατριβής τύχης, W reads διακατέχης. 11 As an alternative solution it could be suggested that W was copied by Mesobotes before 1479 (the year Politian made his translation), but Harlfinger excludes this possibility (Boter, Translations 173, n. 41). Hadot, Tradition 59, tentatively suggests that Mesobotes executed W and X after 1484, the year when C was certainly in Rome.

length of the lemmata: G [Ven. Marc. gr. 261] and J [Par. gr. 1960] are the only MSS to have the complete text; H [Bonon. 2359] and Sa [ed. princ. 1528] have the complete text up to ch. 24, from which point H only gives the opening lines of the lemmata, while in many cases Sa supplements the text from another source (ΕΣ [Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11]); the other MSS (ζ and κ) only give the first part of the lemmata throughout the commentary. That the text of Ench in all these MSS must go back to δ is proved by the following considerations: 1. there is a considerable number of agreements between GJHSa in the passages that exceed the original lemmata (i.e. the lemmata as they stand in ABD). 2. there are some cases of agreement between G and ε in the original lemmata; see for instance 7,1 πλω] λιμένι (non ita θ); 11,1 μηδέποτε habent: μήποτε δέ BCD; 30,1 ώς έπίπαν GHJ: om. ABCDEF. 3. the contents of the lemmata in ζ and κ sometimes goes beyond the original lemmata. As in C [Vat. gr. 327], the original lemmata have been supplemented rather than supplanted altogether, although in some cases the text of the original lemmata has been corrected. Three MSS (G, θ and Sa) have undergone more or less serious contamination. For the supplemented lemmata in the descendants of δ I use the siglum Sib. I will now list a number of readings of δ; I have not specified the presence or absence of members of the group, i.e. ζ, HSa and κ; variations within the group are only recorded for the major MSS, esp. J

2 2 ,9 3,3 4,3 4,8 7,1 7,8 122,10 14b1,5 18,3 337,16 36,2 44.1 49.2

δσων] δσα στέργης-στέργω] σενης-σείω ένσειομένους] έκκρουομένους έμπόδιον] έμποδίζον πλω] λιμένι τρέχε] τρέχειν (non ita J) καλώς] καλώς, ολως δέ σοι καλώς (et Vat) δύνασαι] ού δύνασαι άλλ' ή] άλλα ψιλής] ψυχής (et Εχ\ ψιλής G'*mg) εχει άξίαν] άξίαν εχειν (G altera loco, priore loco εχει άξίαν praebens; non ita J) είμι habet: om. ΑΒγ σεμνύνηται] σεμνύνεται

It is remarkable that most readings peculiar to δ are found in the earlier chapters; this may partly result from the fact that Η and Sa offer abridged lemmata from ch. 24 on; further we should realize that J has undergone intensive contamination. The supplemented lemmata in Sib (of which 5zGHJ are the most important representatives) go back to the same source as EACb; thus Sib is a primary witness to the text of Ench (see pp. 22-23). I will first discuss G [Ven. Marc. gr. 261] and its derivatives S [Ven. Marc. gr. 253] and R [Par. gr. 1959], then ε and its numerous progeny. G [Ven. Marc. gr. 261 ] and its derivatives G has a number of readings which have separative value against the other MSS; I will quote some instances: 1^2 3,4 22,4 242,10 243,17 25 i,4-5 27,2 333,9 35,2 41,1 48b3,8

όρεξις om. καταφιλής] καταφιλεΐν βέλτιστων] βελτιόνων (βέλτιστων G lm S) έστιν om. ούν μοι] μοι ούν πρός-ήμΐν om. γίνεται] τίθεται τους om. όφθήναι om. τοις om. άπαντα] άπαν

Besides, G shows traces of intensive contamination with a number of branches of the tradition; in addition, there are a number of readings which look like conjectures 12 . First I will quote some instances of contamination: 122.10 13,2 14a1,5 243.11 243,12-13

243,15 244,23 244,23

μή del. G1*?^ om. Par SiC τις] τι G ^ v e l G 1 * ^ (et Par) δέοπι. (et Par) φησίν] φασιν οί φίλοι (et Simp) εί-όδόν] άλλ' εί μέν δυνατόν κτήσασθαί με μένοντα καί πρός υμάς πιστόν φίλον καί κατ' έμαυτόν πάντων κεκαθαρμένον τών αισχύνη ν τώ φιλοσοφώ φερόντων: cf. Simp XXXII 96-98 άνισοι] άδικοι (et Nil) κατασκευάζεις] κατεσκεύαζες (et ΕΎ) άν om. (et £Τ)

12 An asterisk indicates that a reading has been added by Bessarion, after the text was copied.

26,6 294,20 323.18 338.19 3313,37 3314.44 3315.45 36,1 36,4

άλλου] άλλου τινός (et Vat) ευ σωκράτης codd. plerique: εύ ούτος καί ώς σωκράτης G: ευ ούτος καί ώς ό χρυσορρήμων ιωάννης Vat (Εύφράτης Upton e Diss.) αίρει] ενι (et £AC Sib Vat) : έρεί G1*mS ET SiC ων G1 *s1 ETSiC Simp : ώς G ACWw SzJ έντιναχθήσονταί] έκτιναχθήσονταί, έντ G1*5' άκούειν] πυκνώς άκούειν (et Nil) τόπος] τρόπος G Nil και νύξ] νύξ ούκ G1*"^ ΕΎ Vat κοινωνικόν] κοινόν, ωνικόν G'*sl (et ΕΎ SiC Simp)

Conjectures are mainly found in ch. 25; some instances: 7,9 251.1 251.2 25^5 253,10 255,19

άπαλλαγης] άπολείπη G1*5' (an glossema?) εστιάσει] συμποσίω G1 *s1 συμβουλίαν] έστίασιν τών ίσων] εκείνων πιπράσκονται] πωλούνται post εισόδου add. παροινιών G1*'1

S [Ven. Marc. gr. 253] follows GPC, and adds a number of separative errors of its own; some instances: 13,7 7,6 19a1,1 23,1 24J,3-4 292 3l!,2 42,5 45,3 48b3,7

οίηθης] είηθείς γυναικάριον] γυναικάρια Ανίκητος] άνίκητα στραφήναι] γραφήναι ού μάλλον ή έν αίσχρφ om. ερχου om. καί] ή συμπεπλεγμένον] βέλος πεπλεγμένον δόγμα] δράμα δέ om.

R [Par. gr. 1959] follows S closely, and adds many separative errors of its own; some instances: 13,9 4,3-4 9,4 122,9 14a1,3 242,9 292,8 312,7 3310,28 42,7-8 46^6 522,6

έστίν] είναι τους alterum-κλέπτοντας om. σον δέ] δέ σον ποιήσαι] ποιήσας καν] καί πολίτας 'Ρωμαίων] ρωμαίων πολίτας ψυχρόν] μικρόν τούτο om. συγκινείσθαι] έπικινείσθαι GS, συγ G1*slSlsl: έπισυγκείσθαι R έπιφθέγγου-αύτφ om. κάκεινος] κάκεί ούκούν] ού

In Boter, Translations 160-166,1 have shown that the Latin translation of Ench by Niccolo Perotti is based on SiG. ε and its derivatives In most of the derivatives of ε Simplicius' commentary is preceded by Ench; the exceptions are Η [Bonon. 2359], Sa [ed. princ. 1528], J [Par. gr. 1960] and Ρ [Ven. Marc. gr. App. Cl. XI 13] 13 ; therefore ε must have had the text of Ench as well. It has already been noted (see p. 101) that the length of the lemmata in the derivatives of ε varies considerably. Ε [Par. gr. 2072] and F [Par. Suppl. gr. 1023], the two derivatives of ζ (both written by Johannes Phroulas), do not present uniform lemmata. Both MSS give abridged lemmata, except in short chapters such as 5b, 33 4 . In both MSS the lemma can stop within a sentence (e.g. 15,1-2 μέμνησο-τήν Ε; 22,1-3 ει-δτι F) or even within a word (e.g. 51',1-2 είς-διαι[ροΰντα] Ε; 4,1-3 οταν-βαλ[ανείφ] F). The lemmata in Ε and F were probably added after the text of the commentary had been copied: thus F does not have the text of 33 10 , and the first letter of the commentary on this chapter has not been added, while as a rule the first letters are rubricated. η (the possible source of Η [Bonon. 2359] and Sa [ed. princ. 1528] ) has the full text up to ch. 23; from ch. 24 on H only gives lemmata of one or two lines, sometimes rounded off by the formula καί τα λοιπά. The first substantial omission in Sa is 25 5 ,19 τό-είσόδου; the lemma of 30 ends with the word παραμετρείται followed by καί τά εξής; in ch. 41 lines 1-4 οίον-έπιστροφή are omitted, but there is a large blank to indicate the omission; the phenomenon recurs a number of times in the chapters after ch. 41. In the passages in Sa where H is absent, Sa appears to draw on ΕΣ [Neap. Girolamini C.F. 2.11]; this will be illustrated below. Of the two derivatives of θ, J and x, J preserves the full text of Ench in the lemmata; therefore θ is likely to have had the full text as well, λ and ξ, the derivatives of χ, have abridged lemmata of almost identical length; these lemmata probably represent the lemmata in κ; they often break off within a sentence, e.g. 19a1,1-2 άνίκητος-δν; 20,13 μέμνησο-δτι; 46,1-2 μηδαμοΰ-περί; on the other hand ch. 30 is preserved entirely. The differences regarding the length of the lemmata in the derivatives of λ and ξ are negligible. 13

But Ρ originally contained Ench; cf. p. 92.

I will now list the readings peculiar to ε (the absence or presence of MSS containing abridged lemmata is not specified): 5b,2 7,9 9,1 18,6 22.2 338,19 35,1 40,1 44.3 52 1 ,! 533,8

ήργμένον (non ita Ε) fid ή προαιρέσεως] προαίρεσις (non ita Ι\ Is. Vossius·, Ger. Vossius; Bibl. Leid. See De Meyier, Voss. 163-172.

H derives from the same lost MS as J [Vat. gr. 740] and Κ [Vat. gr. 1142]; thus Η derives indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 231-233. 9. Munich, Monacensis gr. 25 16th century; Hardt states that the codex is "exaratus a Nicolo"; paper; 355 χ 240 mm.; ff. 358; Par i f . 17^22', pp. 34-43; 30 lines; siglum F. F contains a selection from Par, consisting of the following chapters: 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 15-17, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 33c 7 , 35, 36, 39-41, 43-51, 55, 59-61, 65-71; the same selection is found in W [Vat. Pal. gr. 91], the source of F. F was part of the library of Hans Jacob Fugger in Augsburg. See Hardt I, 121-133. F derives from W [Vat. Pal. gr. 91]. See pp. 221-222, 226. 10. Moscow, State Historical Museum, Mosquensis Bibliotheca Synodalis 438 Vladimir ( = 325 Sawwa = 312 Matthaei) (miscellaneus) Vladimir, in his catalogue, states that this MS belongs to the 16th century; I believe that the part containing Par is much older and should be assigned rather to the 14th century (cf. De Nicola [in prep.]); paper; 228 χ 150 mm.; ff. 226; Par ff. 214 v -226 v ; 25 lines; siglum S. S breaks off after ch. 58, which is at the end of fol. 226 v (the last folio of the MS in its actual state), so that it is probable that the folia which contained the rest of Par have got lost. S once belonged to the Iviron monastery on Mt. Athos. See Vladimir 666-667. S derives from ζ, and thus indirectly depends on δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-229. 11. Oxford, Oxoniensis Laudianus gr. 21 14th century, before 1359-1360 (cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I 85, nr. 133); Theodoros (cf. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger, I.e.); paper; 192 χ 1 2 6 / 1 3 7 mm.; ff. 301; Par ff. 149 v -159 v ; 25-26 lines; siglum L. See Coxe, Bodl. 503-505. L derives from Ν [Par. gr. 1858]; it is the source of Ε [Escor, gr. 289]. See pp. 221-222, 224-225. 12. Parisinus gr. 39 (Reg. 3441) 13th century, except ff. 178-233, which may be 14th century; oriental paper; 196 χ 132 mm.; ff. Ill, 250, IV (+ 177bis); the text of Par 1-10 is added as lemmata in the Commentary on Par on ff. 179 r -202 v (some folia containing the beginning of Comm have got lost); the rest of Par

follows (after a blank of a few lines) on ff. 202 v -214 r ; 20 lines. Siglum I. See Omont, Inventaire I 7; Spanneut, Commentaire 130. I derives from λ, and thus indirectly depends on δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 231-232. 13. Parisinus gr. 362 (Fontebl.-Reg. 2969) 14th century; paper; f. 249 has a filigrane Latin cross, similar to Briquet 5623 and 5624 (both from the first quarter of the 14th century); 207 χ 135 mm.; ff. Ill, 317, III; Parff. 245 r -251 v ; 33-36 lines; siglum O . Wrongly catalogued as containing Ench. See Omont, Inventaire I 37; Schweighäuser, Ench CIV; —, EPhMV 8. Ο is a gemellus of Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23] and R [Athous 1820], and thus derives indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 221-222, 225-227. 14. Parisinus gr. 858 (Medic.-Reg. 2426) 14th century; (see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 83, nr. 181 (= I 137)); parchment; 292 χ 220 mm.; ff. II, 306, II; Parff. 216 r 227 r ; 31 lines; siglum N; wrongly catalogued as containing Nil. See Omont, Inventaire I 161; Schweighäuser, Ench CIV; —, EPhMV 8. Ν derives from ε, and thus indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. Ν is the source of L [Oxon. Laud. gr. 21]. See pp. 221-224. 15. Parisinus gr. 1053 (Medic.-Reg. 2909) early 11th century, according to Gamillscheg-Harlfinger; late 10th century, according to S. Lucà, who attributes this MS to the "scuola niliana", adding that it was probably e x e c u t e d in Campania 1 ; Gregorios ("Selbstbezeichnung Naziraios", see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger II 60-61, nr. 109); parchment; 192 χ 133 mm.; ff. 255; Parff. 167 v -174 v ; 39-40 lines; siglum P. Wrongly catalogued as containing Ench. See Omont, Inventaire I 211-212; Spanneut, Commentaire 130; Schweighäuser, EnchCTV; —, EPhMW 8. Ρ derives from a, and is therefore a primary witness with high independent value. See pp. 213-217. 16. Parisinus gr. 1302 (Medic.-Reg. 2919) 13th century (ca. 1300 A.D., according to S. Lucä (in a note addressed to Prof. A. Carlini)); oriental paper; 204 χ ca. 130 mm.; ff. IX, 1

See Lucà, Saritture, 330 with note 41; —, Rossano, 25-73, esp. 28, n.12 with plate 3. I owe these references to Prof. A. Carlini.

295, II (+ 39bis, 264bis, 272bis; minus 201); Par ff. 192 r -198 v ; 25-28 lines; siglum Q. See Omont, Inventaire I 293; Spanneut, Commentaire 130; Schweighäuser, Ench CIV; —, EPhMV 8. Q is a gemellus of Ζ [Vat. gr. 1950], and thus derives indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 230-231. 17. Parisinus gr. 2446 (Delamare.-Reg. 2173,2) 17th century; Henri de Valois (Dain, Collection 164-166; cf. De Nicola [in prep.]); paper; 344 χ 219 mm.; ff. 206; Par ff. 100 r -108 v ; 37-39 lines; siglum T; see Omont, Inventaire II 263; Spanneut, Commentaire 132. Τ derives from Β [Bern. 97]. See pp. 215-216. 18. Sinaiticus Catharina 385 13th century; paper; 175 χ 130 mm.; ff. 169; Par ff. 132 r -139 r (there is no fol. 137, as a result of an error in the numbering of the folia); 25 lines; siglum U. See Kamil 79; Spanneut, Commentaire 130. U derives from ζ, and thus derives indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 230. 19. Vaticanus gr. 740 14th century; parchment; 175 χ 145 mm.; ff. IV, 148; Par ff. 84 v -117 r ; 26 lines; siglum J; wrongly catalogued as containing Nil by FriedrichFaye, and by Devreesse ("cum his quae sub Nili nomine vulgata sunt (...) saepe convenientia"). Chs. 57-67 are missing, probably as a result of the loss of a folio in a predecessor: the last words before ch. 68 are της γαρ προαί αύτοΰ εργα, a nonsensical phrase composed of the end of ch. 56 and the end of ch. 67. See Devreesse 254-255; Spanneut, Commentaire 130. J derives from the same lost MS as H [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 54] and Κ [Vat. gr. 1142] ; thus J derives indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 231-234. 20. Vaticanus gr. 1142 12th-13th century, according to Prof. P. Canart; oriental paper; 356 χ 254 mm.; ff. 125; Par ff. 81r-90v; 39-42 lines; siglum K. Κ derives from the same lost MS as J [Vat. gr. 740] and Η [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 54] ; thus Κ derives indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 231-234.

21. Vaticanus gr. 1950 first half of the 14th century; oriental paper (ff. 394-396a occidental paper); 243 χ 165 mm.; ff. Ill, 548; Ench and Parff. 392 v -399 r ; 27-29 lines; siglum Z. On ff. 392 v -393 v Ζ has the first three chapters of Ench; after the last line of ch. 3 there is a series of crosses; the rest of the text is Par from ch. 6 on (= Ench 4; the catalogue wrongly states that the whole text is Par); the text breaks off after ch. 59. The MS is nowadays bound in two volumes. See Canart 762-766. Ζ is a gemellus of Q [Par. gr. 1302], and thus derives indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 222, 227-228, 230-231. 22. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 91 second half of the 13th century or first half of the 14th century (according to Prof. P. Canart); oriental paper; 236 χ 164 mm.; ff. 324; siglum W. As a result of the displacement of some folia, the text of Par is not continuous in this MS: the first part is found on ff. 323 v324 v (chs. 1-21 5 ,6 καί), the rest is on ff. 151r-153v; on f. 324 v , after the last word on the folio (21 5 ,6 και) there is a note "παρατεθέντων σοί μή λάβοις, Haec et quae deinceps, habes s a , post dimidiam partem huius libri, vel paulo minus quam dimidiam.", to which a later hand has added "ρ: 151"; on fol. 151" there is a note written in the same hand "Praecedentia sunt in fine huius libri, καί έση ποτέ άριστος συμπότης χριστού βασιλείας, ει δε (sic) καί nam sequi haec debent παρατεθεντων σοι (sic)"; the displacement of the folia took place after F [Mon. gr. 25] was copied from W, because F has the text in the correct order. 32-33 lines; wrongly catalogued as containing Ench. W contains only a selection from Par; for the contents see the description of F [Mon. gr. 25], See Stevenson, Pal. 44-46. W derives from η, and thus derives indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 221-222, 225-226. 23. Vaticanus Reginensis gr. 23 between 1330 and 1380, according to Prof. P. Canart2; paper; 295 x 2 Prof. Canart writes me the following (letter of 8 / 5 / 9 6 ) : "Ce manuscrit est l'oeuvre de deux copistes, me semble-t-il, mais a été copié entièrement sur un papier à grosses vergeures caractéristiques des années 1330-1380 et l'écriture confirme cette datation. Le f. I est un folio de garde plus récent, fait d'un papier qui ne porte pas de filigrane, mais a les caractéristiques des papiers du XVe ou du XVIe siècle. Il porte une note d'un certain moine (il se qualifie lui-même d'άμόναχος) Callistos, adressée à son supérieur et à ses confrères, et datée de janvier 7031 (A.D.

205 mm.; ff. 269; Par ff. 263 v -264 v ; 30-32 lines; siglum Y. Y contains only the opening chapters of Par; the text breaks off suddenly after 16 4 ,7 οϋτως, which is the last word on fol. 264 v ; therefore Y must originally have contained more of Par. Wrongly catalogued as containing Nil. See Stevenson, Reg. 17-19. Y is a gemellus of Ο [Par. gr. 362] and R [Athous 1820], and thus derives indirectly from δ, which is the source of a large number of MSS. See pp. 221-222, 225-227. 24. Venetus Mardanus gr. 127 (coll. 390) 13th century; parchment; 285 χ 210 mm.; ff. 245; Parff. 233 v -242 r ; 30 lines; siglum V. V once belonged to Bessarion; on fol. 1 there is an owner's note Locus II. Climacus et Isaac, liber b(essarionis) car. Tusculani. Wrongly catalogued as containing Nil. See Mioni, Ven. 175-177. V is a gemellus of γ, which is the source of A [Athen. 521] and δ [the source of a large number of MSS] ; the common source of V and γ is a gemellus of Ρ [Par. gr. 1053]; thus V is a primary witness with high independent value. See pp. 214-215, 217-219. Lost manuscript Casaubon 142-144 describes the problems with the MS on which his edition is based. First he received a copy of a MS preserved in the Sionense Collegium Londinense; this copy got lost. Then Casaubon received a second copy, which was full of errors 3 ; when some of his friends wanted to consult the MS itself, it proved not to be present in the library any more; Casaubon ascribes this to the incuria, velperfidia of the librarians. Editio princeps Par was first edited by M. Casaubon (London 1659); for his MS source see the preceding item. It appears that this lost MS was related to V [Ven. Marc. gr. 127], See pp. 234-236. 1523). Le sens n'est pas parfaitement clair (il faut que je l'étudié encore), mais, en tout cas, il ne s'agit pas d'une souscription, comme l'a cru Stevenson, et rien ne prouve que le folio se soit trouvé primitivement à la fin du manuscrit, comme il l'a supposé; de plus, l'écriture, grande et plutôt malhabile, n'a rien à voir avec celle du manuscrit lui-même et cadre bien avec la date de 1523." 3 Dott. De Nicola draws my attention to Schweighäuser, EPhMV 6, η. *), where Schweighäuser refers to Casaubon's preface to his text of Ench (which, in his edition, precedes Par); Schweighäuser writes: "(...) exemplum istud, quo usus est Casaubonus in hoc libello edendo, non e veteri Codice manuscripto, quem olim in Bibliotheca Collegii Sionensis fuisse ait, sed ex apographo, quod ex illo codice confectum erat, ab alia manu fuerit descriptum."

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

THE CHARACTER OF THE PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA

The author of Par1 shows much more intellectual independence, theological acumen and philosophical insight than his two Christian colleagues. He follows the text of Ench closely, but does not hesitate to omit or add phrases, to change words, to abridge or expand a passage, to add passages of his own invention etc. Accordingly, in my discussion, instead of aiming at completeness, I will only give some representative instances of each type of alteration. First I will illustrate how the text is adapted to suit Christians and especially monks, then I will mention the other types of interventions in the text. My account is chiefly based on Spanneut's discussion 2 . 1. The Christian character of Par Spanneut, DS 838, mentions a number of passages where Par and Nil have a similar modification of the original text. Both omit Ench 335 on the oath, Ench 32 on divination (for which Par 38 gives a brief exposition on the nature of prayer), Ench 52 on the parts of Epictetean philosophy, Ench 15,8 on Diogenes and Heraclitus, Ench 31 4 ,1718 on Eteocles and Polyneices 3 . While M/leaves the name of Socrates in one place (Nil 10a,3), Par changes it constantly (Par 7 2 ,2-3 τοις άποστόλοις καί μάρτυσι, Par603,3 ό απόστολος); Ench 31 5 on making sacrifices is replaced by instructions on charity. And of course οί θεοί are constantly substituted by ό θεός. But Par does much more than that. The crow of Ench 18, left unimpaired by Nil, is changed into a dream (Par 24); the ευδαιμονία 1

As in the case of Mil, nothing certain can be said about the date of composition of Par. We only have the terminus ante quern of ca. 960, when M [Laur. 55,4] was written; this same MS is the oldest witness to the text of the commentary on Par, for which no certain date can be given either (cf. p. 237). See Spanneut, DS 840, 843; —, ÄAC667; Santerini Citi 57-59; Carlini 221, n. 19. 2 The fullest discussion in DS 837-839; see also RAC 665-667, and Moines 51. I only refer to the DS article; the other two articles do not contain new material. 3 Spanneut, DS 838, states that both Nil and Par omit Ench 531"3, adding that Par gives a prayer to the Holy Ghost instead; but this prayer is clearly based on the passage in Ench.

of Ench 1 4 ,17 has become ειλικρινής ευλάβεια (Par 2 4 ,6); the quality of being μεγαλόφρων (Ench 243,12) is considered unbecoming for a Christian and therefore replaced by ελεύθερος (Par 31 8 ,13) and so on 4 . Spanneut, DS 839, points out that in many places the author does not content himself with removing pagan thought, but gives Christian doctrine instead. Thus Ench 11 on endurance is turned into a brief commentary on LXX Jb. 1,21 (Par 14); Ench 12 2 ,10-11 on the education of the παις becomes a discussion of Ev. Matt. 7,3 (Par 16) 5 . Spanneut, DS 839, gives many instances of how the text has been made suitable for monks. Thus 6 φιλόσοφος is replaced by the άναχωρητής (Par 29',3) or ήσυχαστής (Par 60',1), ή φιλοσοφία becomes ή ενάρετος πολιτεία (Par 29ι,1). And there are many practical instructions which are in full accordance with monastic life (see Spanneut). In order to give an impression of the ability of the author of Par I will discuss at some length the final chapter of Ench, corresponding to chs. 70-71 of Par6. Arrian gives four quotations which we should always carry in mind; the first from Cleanthes, the second from Euripides, the third and fourth from Plato's Cúto and Apology respectively. In contrast to [Nilus], who only gives a clumsy adaptation of the last quotation, Par gives adapted versions of all four quotations; what is more, he turns the four texts into two coherent chapters. In the first quotation Zeus and Fate are replaced by Saviour and Holy Spirit; the second verse is reproduced in a simplified form: όπου σοι καί όπως φίλον instead of όποι ποθ' ύμίν είμι διατεταγμένος; the third and fourth lines remain unchanged, but for the change of the first person singular into the first person plural, as in the preceding lines. The first line of the second quotation, δστις δ' άνάγκη συγκεχώρηκεν καλώς, is rendered in Par as δστις δέ έκών εύπειθώς έπεται θεώ: in the first place Fate has been replaced by God; in the second place, by means of the word έπεται the author creates a fluent transition from the first to the second quotation: "we will follow nonetheless" is picked up by "whoever follows God voluntarily and obediently". The

4

Spanneut regards the omission of Ench 29 as the doing of the author of Par, I rather believe that the chapter was absent from Par's copy of Ench. 5 This passage aptly reflects the versatility and learning of the author of Par. at the end of Par 16 we find an anecdote which is told about Socrates and others. 6 See also Carlini 223-225.

second quotation in Ench ends with the words καί τα θεΐ' έπίσταται, which of course is unacceptable for an orthodox Christian; accordingly, we find καί θεώ δέ προσφιλής instead. This phrase gives a smooth transition to the third quotation, which starts with δ γάρ τω θεω φίλον; in addition the particle γάρ, too, marks the connection between the two sentences. The fourth quotation in Ench, έμέ δέ "Ανυτος καί Μέλητος άποκτεΐναι μέν δύνανται, βλάψαι δέ ού, is developed at length by the author of Par, the connection with the preceding sentence is marked (again) by the particle γάρ, and by the word ούτως, which refers to the whole of the preceding quotations; in fact, ch. 71 appears to be intended as a comment by the author on the dicta of ch. 70. The content of the Platonic quotation is preserved essentially, but (as usual) Paris far more explicit than the original text: in the first place, there is the conditional βιοΰντας ήμάς "if we live in this way", whereas the statement in Plato is unconditional; in order to bring out clearly the difference between β λ ά ψ α ι and άποκτεΐναι, the author first expands the notion of άποκτεΐναι, by adding ύ β ρ ε ι ς and διώξεις; then the true meaning of βλάψαι is aptly illustrated by the quotation from Ev. Matt. 10,28, in which the difference between harm done to the body and to the soul is stated explicitly. The quotation from the Gospel also serves to illustrate the essentially Christian character of a concept which is originally Socratic/Platonic, and gives a very apt conclusion to the work as a whole. 2. Other changes in Par Spanneut, DS 837, gives a number of instances of alterations in Par which do not primarily aim at giving the text a Christian character. He remarks that Par often substitutes a relatively unknown word by a more common one; in general, Spanneut argues, Par aims at enhancing the clarity of the text. I will give a more elaborate discussion than the one offered by Spanneut. a. Substitutions of words In quite a lot of places Par chooses to use a word different from the one in Ench; as already noted, this often gives greater clarity, but in some cases the author of Par appears to dislike a specific word; for instance, the word μέμνησο, which is found in a number of places in Ench, is often avoided: at Par IS 1 ,!; 21 1 ,!; 23 1 ,! and 69 4 ,7 the word is

omitted without substitute, at 2Ίλ,\ and 32 2 ,3 we find γίνωσκε instead, and at 56 J ,1 Par has ένθυμοΰ. The word πρόχειρον, another frequently used term in Ench, is provided with the addition of some form of λέγειν in four of the five places where it occurs in Par7. I will give a number of other instances: Ench 2 1 ,6 = Par 4 1 , 3 Ench 8,2 = Par 11,2

Ench 11,5 = Par 14 7 ,10

Ench 17,5 = Par 23 3 ,5 Ench 17,5 = Par 23 3 ,5 Ench 30,2 = Par 34 2 ,2 Ench 31:2,10 = Par 365,9 Ench 33 10 ,30 = Par 454,7 Ench 48b 2 ,5 = Par 65 4 ,6

δυστυχήσεις] όδυνηρώς διάξεις εύροήσεις] άλύπως διάξεις έπιμελοΰ] φρόντιζε έκλέξασθαι] δοΰναι άλλου] τοΰ θεοΰ υπαγορεύεται] δέον θέλεις] όρέγη et μή θέλεις] έκκλίνεις φέρει] λυσιτελει περίεισι] περιέρχεται

There are also cases where Par uses a different conjunction or preposition; some instances: Ench Ench Ench Ench Ench Ench

3

15,21 = Par3 ,4 3 5a,5 = Par7 ,4 3 15,4 = Par21 ,4 3 1 U = Par 3 6 U 5 31 2 ,9 = Par 36 ,7 2 34,6 =: Par 49 ,4

καν] καί έάν άλλ'] άλλ' ή μέχρις άν] άχρις ού περί] πρός ώς άν γέ] έάν γάρ καί τούτοις] τούτοις τε

b. Changes of tense, word order, number Not unfrequently, Par chooses a different word order, tense or number; of course, it is not impossible that such readings were already in Par s copy of Ench. Some instances: Ench l3,8-9 = Par l6,8-9

Ench 11,2 = Par 14U Ench 14a,3 = Par 18 3 ,4 Ench 38,1 = Par 5 3 U

Ench 51 2 ,9 = Par69 4 ,6

7

έάν δέ τό σον μόνον οίηθής σόν είναι, τό δέ άλλότριον (ώσπερ έστίν) άλλότριον] έάν δέ τά έπί σοί μόνα οίηθής σά είναι, τά δέ άλλότρια άλλότρια άπέδωκα] άποδέδωκα άμαρτάνειν] άμαρτήσαι Έν τω περιπατείν καθάπερ προσέχεις] καθάπερ έν τω περιπατείν προσέχεις ήδη ούν άξίωσον σεαυτόν] άξίωσον ούν σεαυτόν ήδη

3,6 πρόχειρον ευθύς λέγειν; 6,13 πρόχειρόν σοι λέγειν; 22,4 πρόχειρον έπιλέγειν σεαυτω; 70,2 πρόχειρον έ'χωμεν τό λέγειν. Therefore it is all the more remarkable to find πρόχειρον οτι at 33a 2 ,3, while Ench has πρόχειρον εύθύς λέγειν οτι.

c. Omissions The omissions in Par that cannot be explained by an attempt to give the text a Christian character vary from one word to complete lines. Some instances (the Greek words quoted are to be found in Ench): Ench 13,9 = Pari6,'9 Ench 7,9 = Par 10 6 ,9

Ench 11,1 =Parl4 1 ,l Ench 12 1 ,4 = Par 1 5 2 , 4

Ench 19b 2 ,2 = Par 26^2 Ench 21,2-3 = Par 28,2

Ench 254,17 = Par 328,16 Ench 313,11-13 = Par 36 6 ,10 Ench 336,15-16 = Par 41 3 ,4 Ench 48b2,6 = Par 65 4 ,7

ωσπερ εστίν om. μακράν om. Μηδέποτε om. γενόμενον om. υπό της φαντασίας om. μάλιστα δε πάντων ό θάνατος om. και άβέλτερος om. πέφυκε-τεθαυμακέναι om. κάν αύτός ών τύχη καθαρός om. τών καθισταμένων, πριν πήξιν λαβείν om.

d. Shortened passages In a number of cases Par gives a condensed version of the text of Ench\ sometimes this is due to the specifically Stoic character of Ench. Some instances: Ench 10,1-2 = Par I S M

Ench 42,4-5 = Par 564,6 Ench 47,1 =Par62 1 ,l

μέμνησο έπιστρέφων έπί σεαυτόν ζητείν] ζήτει καί γάρ τό αληθές συμπεπλεγμένον άν τις ύπολάβη ψεύδος] τό ψεύδος άληθές νομίσας "Οταν εύτελώς ήρμοσμένος ής κατά τό σώμα] εύτελώς φορών

e. Additions There are two types of additions in Par: the first type consists of substantial additions, often affecting the philosophical or theological impact of a passage (cf. the section on the Christian character of Par, pp. 206-208) ; the second consists of additions that aim at clarifying the text, be it grammatically or with regard to the contents. I will give some instances of either type. Ench 1 4 ,14 = Par 2 2 , 3

Ench 7,10 = Par 106"7,10-11 Ench 122,5 = Par 165"8,8-13

Ench 19b2,3 = Par 262"3,3-6

και προηγουμένως εαυτού έπιμελεΐσθαι καί δεδεμένος βληθης · ό γάρ εκών μή έπόμενος άκων άνάγκη τούτο πείσεται in this long passage there is a most remarkable combination of Christian material (Ev. Matt. 7,3) and an anecdote told about (among others) Socrates and Plato this addition might be a reminiscence of Ench 25Ϊ.2-6

Ench 30,4 = Par 345"7,4-9 Ench 48b2,4 = Par 653,4-6

Ench 3,5 = Par 53,5-6 Ench 3,5 = Par 5 3 ,6 Ench 8,1 = Par 11,1-2 Ench 10,1 = Par I S M Ench 143^2 = Par 18 1 ,2 Ench 15,1 = Par2\^,\ Ench 19b2,2 = Par 2 6 2 20,2 = Par 271,2-3 Ench 25*,5 = Par322,4-5 PncA 39,5 = Par 543,5-6 PncA 46 ] ,3 = Par60 2 ,3

reverence for God has priority over reverence for one's father someone who is praised does not only laugh at the error of the one who praises him, but he also deems himself unhappy for having misled someone else άνθρωπον] άνθρωπον θνητόν αποθανόντος] αποθανόντος αύτοΰ θέλε] μάλλον θέλε προσπιπτόντων] έμπιπτόντων πειρασμών ζην] ζην καί εύ πράττειν άναστρέφεσθαι] άναστρέφεσθαι έν τφ βίω μακαρίσης] μακαρίσης μέν έκεινον add. άμέλει έαυτοίς ταΰτα λέγοντες ούκ άλγούμεν τών ϊσων] τών ϊσων τοις ποιοΰσιν add. οΰτω καί έπί πασών τών ορέξεων add. τύπος γενόμενος άλλοις

As Prof. Α. Carlini points out to me, there are a few places where Par uses typically Stoic terms. Thus the addition at Par 10 7 ,10-11 ό γαρ έκών μή επόμενος άκων άνάγκη τοΰτο πείσεται reminds us of Seneca's famous fifth verse in his version of Cleanthes' prayer (Ep. 107,11) ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt. And at Par 49 ! ,1 we find the terminus technicus συγκαταθήση instead of Ench s άπολαύσεις 8 . The general picture is clear: the author of Par considers every single phrase of the original text, and never copies something mindlessly. This attitude is important for our assessment of the value of Par for the text of Ench, and for the constitution of the text of Par itself.

8

De Nicola, Osservazioni, suggests that συγκαταθήση may represent the original reading of Ench\ at the same time he submits that Par's reading πράξας for άπολαύσας is the authendc reading of Ench.

Stemma codicum et editionis principis Paraphrasis christianae

α

η

D

Ν

λ

W

f

F

μ

Ε

H

j

K U

I

K

Q

Ζ

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

THE AFFILIATION OF THE MANUSCRIPTS AND THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF THE PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA

In the introduction (pp. 197-198) it has already been pointed out that Piscopo, in her article on Par, divides the five MSS used by Schweighäuser into two groups, the first formed by M [Laur. 55,4] and Ρ [Par. gr. 1053], the second by Ν [Par. gr. 858], Ο [Par. gr. 362] and Q [Par. gr. 1302]; in the latter group, N O belong together against Q . In fact there are 24 MSS containing Par, so that the construction of a stemma becomes rather more complicated; but through some stroke of luck or by sheer intuition Schweighäuser has managed to pick out representatives of all the major groups of MSS of Par, so that the stemma of his five MSS looks like a skeleton of the stemma of all known MSS. Now I disagree with Piscopo's stemma on o n e important point: whereas she regards Ρ as a gemellus of M, deriving from a lost source which is a gemellus of the lost source of N O Q , I believe that Ρ belongs to N O Q , so that M stands alone against the other four MSS. If we take account of all the new MSS as well, this means that M (with its three derivatives Β [Bern. 97], C [Bern. 150] and Τ [Par. gr. 2446]) is a gemellus of the lost common source of the other twenty MSS. The first part of my discussion will be devoted to the demonstration that M (with its derivatives) does stand alone against the other MSS, which I designate with the collective siglum a. Then I will show the dependence of BCT on M; the rest of the chapter will be about the relationship of the remaining MSS, plus Casaubon's editio princeps.

The relationship of M and a In order to show that M and α are gemelli, I will quote some separative errors of each of the two. Let me first list some errors of M: 1 3 ,3 3U

8,2-3

το σωμα om. εύθύς]εύθέως τό-έαυτφ om.

10^3 132.3 151.1 167,12 23 1 ,! 318,12 31 23 ,41 33a4 ,5 35 2 .4 382.2 48 1 ,! 52,2 565,7 654,6 69 2 ,2 69 7 ,12

συνάξαι] συνάψαι προβαλλομένων] υποβαλλομένων άφες] άφώ (sic) σκοπεί] σκοπείς έστησεν] έ'κτησεν τηρών om. πόλει] πόλει ταύτη αδελφός ή φίλος] αδελφού ή φίλου βλάπτεσθαι om. μάλλον-πάντοτε] είδότες τό]τώνώ έκπέσεις] έκπλής μακρόν] μικρόν περιέρχεται] παρέρχεται ήδη om. ει] ώς

The existence of α is proved by the conjunctive errors of its derivatives. Besides, there are a number of places where Ρ and V [Ven. Marc. gr. 127] agree in error, while the other MSS of the group have the correct reading: such places must be explained by assuming that the c o m m o n source of these MSS was corrected or contaminated. Here follow some errors of a 1 : 73,3-4 7 3 ,4 122,3 13^1-2 223,6 25,1 27 3 ,5

ή ταρασσώμεθα ή λυπώμεθα om. μηδέποτε M (et Ench Nil Vat) : μήποτε a αύτο om. τίνα δύναμιν έχεις] τήν δύναμιν εί έχεις κακών] καλών ανίκητος M (et Ench Nil Vat) : άόργητος a χρόνου καί διατριβής τύχης] έκ χρόνου καί συναρπαγής τούτο ήν 318,12 εί] τι έπαίνου] έκείνου (έκεΐνο Ο: έκεΐνος JK) 32 7 ,14 40,1 μή M (et Ench Nil Vat) : μή σοι a 42^2-43M περίγραφε. Έγκράτειαν] περίγραφε έγκράτειαν. 68^,2 έν αύτών άφείς] έν αύτώ δ άφής Ρ: έαυτώ δ άφείς V: έν αύτώ δ άν άφής KQU: έν αύτώ δ άν άφείς J: έαυτώ δ άν άφής DEFLNOW 713,5 κύριος λέγων Μ: κύριος μή φοβεΐσθαι λέγων α

Piscopo argues that Ρ and Μ belong together because there are some places where N O Q have a correct reading against MP. The correct 1 Of course there are places where a few members of the group have a different reading, but I have not thought it worth while to mark this; in the places mentioned it can be regarded as certain that the reading which is quoted is the reading of the common ancestor of all the MSS of the group.

readings in M are to be regarded as the result of conjecture or contamination, if I understand her correctly. I cannot accept this affiliation for the following reasons. As will appear from my discussion (see pp. 217-221) the common source of N O Q (and their congeners) is a gemellus of V, as appears from a considerable number of conjunctive errors in these MSS; this lost source of V N O Q was a gemellus of P. Now in most places where N O Q have a correct reading, the wrong reading is found not only in MP, but also in V: if such correct readings in N O Q were the result of vertical transmission, V could not agree in error with PM. Therefore we must assume that the source of N O Q was corrected and contaminated. Moreover, in the stemma of the MSS of the Commentary on Par M is regarded as a gemellus of the source of the other MSS (which include Ρ and IJQ) by both Spanneut, Commentaire 134, and Santerini Citi 55-56 (with note 3 on p. 56). Hence it can be safely concluded that M (with its derivatives) stands alone against the other MSS.

The apographa of M As has already been stated, M has three extant apographa, all of them very recent, Β [Bern. 97], C [Bern. 150] and Τ [Par. gr. 2446], That these MSS derive from M becomes clear from the fact that they follow M everywhere; further, there are some places where the reading of BCT appears to be the result of misreading M, which in some places is indeed very difficult to read; and finally BCT agree with M in the few places where M has been corrected by a later hand, for instance 26 4 ,6 άρχων] άρχον M 2 . And at 33a 2 ,3 M has the word έστίν per compendium at the end of the line: it is omitted in BCT. BCT have a lot of conjunctive errors; some instances: 4 1 ,1 105_6,8-9 212.2 30 2 .3 33a5,7 48^1-2 492,5 565,7 56 Π ,19 67,7-8 704,5 713.4

τά om. έκείνους-ποτε om. έκτείνας] εις τινας (sic) φαίνου] φαίνον (sic) οτι και] καί οτι τινών-σοί om. οτι om. μακρόν σε] μικρόνες οφείλω] άφείλω έξηγούμενος-έαυτοΰ bis deinceps σοφός-θεφ om. δυναμένων] διαμένων

Within the group BCT, Β appears to be the source of the other two MSS: Β has no errors against C, while its only error against Τ (5 3 ,6 αποθανόντος] άπαθανόντος) can be very easily corrected. C and Τ have no conjunctive errors, while each of them has separative errors of its own. First I will quote some errors of C: 10U έξέλθοις] έξέλθους άναδειχθήση] άναδειχθήσαι 215,8 23U χρή] δει 31 Π ,17 δπως] δπερ 344,5 θεσπίσας] δεσπίσας 6 5 π ρ ο κ ύ π τ ο ν τ ο ς ] προσκόπτοντος Some errors of Τ: 4 2 ,3 5 1 ,1 31 21 ,36 44 1 ,! 56 2 ,3 693,5

εκκλισιν] έκκλησίαν ψυχαγωγούντων] τυχαγωγούντων ποιήσαι-δύνασαι om. σε om. έαυτοΰ om. προκόπτοντα] προσκόπτοντα

The relationship of the other manuscripts The existence of a lost MS (a) which was the source of Ρ [Par. gr. 1053] and of β (the lost source of all the other MSS of the group) has already been proved above. In order to illustrate that Ρ and β are gemelli I will quote some separative errors of both Ρ and β. Here are some readings peculiar to P: 3 3 ,4 144,4 168,13 215,7 265,8 312,4 327,13 352,3 395,6 492,5 642,2 66 3 ,3

τών alterum] μέν ό alterum om. είπεν] είπον μόνον] μόνος οδός] ή οδός τά om. δσου] δς οϋ άλλος] άλλως ποιείν] ποιήσαι καί alterum om. δέ om. μέν om.

Besides, Ρ has countless errors resulting from inner dictation; some instances: 3 2 ,3 92,3

έπειτα] έπιτα ϊσθι] ϊσθη

142.2 153,6 20,2 352,4 56 2 .3 568,12 63,1

άπεδόθη] άπεδώθη αμαρτήματα] άμαρτίματα έχων] έχον ύπολάβης] ύπολάβεις συμφέρον] συμφέρων έκείνφ] εκείνο άσθμαινε] άσμενε

Ρ shows no traces of contamination or conjectural emendation. β: the common source of V [Ven. Marc. gr. 127] and γ (the lost source of the other MSS) The existence of β is proved by a number of conjunctive errors of V and γ (the source of A [Athen. 521] and δ, which is the source of the other MSS); some instances 2 : 3 4 ,5 9 2 .1 9 2 .2 141.1 15^3 213,4 33a2,2 33a 6,9 33c 7 ,1 382.2 442,4-5 49 2 ,4 568,12

μέμνησο] μέμνησο ούν εί]είγάρ έπαιρόμενον έλεγεν] έλεγεν έπαιρόμενον άποδέδωκα] άπέδωκα ύπηρετούμενον] υπηρετούντα άχρις] έως κατεάξη] άν κατεάξη (om. όταν) τω om. κακηγορών] κατηγορών καί om. δυνηθείς κωλΰσαι παθών] κωλύσαι παθών δυνηθείς τε] γε ώς] δ

In two places β has an interesting reading against MP: 11,1 145,6

τά μέν MP: τά μέν έστιν β ö habet β: ώ MP

These two readings may very well be explained by conjectural emendation; the reading at 14 5 ,6 must be accepted as correct. There are some slight indications that β had double readings, which points at contamination. At 6',2 V has τό έργον in the text (this is also the reading of M); τό is added above the line in Q, and is also found in the text of the lemmata in JK. At 31 1 ,1 V reads διαβήσομαι for διαβιώσομαι with Μ; γ has διαβιώσομαι: both readings may have been in β. That V and γ are gemelli is proved by the fact that they both have separative errors; first I will quote some readings peculiar to V (the 2

See note 1 to this chapter (p. 214).

number of V's separative errors is enormous; many of them result from inner dictation) : 2 2 .3 6 3 .4 107,11 165,8 265,8-9 29J,1 3119,31 412.1 475,8 614,5 68 2 .3 71

ύπερθέσθαι] ύποθέσθαι κελεύοντας] κλαίοντας πείσεταν] πείσεσθαι βελτίων] βέλτιον πάντων τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν] τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν πάντων έναρέτου] έν άρετής έναρέτου ούτος] ούτως ποτε] τότε λέγων om. τότε] τότε δέ έπί σοί om. οϋτως ήμάς] ήμάς οϋτως

Here are some separative errors of γ 3 : 106,10 122.4 144.5 17^2 232.2 31 23 ,40 324,7 327,14 32 12 ,22 33a5,8 35^2 443.6 484.7

βληθής] βληθήση σόν] σού άφείλατο] άφείλετο μηδέν] και μηδέν προβεβηκόσιν] προβεβηκόσι τοιούτον φασί] φής ούν] τοιγαρούν κολακείας] και κολακείας άνασχέσθαι] άνέχεσθαι ποιήσει] πείσει μηδέ]κα!μή αίσθηθής] αϊσθη άποσιωπάν] σιωπάν

In a number of places γ has a correct or probable reading against PV, sometimes against PVM. These places are the following: 1 3 ,3 5 3 .5 7 2 ,3 22*,2 233,5 31 12 ,19 31 22 ,37 33a6,8

άρχαί habet γ: άρξαι PV άδελφόν ή φίλον habet γ: άδελφός ή φίλος PVM άν habet y: om. PV άπολωλεκότος M: άπολελοκότας V : άπολελωκότας Ρ : άπολωλεκότα γ αύτο τού θεού habet γ (et VP C ) : αύτώ τώ θεώ P V a c δτι habet γ: τί PV: om. Μ σοι habet γ: σου PV σκοπός habet γ: ό κόπος PV

It has already been noted that these readings (and a number of readings of δ, see p. 198) induced Piscopo to assume t h a t N O Q form one independent branch of the tradition, while Ρ and M together represent the other branch. I believe that this is not so, because of 3

A breaks off after 56®, 10 πλάνης.

the many places where γ agrees in manifest error with PV and with V (cf. above, pp. 214-215, 217). The places just mentioned may in many cases be explained by conjectural emendation. In a few cases contamination may have been at work: we shall see that the γ-family presents many stemmatical anomalies, some of which may be explained by assuming the existence of double readings (and therefore possibly contamination) in γ itself. The γ-group It has already been indicated above that γ is the source of A [Athen. 521] and δ, the common ancestor of the other MSS. This is shown by the fact that each has separative errors of its own. First I will mention a number of readings peculiar to A: 43,6 6 4 ,8 11,1 183,5 242,2 30 2 ,3 324,7 33a1,1 38U 483,6 53U 56 6 ,9

τινός-ήμΐν om. καί ωσαύτως] ωσαύτως καί γίνεσθαι om. μή είναι κακίαν om. σημαίνεται] συμβήσεται σεαυτω] μόνον σεαυτω προέμενος] προελόμενος βούλημα]βούλευμα μή] δέ μή τίκτεται] τίκτονται μή] Υνα μή δέ om.

In a number of cases A agrees with ε, in other cases with (some descendants of) ζ. First I will list the places where A and ε share a distinctive reading: titulus 51,2 8,2 104,6 Η 5 ,? 168,13 33a 4 ,6 344,5 345,6 472,4

σπουδαίοι] σπουδαίοι τίνες έν habent Αε: om. ν ζ μήτε prius] τό μήτε έάν om. φησίν έδοξεν] έδοξε(ν) φησί(ν) (et Κ) σε] σε ώ παΐ όστις] ος αγαθόν] τόν αγαθόν (et J) τόν] τό τόν ότι alterum om. (et J)

Some of these cases of agreement may be coincidental (e.g. 8,2); in the case of other readings (e.g. the title; 16 8 ,13) it is imaginable that they already figured as variant readings in γ, were taken over by A and δ, found their way into ε, but were neglected by ζ. It is also possible that some errors of γ were corrected by ζ.

Here are the places where A agrees with (derivatives of) ζ: 145,6 162,2-3 16®,11 30 2 ,3 325,10 382,2 461.1 54 2 .2

έννοών] έννοειν AU τό οίνάριον] ό οίνος AJM τό τραύμα] τραύματα AJ μόνω] μόνων AJ μή alterum om. AJ αύτοΰ] τοΰ θεοΰ AJx εική] οϊκει Αζ τοΰτο] τούτοις Αχ: τούτου ζ

The fact that at 38 2 ,2 τοΰ θεοΰ for αύτοΰ is also found in κ makes it likely that this reading occurred as a variant reading in γ, and was neglected by ε and the other descendants of ζ; this may also be valid for some other readings. At 4 6 1 , ! ε may have been corrected. And some cases may be coincidental. In some places A agrees with M against a; this must be explained as the result of contamination, witness the double reading at 27 2 ,4. Here they are: 73,3-4 243,5 243.5 27 2 ,4 318,12 31 22 ,39 329.17 51,2

ή ταρασσώμεθα ή λυπώμεθα (λυπούμεθα A) habent AM: om. α ώφεληθήναι AM: εύοδωθήναι α ύπ'] έξ AM πειρώ μή] ού τό Ρδ: ούτω V: πειρώ μή ούτω Α εϊ AM: τί α εύχαριστοΰντα α: εύχαριστοΰντά σε AM έξεις AM: έξεΐν Ρ: έξήν V: έξήν εξειν δ γενήση α: φανήση Μ: φανήσει Α

In a few other places A does not share an error in V6: 3 4 .5 134.6 31 22 ,37 329.18 368,16

μέμνησο AUVMP: μέμνησο ούν Vö άνεξικακίαν] τήν άνεξικακίαν VÔ μέν om. VÔ άνασχέσθαι] άνέχεσθαι Vô άδικεΐσθαι] ήδικήσθαι VÔ

These cases too may be explained by contamination of A from M. In some other places, on the other hand, A agrees with V against δ: 3 4 .6 3 4 .7 8,2 143,3 163.3 27 2 .4 365,8 36®, 12

τυχεΐν] τό τυχείν έκείνφ] έκεΐνο πεπαιδευμένου] πεπαιδευμένου δέ κακός] κακώς τοσούτου]τοσούτον πειρώ μή] ού τό Ρδ: οϋτω V: πειρώ μή ούτω Α άγαθόν ή κακόν] άγαθών ή κακών VA lsl ήδεΐ]ήδύ A ^ V

At 36 5 ,8 β and γ may have had both readings; this is also probable for the reading at 36 6 ,12. The agreement between A and V at 3 4 ,6; 3 4 ,7; 14 3 ,3 and 16 3 ,3 may very well be coincidental, because both MSS have many errors of this type. Here are some separative errors of δ: 4^2-3 13 2 ,2-3 16 4 ,7 26 3 ,6 31 8 ,12 3 1 1 7 29 3122,38 31 2 3 ,41 33a2,3 36 5 ,9

νόσον-θάνατον-πενίαν] νόσου-θανάτου-πενίας ή μ ΐ ν ό θεός] ό θεός ή μ ΐ ν μήν om. τήν σήν προαίρεσιν φ υ λ ά ξ α ι ] φ υ λ ά ξ α ι τήν σήν προαίρεσιν τούτω] αύτώ πληρώσεις] πληρώσας Α: πληρώσαι δ μόνον om. φυλάττων] φυλάττω Α φυλάττειν δ εύθύς] εύθύς λέγειν οίς] ών

Some readings in δ may be due to conjectural emendation; for instance, at 31 17 ,29 V has δι' ού for δι' ών ό, A reads διό; δ has δει ö, and reads πληρώσαι for πληρώσεις (A has πληρώσας), thus offering an intelligible text. In a few places δ has a probable or correct reading against MPVA or PVA: 23,4 24,6 lOU 31 9 ,15 65 3 ,5 662,2

ταύτα MPVA: καί ταύτα δ (et Ench Nil Vat) μόνον MPVA μόνων δ ε ί δ : ο π ι . MPVA άσύμφορος MPVA: άσύμφωνος δ ψευδολογίαν δ (et M; d e e s t Α): ψευδολογίας PV (fort, recte) τό Μ: τού PV: τώ δ (deest Α)

These readings may well result from conjectural emendation, or otherwise from contamination (for instance 33a 2 ,3 ευθύς] εύθύς λέγειν (the reading of Ench Nil Vat). Therefore we need not attach too much weight to their occurrence in δ with regard to the constitution of the text, although the addition of εί at 10 1 ,! is absolutely necessary.

The relationship of the members of the ö-group As far as I have been able to establish, there are two reconstructible descendants of δ: the first of these is ε, the lost common source of the MSS D [Escor, gr. 272 (Y.III.2)], Ε [Escor, gr. 289 (Y.III.19)], F [Mon. gr. 25], L [Oxon. Laud. gr. 21], Ν [Par. gr. 858], Ο [Par. gr. 362], R [Athous 1820], W [Vat. Pal. gr. 91], Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23]; the

other one is ζ, the lost ancestor of Η [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 5 4 ] , I [Par. gr. 39], J [Vat. gr. 740], Κ [Vat. gr. 1142], Q [Par. gr. 1302], S [Mosq. Syn. 438 Vladimir], U [Sin. Cath. 385] and Ζ [Vat. gr. 1950]. But there remain many stemmatical problems which cannot be solved with absolute certainty. In the first place it is very odd that conjunctive errors of the ζgroup are only found from ch. 37 on; there are two possible explanations for this p h e n o m e n o n , neither of which is quite convincing. Either it should be assumed that the scribe of ζ corrected his copy against its exemplar, so that all the separative errors he had initially made disappeared; in that case he must have stopped doing so at ch. 37, for some unknown reason 4 . Alternatively, it is possible that the scribe of ζ did not make a single mistake in copying the first part of Par, but became less diligent as the work proceeded. The first explanation seems to be the least unlikely. In the second place there are many places where one or more members of the ε-group agree with one or more members of the ζgroup. In particular there are three places of agreement between J and ε which cannot be fortuitous, to wit 69 6 ,10-11 τόν καλόν αγώνα] τόν αγώνα τόν καλόν 5 ; 70 2 ,2 αγιον] πανάγιον and the doxology at the end of the work (αύτώ ή δόξα εις τους αιώνας (+ τών αιώνων ε) αμήν). Finally, for many of the MSS of both the ε- and the ζ-group contamination can be proved with certainty. All in all I state at the outset that there remain a number of puzzling cases in the affiliation of the members of the δ-group, but the stemma I will suggest is the best I can offer.

The ε-group ε has a considerable number of separative errors, among which there are many transpositions. I will mention some instances: 15,7 3^2 ΙΟ 5 ,7-8 16 3 ,5

4

λυπηθήση ταραχθήση] ταραχθήση λυπηθήση ει] έστι τρέχε έπί τό πλοΐον άφείς έκείνους] άφείς έκείνους τρέχε έπί τό πλοΐον ουδέν] ούδέν ούδενί

I have assumed intensive correction of a copy from its exemplar in the case of the text of Plato's Republic in Laur. 80,19: see Boter, Plato's Republic, 184-185. 5 This reading must be the result of comparison with the New Testament; see Nestle-Aland's apparatus ad 2Ep. Timoth. 4,7.

21 5 ,7-8 32 2 .4 36 3 .5 41 2 .2 452.3 45 2 ,3-4

45 4 .7 461,! 49 2 .4 56 6 ,9 613.4 693.3 69 4 .8

ά λ λ α καί συγκληρονόμος Χρίστου άναδειχθήση] χριστού άναδειχθήση ά λ λ ά καί συγκληρονόμος ποιών] πράσσων ώς om. ή προσοχή] 6 νους εις προσοχήν καί εις προσευχήν φαίνου σπουδάζων] φαίνεσθαι σπούδαζε τούτεστι-ώσιν] τούτεστι μόνω τώ πράγματι πρόσεχε δι' δ έ κ ε ΐ σ ε πάρει, κ ά κ ε ΐ ν ο δι' ο λ ί γ ο υ · καί ταχέως π ε ρ ά ν α ς άταράχως υπόστρεφε, κατορθοϋται δέ σοι τούτο, έάν μή ώς θέλεις φιλονεικής τά πράγματα γίνεσθαι, ά λ λ ά μ ά λ λ ο ν ώς γίνονται θέλης δσα] δταν ραδίως πάριθι] πάριθι ραδίως δπως] καί δπως άν om. άγνωστος] παντάπασιν άγνωστος διδώς] έπιζητών ά ν α β ο λ ή ν ] άναμονήν

Some readings of ε appear to be deliberate alterations; this is especially clear at 41 2 ,2 and 45 2 ,3-4. Other cases include 46 1 ,! μή] μή έπιβής; 59 6 ,7-9 έκεΐνον-έκείνω] έκείνους-έκείνοις. There are a few traces of contamination in ε. The most striking case is 65 6 ,9, where ε adds the words καί έπίβουλον after παραφυλάττει, and thus agrees with Ench Nil Vat. Less remarkable cases are 8,1 άλλω] τό άλλω with Nil (τό άλλοις Ench Vat)·, 8,2 μήτε prius] τό μήτε with Ench Nil Vat (et A); 31 διαβιώσομαι] βιώσομαι with EAC. In a few cases ε has the correct reading against ζΑ and V(P) as well: 3^2 έπιλέγειν habet ε (et Α): έπιλέγην (sic) Ρ: έπιλογήν νζ; 5 ! , 2 έν habet ε (et A): om. Ρ ν ζ ; 41 3 ,4 μολύνεσθαι] συμμολύνεσθαι ε (ΕΎ Nil Vat); 69 3 ,5 λήσεις] δήσεις PV: δείξεις ζ: λήση ε (probably a conjecture, because Ench Nil Vat (and PM) have λήσεις). There are three extant or reconstructible descendants of ε: D [Escor, gr. 272 (Y.III.2)], Ν [Par. gr. 858] and a lost MS (η) which served as the source of W [Vat. Pal. gr. 91] and Ο (the lost ancestor of Ο [Par. gr. 362], R [Athous 1820] and Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23]). This is shown by the fact that D, Ν and η each have separative errors against the other two. First I will quote the readings peculiar to D: 5*,2 15 3 .5 16 3 .4 27 2 ,4 312,3 36 5 ,8

μέμνησο] μέμνησω έαυτώ] τώ έαυτώ (τό έαυτώ vel τό έαυτού Ν η ) πωλείται] πολεΐται ήρέθισέ] ήρέθησέ άλλων] ά λ λ ο ι ς ύπολάβης] άπολάβης

36 e ,11 42Μ 43 2 .4 484,8 59 6 ,8

TO

όριζόμενον] όρίζομεν prius] τώ άκρως] είς άκρως δυσχεραίνων] δυσχερένων σοί] σύ

There are two places where D agrees with Ν against η: 31 9 ,15 3212.22

πώς] δπως καί γαρ] καί γαρ καί

To my mind these two places are not sufficient to serve as conjunctive errors of D N against η: probably they were already in ε, and were removed in η by means of conjecture. The second derivative of ε is Ν ; here are the separative errors of N: 65,12 11,1 18 2 ,3 30 2 .2 3120,33 3210,20 3212.23 33a4,5 432.3 56 3 .5 56 4 .5 564.6

ού φυλάξω] ούκ έφυλάξω θέλεις] θέλης λυπείσθαι] λυπήσαι άρκού] άρκούν οτι] Ö αύτού]έαυτού τό] τώ μείζονα] μείζω έπαχθής] έπαχθείς όρέγεσθαι] όπορέγεσθαι αύτός] αύτό τό ψεύδος] τώ ψεύδει

Ν is in all probability the source of L [Oxon. Laud. gr. 21], although there are a few places where Ν is wrong against L: 31 5 .7 3117,29 342,3

αύτώ h a b e t L: σαυτώ Ν (et DQP C S: σ ε α υ τ ώ Ζ: σαυτόν HJKOV) έπηγγείλω habet L: έπιγγείλω Ν παίοντος habet L: πταίοντος Ν

After the title D adds κε οβ; Ν has κεφάλαια έβδομήκοντα και δύο, while L reads κεφάλαια έβδομήκοντα δύο, without καί. At 31 5 ,7 the reading of Ν is also found in some of its congeners, which makes it probable that in these places (and in the other two as well) L arrived at the correct reading ope ingenii. Here are some separative errors of L: 32,3 8,2 13 1 ,1 16 4 ,6 22^3 32 6 ,12

έφ' ή μ ΐ ν ] εύφημιν πεπαιδευμένου] πεπαιδευμένον (et M) έκάστω] έκάστου (et JY) ύπακούσαι ή om. έν om. όν o m .

364,6 564.5 585.6 63,2

τε] τι αύτός] αύτώ (αύτό Ν) άλλ'-κακώς om. σης om.

L is the source of Ε [Escor, gr. 289 (Y.III. 19)], although L has two slight errors against E, to wit 2 1 ,1 τηλικούτων] τηλικοΰτον and 58 2 ,3-4 α στοχάζη] άστοχάζη. These readings may well have been corrected in Ε conjecturally. Ε has a number of separative errors of its own; some instances: 182,3 26U 315,6 412,2 596,7 61 4 5 663,3 702,3

αίτιάσθαι] αίτιάσασθαι προτιμώμενον] προτιμώτερον ύποβάλλει] βάλλει έντετάσθω] τετάσθω βιασαμένης] βιασάμενος έργου]έργου σου ει] ή γε] σε

The third descendant of ε is η, the source of W [Vat. Pal. gr. 91] and θ , the lost ancestor of Ο [Par. gr. 362], R [Athous 1820] and Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23]. W has only a selection of Par, omitting chapters 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18-20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30-33a 6 , 34, 37, 38, 42, 52-54, 56, 57, 6264; R has chs. 1, 13, 15, 16, 19-21, 23, 26, 28-30, 33c 7 , 34, 35, 37-42, 45 (init.). There are only four conjunctive errors of W and Ο (in all these places Y is absent), to wit: δή om. (μή R) 165,8 Θέλη τις ψεύδεσθαι] ψεύδεσθαί τις θέλη (et R) 33c 7 ,2 συγκινεΐσθαι] συγκεΐσθαι 453,5 άπ'] ύπ' 662,2 Few as these errors may be, they are sufficient to postulate a common ancestor of W and θ. W and ô have separative errors against each other; first I will quote a number of readings peculiar to W, some of which are obviously deliberate alterations of the text: 3 3 ,4 6 4 ,6 11,1 152,4 167,11 291,1 432 43 ] ,2

και- ήμΐν om. άψη τού έργου] τού έργου άψη μή ζήτει] μή θέλε μή ζήτει άλυπον] άλυπον όντα ού-τραύμα om. έπιθυμεΐς] έπιποθεΐς συντελούντα] ήγουν τά λίαν άναγκαΐα καί τήν ψιλήν χρείαν έκπληρούν όφείλεις] οφείλεις καί ταΰτα έγκρατώς

48 2 ,3 άκοΰσαι] άκούειν 4 δυσχεραίνουν τοις τοιούτοις] τοις τοιούτοις δυσχεραίνων 48 ,8 551,1 άφυϊας] έφυ ίας 6 9 χ ρ ό ν ο ν ] καιρόν ή χρόνον 69 3 ,6 και om. W is the source of F [Mon. gr. 25], which has the same selection as W, and follows W everywhere, with the exception of 61 3 ,3, where W has όντος for όντως. Some separative errors of F: 2 3 ,5 153,6 16®, 13 172.3 35',2 40,1 48 1 ,! 51,1 55 1 ,! 65 3 .4

έκείνων] εί οϊνων παιδός] πηλός άμαρτήσαντι] άμαρτάνοντα άπίστει] άπόστει μηδέ] καί μή γ: καί ού μή F πολλοίς] πολλής άπέστω] άπέστω σοι συνεσθίης] συγκαθίης ένδιατρίβειν] διατρίβειν πλανηθέντος] καί πλανηθέντος

I will now quote the separative errors of Ô. The readings of O can be reconstructed from its three extant derivatives Ο [Par. gr. 362], R [Athous 1820] and Y [Vat. Reg. gr. 23]; but Y breaks off after ch. 16 4 ,7 ούτως; in chs. 1-16 R only has the text of chs. 1, 13, 15 and 16. 2 3 ,5 6Μ 6 2 ,2 9 2 ,2 ΙΟ6,9 142,2 16^2

έκείνων] καί έκείνων μέλλης] θέλης σεαυτω] σεαυτόν έπαιρόμενον έλεγεν ότι καλόν είμι] έλεγεν ότι καλόν είμι έπαιρόμενον έλλίπης] έκλίπης ό om. μικροτέρων] μικρών (et R)

Υ has only one error of its own, namely 13 1 ,! έκάστφ] έκαστου (also in ELJ); and at 2 4 ,6 Y has περιγίνεθαι πέφυκεν for περιγίνεται, while Ο has περιγίνεσθαι πέφυκεν ή περιγίνεται. Ο has a large number of separative errors, many of which are deliberate interventions. I will quote some instances: l 4 ,4-5 9 2 ,2 166,10 167,11-12

ακώλυτα άπαραπόδιστα om. οίστόν] ίστόν έρχου] έρχεσθαι χρή ότι-σκοπεί] ώς άπεχθώς πρός τούς νοσοΰντας διακείμενος άλλα σκοπεί όπως έπαγάγη τήν θεραπείαν τοις νενοσηκόσι μέλεσι τούτων

24 2 .3 32 5 .10 361,! 454,6 622,2 69 5 .11

έκτος] έντός μή προέμενος μή λ ά β ο ι ς ] μή λ ά β η ς τον 'ίδιον μή δούς όβολόν εύσεβείας] εύλαβείας πολλά] συγγίνεσθαι π ο λ λ ά τού λέγειν om. παρέχεται] ποιεί

In four cases Ο agrees with M: 22 1 .2 3210,20 34 3 .4 642.3

άπολωλεκότος MO: άπολωλεκότα γ ψέγοντι] ψέγοντα ώκειώθης MO: οίκ(ε)ιωθής/-θείς α έξ] άφ*

Because of the small number of these cases of agreement and their rather trivial character, I assume that they are coincidental. The exact position of R is hard to assess, because R only has chs. 1, 13, 15 and 16 in common with Y. R nowhere agrees with Y against O, or with Ο against Y; at 16^2 all three MSS have μικρών for μικρότερων. In the chapters where Y is absent, R shares the following characteristic readings with O: 29^3 35^2 452.2 452.3

οτι om. τίσοι]σοίτί καιρός] καί καιρός φαίνου σπουδάζων] σπούδαζε φαίνεσθαι

R has a few separative errors; some instances: 15 3 .5 20,2 41,2

έαυτω] έαυτόν τήν om. σοι] σου

The ζ-group The second derivative of δ is ζ. It has already been noted (p. 222) that the derivatives of ζ (HIJKQSUZ) have conjunctive errors (which goes to prove the existence of ζ) only from ch. 37 onward. I will quote some instances (U omits chs. 57-66 4 ,6; J omits chs. 57-67; S breaks off after ch. 58): 37,2 καθαρώς] καθαρώς δέ 4 2 ^ 2 - 4 3 1 , ! περίγραφε. Έγκράτειαν] περίγραφε έγκράτειαν PV : περίγραφε έγκρατεία Αε: έγκρατεία περίγραφε ξ 432.4 άκρως o m . 44 3 ,6-7 τών λ ε χ θ έ ν τ ω ν περί σ ο υ έ π ρ α ξ ά ς τι] έ π ρ α ξ ά ς τι τών λεχθέντων (ρηθέντων IJK) περί σού 452,3 μόνα om. 484.6 ούν habet (et M) : om. ΡΥΑε

56 1 ,! 573,4-5 693,5 696,11

κακώς δοκή σοι] δοκή/δοκή/δοκεΐ σοι κακώς ούδέ] οΰτε (bis) λήσεις] δείξεις και om. post άποκτεΐναι add. φοβήθητε δέ μάλλον τον δυνάμενον και ψυχήν καί σώμα άπολέσαι έν γεέννη

The complete absence of conjunctive errors in the derivatives of ζ before ch. 37 is very puzzling; I repeat that the only acceptable explanation I can think of is that ζ was corrected from its exemplar in chs. 1-36, but this explanation is far from satisfactory. The only place where a reading in ζ is also found elsewhere is 4 48 ,6 ούν, which occurs in M as well; this is probably coincidental. ζ is the source of four MSS: S [Mosq. Syn. 438 Vladimir], U [Sin. Cath. 385], κ (the lost ancestor of Q [Par. gr. 1302] and Ζ [Vat. gr. 1950]) and λ, which is the lost source of I [Par. gr. 39] and μ (the source of Η [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 54], J [Vat. gr. 740] and Κ [Vat. gr. 1142]). In some cases a reading is found in more than one of these MSS; I suppose that such cases should be explained as the result of double readings in ξ , or as the result of contamination; some instances: 168.13 293 314,6 31 12 ,21 31 22 ,40 363,5

έχόλεσα] έθυμούμην xS (glossema) αναχωρητής] φιλόσοφος J: φιλόσοφος ή αναχωρητής S πολλού] πολλών UZ δέ om. JUZ κληθήναι ήξιώθημεν] έκλήθημεν δυλ: έκλήθης xS ποτέ τόν θεόν] τόν θεόν ποτέ Κκ

I will first discuss S [Mosq. Syn. 438]. Here are some of the numerous readings peculiar to S: 1 5 .7 4 4 .8 9 2 ,2 23 ] ,1 327.14 344.5 345.6 43*,2 52,1 582,2

ταραχθήση om. καί prius] ή έπαιρόμενον έλεγεν om. φυλάττειν] φυλάξασθαι έπαίνου] έκείνω τιμάν σε] τιμασθαι διακρΐναι] διακριθήναι αύτήν] αυτα άναλάβης] λάβης λαλείς] λέγεις

S is heavily contaminated with o n e or more MSS of Ench, Nil, Vat. Many readings are found in two or three of these branches, but in some cases there is agreement with Nil alone. I will list some readings to illustrate this:

1 6 ,10 8,1 ΙΟ1,2 142,2 164,7 293,7 34!,1 46M 552,2

ούδένα μέμψη] ού μέμψη ούδένα et Ench Nil Vat οίς] οίς αύτός et Ench Nil Vat άναλέξασθαι] άναλέξαι et Nil ante ό άδελφός habet το παιδάριον άπέθανεν; άπεδόθη: only Nil has παιδάριον; Ench Vat have παιδίον. ταράσσεσθαι] μή ταραχθήναι et Ench Nil Vat οί καταγελώντες] οί καταγελώντές σου πρότερον ούτοι σε et Ench Nil Vat καθήκοντα] καθήκοντα ώς έπίπαν et Ench Nil Vat εις οικίας τινών] εις άκρόασιν τινών ή εις οικίας: only Nil has άκρόασιν, Ench Vat have άκροάσεις. ή πίνειν] έπί πολύ πίνειν et Ench Nil Vat

The source of the contamination from Nil is to be found in the group of A/M and its derivatives, as appears from S's reading at 36 5 ,10; here S adds (after διοίκησιν) Nil 38b 4 ,1-3 (= Ench 31 s ,11-13), reading πρός for πρός τοΰτο at the beginning of this addition; now πρός (without τοΰτο) is also found in AM and most of its derivatives, while NP (and ANQV) omit both words. Although it is certain that S contains readings from Nil, there are also a few places where S's reading appears to be derived from Ench (or Vat) : 153,5 482,2 53 2 ,4 56 12 ,21 59 3 ,4

δέ καί] δέ et Ench Vat : καί Nil έστι] έστι τό et Ench Vat έκάστου] τοΰ έργου et EAC Vat : έκάστου έργου Nil post έξεις habet έπιφθέγγου γάρ έφ' έκάστω ότι έδοξεν αύτώ: sic et Vat, Ench et Nil habent έκάστου pro έκάστω. έπιεν] πολύν et Ench Vat : πολύ Nil

Moreover, there is one unmistakable case of contamination with ε, namely 41 2 ,2 ή προσοχή] ό νοΰς εις προσοχήν S: ό νοΰς εις προσοχήν καί εις προσευχήν ε. Of course, it cannot be excluded that ε took this reading from S; it may also have been present in δ a n d / o r ζ. At 5 2 ,5 S agrees with A in reading έχει for έχουσαν; this might well be a conjecture or simplification made in both MSS independently. In two places there is highly significant agreement with κ: 16 8 ,13 έχόλεσα] έθυμούμην 6 ; 31 2 2 ,40 κληθήναι ήξιώθημεν] έκλήθημεν γ: έκλήθης κ8. Therefore it is possible that S is a gemellus of κ, although a mere two conjunctive errors would not seem to justify a conclusion to this effect. These two readings may well have been in ζ as variant readings. 6 This variant reading must have been borrowed from Photius (Ep. I, 1027-1028 Laourdas-Westerink), who quotes the famous dictum in the following words: έκόλασα άν σε, εί μη έθυμούμην. S also agrees with Photius in reading έκόλασα for εδερον.

The second derivative of ξ is U [Sin. Cath. 385]; I will quote a number of separative errors of U: 63,4 121 ,1-2 21Μ 22 ] ,2 324,9 3212,24-25 38 1 ,! 441.3 49 2 .4 694,8

παρρησίας] παρρησίαν έάν-οΰ om. ώς] ώσπερ άπολωλεκότος-ή om. λαβείν] λαχεΐν καί-ΰβρίσαντος om. τών] τι τών κακώς] κακόν δπως] όπερ ούκ έπιδέχεται] ού δέχεται

There are a few cases of atypical agreement with other MSS, but their character makes it probable that these are coincidental, although contamination is not excluded; and again, some readings may have been double readings in ζ; see for instance: 2^2 2 4 ,5 145,6 273,6 452,2 46 1 ,! 56 9 ,14 693,5

κεκινημένον] κεκινημένων UMPA μόνων] μόνον UMPVA έννοών] έννοεΐν UA σεαυτοΰ] έαυτοΰ Ue μηδενί άλλω] μηδενί οίλλο U: μηδέν άλλο Α τινών] τινός ϋ ε δέ om. υ ε και om. υ ε

The third derivative of ζ is κ, the lost source of Q [Par. gr. 1302] and Ζ [Vat. gr. 1950]; instead of chs. 1-5 of Par, Ζ has Ench 1-3; I will quote some separative errors of κ (which are at the same time conjunctive errors of Q and Z) : 72,3 104.6 133,4 19,1 24^,1 291.2 317,9 32^2 328,15 35 38 2 .3 454.7 568,13

τοις om. διδώνται] δέδενται έάν] έάν εις όρεγόμενος] ών όρέγη σοι έπιστη] έπιστή σοι καταγελασθησόμενος] γελασθησόμενος οτι om. συμβουλίαν] συνέδριον έκείνου έπιθυμών] έπιθυμών έκείνου αδικεί] άδικει σε κήδεται πάντων] πάντων κήδεται μάλιστα] καί μάλιστα ταΰτα λέγειν] λέγειν ταύτα

Q and Ζ have separative errors against each other. First I will quote some readings of Q (I also mention some separative errors of Q in

chs. 1-5, w h e r e Ζ has t h e text of Ench, a n d in chs. 58-71, w h e r e Ζ is absent): 1 6 ,11 13 4 ,6 312,4 317,10 42 1 ,1 5611,18 63,3 651,!

έξεις] έξεις ούδένα έθιζόμενόν] έρεθιζόμενόν παραληφθήναι] παρακληθήναι δέ] γάρ τής om. αδελφός] αδελφός έστι ξηρός] κατάξηρος προκύπτοντος] προκόπτοντος ταΰτα

At 32 7 ,14 Q has πωλεί γ α ρ f o r t h e s e c o n d π ω λ ε ί with ε, b u t this is p r o b a b l y c o i n c i d e n t a l . T h e title in Q starts with έπικτήτου έγχειρίδιον; t h e n t h e r e follow s o m e almost illegible letters, which De Nicola d e c i p h e r s as ö έστι καί; subsequently we r e a d ειπείν ύποθήκαι κτέ. Cf. De Nicola [in p r e p . ] . H e r e are s o m e separative e r r o r s of Z: 62,2 10 6 ,8 14 6 .8 16 5 .9 21 4 ,5 35 3 ,5 41 1 ,1 52,1 565,8

πρόβαλλε] π ρ ό σ β α λ λ ε δε] δέ καί είναι o m . δοκόν] δοκεΐν ούτω πρός τάς χρείας o m . φίλον] φίλους οίκίαις] οικία έπάγγελμα] αξίωμα ή έπάγγελμα ήμών] ούν

T h e f o u r t h d e s c e n d a n t of ζ is λ, t h e lost source of I [Par. gr. 39] a n d μ, which is t h e c o m m o n a n c e s t o r of Η [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 54], J [Vat. gr. 740] a n d Κ [Vat. gr. 1142]; Η breaks off a f t e r ch. 31. T h e t h r e e d e s c e n d a n t s of λ that also have t h e c o m m e n t a r y o n Par (IJK), show a very r e m a r k a b l e organization of t h e text in t h e first 10 chapters: t h e full text of e a c h c h a p t e r is a d d e d b e f o r e t h e section of the c o m m e n tary c o n c e r n e d ; t h e n e a c h sub-section of t h e c o m m e n t a r y is p r e c e d e d by t h e p a r t of t h e text which is dealt with as a lemma. H e r e are s o m e separative e r r o r s of λ (= conjunctive e r r o r s of I a n d μ) : 4],3 52,4 293,8 30 1 ,1 31 8 ,11 3113,22 36 1 ,1 443,6 572,3

θάνατον] θυμοΰ (θανάτου ζ) κατεαγέντος] κατεαγότος καταγέλωτα] γέλωτα λογισμώ] τώ λογισμώ αύτοΐς] α ύ τ ά λέγουσιν] λέγεις ϊσθι ότι τό κυριώτατον] τό κυριώτατον ϊσθι ότι μάλιστα] μ ά λ λ ο ν καί o m .

In two places t h e r e a r e traces of c o n t a m i n a t i o n in λ: at 1 2 ^ 2 λ has προαιρέσεως f o r ψ υ χ ή ς with Ench Nil Vat; λ has two versions of 27 2 - 3 , t h e first of which is basically identical with Ench 20,2-5 (= Nil 27,2-5 = Vat 27,2-5): t h e fact that λ has τις shows that Nil c a n n o t have b e e n t h e source of c o n t a m i n a t i o n , b e c a u s e M / h a s τι; t h e r e a d i n g ή ρ έ θ ι σ ε f o r ήρέθικε suggests that λ c o n s u l t e d a MS r e l a t e d to ETtSib SiC, or Vat, which have ήρέθισε as well; λ has t h r e e variant r e a d i n g s n o t f o u n d in t h e tradition of Ench or in Vat, namely t h e a d d i t i o n of δέ a f t e r τοιγάρουν, υπό φ α ν τ α σ ί α ς f o r υπό της φ α ν τ α σ ί α ς a n d τριβής f o r διατριβής. F u r t h e r , at 3 4 ,8 Κ has two s u p r a l i n e a r variant r e a d i n g s ( i n t r o d u c e d by γρ) ά τ υ χ η ς a n d δ υ σ τ υ χ ή ς f o r ό δ υ ν η θ ή σ η a n d γ ε λ α σ θ ή σ η ; I s u p p o s e that these also were already p r e s e n t in λ. This may also b e valid f o r J's r e a d i n g φιλόσοφος f o r άναχωρητής at 2 9 ^ 3 . T h e r e are a few cases of atypical a g r e e m e n t : 24 2 .3 31 12 ,21 45 3 .4

τώ σώματι] τό σώμα IJ δέ om. IJU έπιγελάν habet J: γελάν IK (deest Η)

T h e s e r e a d i n g s may well go back to d o u b l e r e a d i n g s in λ or ζ. I a n d μ have separative e r r o r s of their own; first I will q u o t e a n u m b e r of r e a d i n g s peculiar to I: 3U 4 2 ,4 7*,2 15U 16 4 ,7 24 3 ,4 31 6 ,8 36 3 ,4 58 6 ,6 69 7 ,12

φαντασίαν om. μετάθες] κατάθες αύτών]εαυτών λογισμούς] λόγους αύτφ καλώς] αύτός καλός δτι-έστι om. ή om. ούτω γαρ ούτε] ούτε γαρ γαρ σέ μέν] μέν σέ γαρ Παύλος] τοιούτος

In a few p l a c e s I a g r e e s with Ο , b u t t h e s e cases may well b e coincidental, given t h e fact that b o t h I a n d Ο have a large n u m b e r of errors; h e r e they are: 17!,2 26 2 ,4 31 4 ,6 31 4 ,6 36®, 12 43 2 ,3

βούλου] βούλει δύνασαι] δύναται έπ'] ύπ' πολλού είναι] είναι πολλού ήδεί] ήδύ (etVAP c ) έλεγκτικός] έλεκτικός

Let m e now quote the readings peculiar to μ, the source of Η [Leid. Voss. gr. Q 5 4 ] , J [Vat. gr. 740] a n d Κ [Vat. gr. 1142] (H breaks off after ch. 31; J is absent in chs. 57-67): 6 4 ,6 31 3 ,5 32 7 ,13 327,14 33c 7 ,1 36 3 ,4 36 5 ,8 56 6 ,9

μάλιστα] μάλλον καί om. εδωκας] δέδωκας έπαίνου] έκείνου α: έκεΐνος μ κακηγορών habet μ: κατηγορών β γάρ om. τι] τι τούτων καί om.

T h e reading at 33c 7 ,1 may be d u e to conjecture, but it may also result f r o m contamination. T h e three descendants of μ, HJK, all have separative errors of their own; there are only a very few cases of a g r e e m e n t between two of the t h r e e MSS, so that it is p r o b a b l e that they all go back to μ i n d e p e n dently; the cases of a g r e e m e n t between two MSS are the following: HK HJ JK

301,1 31 17 ,29 1 5 ,8 4 3 ,7 29^2 5 2 ,5 22 2 ,4

σε] σοι προσήκει habent HK (V): προσήκε ceteri α θεόν καί ανθρώπους] θεοίς και άνθρώποις (et V) όσων] όσον (et multi alii) αύτόθεν] αυτόθι τοΰ] τό (et AQ) ού alterum om. (et Uô)

T h e s e cases are probably coincidental; they may also go back to double readings in μ. First I will list some readings peculiar to H : 1 6 ,8 5U 9 3 ,5 147,10 164,7 21 4 ,6 318,12 31 20 ,35

μόνα] μόνω έφ' om. χρήσιν] φύσιν άποδέδονται] άποδέδοται έπ' έκείνω] έπέκεινα συμπότης] έπόπτης (γρ συμπότης Η 1 in margine) αΐδήμονα] εύδαίμονα αύτη] αύτήν

T h e double reading at 21 4 ,6 may already have been in μ. H e r e are some of the very many separative errors of J: 2 4 ,5 41 ,2-3 153,5 29 2 ,5

σ.ποτεύξη] έπιτεύξη ή θάνατον om. καί om. βέλτιστων] έπελτίστων (sic)

368,15 40 471 ,1 693.3 703.4

οϊονται] οίόν τε totum caput o m . ανάγκη] άνάγκεις έάν] έάν δέ κακοί] καλοί

For cases of a g r e e m e n t with A a n d ε, see above, p p . 220, 222. At 69 2 ,2 J omits ή δ η with M, b u t this may well b e c o i n c i d e n t a l . J ' s r e a d i n g φιλόσοφος f o r α ν α χ ω ρ η τ ή ς at 2 9 ] , 3 has a l r e a d y b e e n m e n t i o n e d above (see p. 232). H e r e are s o m e separative e r r o r s of Κ (I will also q u o t e s o m e r e a d i n g s in chs. 57-67, w h e r e J is absent): 33,4 64,7 263,6 329,17 39 3 ,3-4 49^2 596.6 61 3 ,3-4 652,2

τών alterum] περί τών θέλω] μέλλω σήν o m . άντί] άπό ού λ α λ ή σ ε ι ς ] έκλαλήσεις δοκούση] παρούση γάρ o m . δέ καί o m . ή είδότος τι o m .

T h e variant r e a d i n g s α τ υ χ ή ς a n d δ υ σ τ υ χ ή ς at 3 4 ,8 have already b e e n m e n t i o n e d above (p. 232). In a few places Κ agrees with o t h e r MSS: 14 5 .7 16 5 ,9 36 3 .5 483,5

595,5 596,7

φησίν εδοξεν] έδοξε(ν) φησί(ν) Κ δ μέν] δή Κ: μέν δή V ποτέ τόν θεόν] τόν θεόν ποτέ K Q γελοιολογεΐν h a b e n t KM: γελοία λέγειν Α: γεδοσολογειν Ρ: γε δισσολογείν V: δισσολογείν Q : δωσολογεΐν J: δοσοποιεΐν U : γε βωμολοχείν δ πρωί KM: πρωί έτερος α πεποιηκέναι] περιπεποιηκέναι KPV (desunt JU)

T h e a g r e e m e n t with M at 48 3 ,5 a n d 59 5 ,5 can hardly be coincidental, a n d t h e r e f o r e probably results f r o m c o n t a m i n a t i o n . T h e last witness to be discussed is t h e editio pnnceps by M. C a s a u b o n . C a s a u b o n himself tells a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m s h e h a d with his MS source (see p. 205). Stemmatically it a p p e a r s to b e related to V, b u t first of all it s h o u l d b e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t C a s a u b o n ' s text shows a few u n m i s t a k a b l e traces of c o n t a m i n a t i o n with o n e or m o r e e d i t i o n s of Ench: 10 3 ,4 καν καλέση] καί τότε; 3 2 M Εί o m . T h e r e f o r e those places w h e r e C a s a u b o n a g r e e s with Ench against t h e MSS of Par a r e in all probability d u e to c o n t a m i n a t i o n . In a n u m b e r of places C a s a u b o n

explicitly states t h a t a r e a d i n g is f o u n d in Ench, e.g. at 34 3 ,4 ά λ λ α ] ούκ, ά λ λ α (sic) in m a r g i n e . Cas clearly goes back to α, n o t to M; t h e following r e a d i n g s may serve to illustrate this: 41 ,1 7 3 ,3-4 31 12 ,19 31 19 ,31 47 5 ,9

μέν ούν] δέ ή ταρασσώμεθα ή λυπώμεθα om. σον om. ούν om. μέν om.

In a n u m b e r of places Cas agrees with PV against γ; in such cases it is p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e original r e a d i n g of α was c o r r e c t e d in γ ; s o m e instances: 7 2 ,3 10 4 .6 31 12 ,19 65 3 ,5

άν om. Cas PV διδώνται] δέδονται Cas PV οτι] τί Cas PV ψευδολογίαν] ψευδολογίας Cas PV

In a few places Cas agrees with P alone; s o m e instances: titulus 5 2 ,5 133,4 64 2 ,2

ante ύποθήκαι add. τέχνη άνθρώπων διορθωτική (-θοτική Ρ)

έχουσαν] έχουσα πειράση] πειράσει Θεοφίλου

But t h e r e are also a few places w h e r e t h e r e is a g r e e m e n t with V; s o m e instances: 10 2 ,4 14®,9 33c 7 ,1 33c 7 ,2 59 6 .7 68 1 ,!

τι] τοι ούτος] ούτως V: ούτως Cas κακηγορών] κατηγορών (et γ) σε om. αύτό] αύτω έν αύτών άφείς] έαυτώ ö άφής Cas: έαυτώ ο άφείς V: έν αύτώ δ άφής Ρ: έαυτώ δ άν άφής ε: έν αύτώ ö άν άφής ζ

H e n c e I c o n c l u d e that the MS c o n s u l t e d by C a s a u b o n lies s o m e w h e r e between α a n d β; the a g r e e m e n t with Ρ with r e g a r d to t h e title a n d at 64 2 ,2 m a k e s it i m p r o b a b l e t h a t Cas is situated b e t w e e n β a n d V. A l t h o u g h it is certain t h a t Cas has u n d e r g o n e intensive c o n t a m i n a tion a n d c o n t a i n s n u m e r o u s c o n j e c t u r e s (probably d u e to C a s a u b o n himself), I have d e c i d e d to r e p o r t t h e r e a d i n g s of Cas in t h e a p p a r a tus; however, Cas s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as an u n r e l i a b l e witness to t h e text. Cas has a large n u m b e r of u n i q u e readings; s o m e of these may b e d u e to c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n ; s o m e instances:

1 5 ,8 4 3 ,6 93,5 16®,10 29*,2 29^3 31 16 ,27 33a 4 ,5 39 4 ,5 67!,8 713,6

θεόν]θεούς τε om. σω άγαθω] σων άγαθών τού παιδός om. αύτόθεν om. έπανελήλυθε] έπανελήλυθας άξιος φανείη] φανείη άξιος φίλος] άλλος λόγων om. τούτω om. άποκτεΐναι om.

Casaubon's text of P a r i s r e p r i n t e d in the two editions by A. Berkelius of 1670 a n d 1683 7 ( O l d f a t h e r nrs. 232 a n d 233), a n d the editions by Blancard (1683; O l d f a t h e r nr. 235) a n d S c h r ö d e r (1723; O l d f a t h e r nr. 291).

7

The 1683 edition contains Gronovius' collation of M.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

T H E COMMENTARY O N T H E PARAPHRASIS

CHRISTIANA

Par has b e e n t h e s u b j e c t of a n a n o n y m o u s c o m m e n t a r y ( h e n c e f o r w a r d Comm.), which was c o m p o s e d in t h e t e n t h c e n t u r y at t h e latest 1 . It is e x t a n t in t h r e e r e c e n s i o n s , of d i f f e r e n t l e n g t h ; in t h e longest r e c e n s i o n t h e work breaks off a f t e r Par 10; t h e final s e n t e n c e suggests t h a t t h e w o r k d i d n o t g o b e y o n d c h . 10: εως τ ο ύ τ ο υ έξηγησάμενον τόν ύ π ο μ ν η μ α τ ί σ α ν τ α , έμπόδιόν τι γενόμενον έκώλυσεν εις τ ά επόμενα ειπείν. S c h w e i g h ä u s e r (Ench CV-CVI) m a k e s s o m e r e m a r k s a b o u t t h e p r e s e n c e of Comm in P P [Par. gr. 1053] a n d P Q [Par. gr. 1302], q u o t e s t h e first lines of t h e p r o e m , b u t adds: "Reliqua, tametsi p e r se h a u d a b s u r d a , t a m e n n e c ad Epicteti E n c h i r i d i o n vel e m e n d a n d u m vel i l l u s t r a n d u m m a g n o p e r e valere, n e c alioqui tanti esse videntur, ut in l u c e m e m i t t e r e o p e r a e p r e t i u m sit." In o u r century, Comm has received t h e a t t e n t i o n it was d e n i e d by Schweighäuser. After t h e a p p e a r a n c e of two s h o r t articles 2 an edition of t h e s h o r t e s t version was p u b l i s h e d in 1956 by A. Dain, based o n P M [Laur. 55,4], In 1964, S p a n n e u t p u b l i s h e d a p i o n e e r article o n Comm ( S p a n n e u t , Commentaire), specifying t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t versions, a n d m e n t i o n i n g 15 MSS; h e gives s o m e r o u g h indications o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of the MSS. A n o t h e r article o n Comm was p u b l i s h e d in 1980 by Santerini Citi; in n o t e 3 to p. 56 she gives a s t e m m a of t h e p r i n c i p a l MSS 3 . S p a n n e u t ' s 1981 article ( Techne) is c o n c e r n e d with t h e c o n t e n t s of Comm, n o t with t h e history or the constitution of t h e text. At this m o m e n t we d o n o t yet have an e d i t i o n of Comm at o u r disposal, b u t Prof. S p a n n e u t tells m e that h e will publish a text in t h e series Sources Chrétiennes·, t h e d a t e of a p p e a r a n c e is n o t c e r t a i n . Accordingly, I can only give a provisional a c c o u n t of Comm, a n d of its i m p o r t a n c e f o r t h e constitution of t h e text of Par. 1

Two The (840-842) 3 This Par. 2

MSS containing the commentary are tenth century: .PM and PP. articles by Lindstam and Dane; see also the articles by Spanneut in DS and RAC (667-670). stemma is in concordance with my conclusions with regard to the text of

I have c h e c k e d t h e lemmata a n d v e r b a t i m q u o t a t i o n s f r o m Par in f o u r MSS: P M [Laur. 55,4], PP [Par. gr. 1053], PI [Par. gr. 39] a n d PJ [Vat. gr. 740] ( P M has Comm in t h e shortest version (which breaks off a f t e r t h e c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e very first lines of t h e first c h a p t e r ) , t h e o t h e r t h r e e have t h e longest version). I have n o t e d t h e following r e m a r k a b l e readings: 1 1 ,1 1 6 ,9 *1 6 ,10 1 7 ,11 *2 3 ,4 2 4 ,5 2 4 ,5 3 2 ,3 *3 2 ,3 *5 1 ,2 5^2

τά μέν MP: τά μέν έστιν IJ (et Par β) ουδείς habet altero loco: ούδέν priore loco (et Par α; ούδείς Ρ etiam tertio loco) ούδένα μέμψη] ού μέμψη ούδένα γαρ om. post πλουτειν habet δια τό και τών προτέρων έφίεσθαι τών έφ' ήμΐν αγαθών γε μήν om. μόνον om. έπειτα om. τούτοις] οίς έχεις λέγειν] έπιλέγειν έν om.

In t h e f o u r places m a r k e d with a n asterisk Comm a g r e e s with Ench. T h e fact t h a t at 2 3 ,4 t h e w o r d s a r e c o p i e d f r o m Ench (with τών έφ' ή μ ΐ ν α γ α θ ώ ν a d d e d ) b u t p u t in t h e w r o n g place 4 suggests c o n t a m i n a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e I t h i n k that in t h e o t h e r t h r e e places w h e r e t h e r e is a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n Comm a n d Ench too, we n e e d n o t assume that Comm s r e a d i n g r e p r e s e n t s t h e original r e a d i n g of Par.

4

They should have come after the phrase εικός μέν μηδέ τούτων σε τυγχάνειν, which coincides with Ench's τυχόν μέν ούδ' αύτών τούτων τεύξη.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE TEXT OF THE PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA

T h e transmission of Par is m u c h b e t t e r t h a n that of Nil. For instance, t h e n u m e r o u s omissions we e n c o u n t e r in Nil are almost a b s e n t f r o m Par, g r o t e s q u e e r r o r s such as Nil 22,7 ε ξ ω θ ε ν f o r ε σ ω θ ε ν a r e n o t f o u n d ; i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e phrases as Nil 31c 1 2 ,7 ούκοΰν ούδείς εαυτόν αν ώφέλησεν ή αύτήν d o n o t o c c u r in Par 1 . B u t it is clear t h a t t h e text of Par as t r a n s m i t t e d to us is n o t c o m p l e t e l y f r e e f r o m c o r r u p t i o n . For instance, t h e r e a d i n g of Μ α at 5 3 ,5 α δ ε λ φ ό ς ή φίλος is clearly impossible; t h e same goes f o r Ι Ο ' , Ι , w h e r e Μ α o m i t εί. I n s o m e of these cases t h e c o r r e c t i o n is o f f e r e d by MSS which occupy a lower position in the s t e m m a (β, γ, δ), elsewhere editors have r e m o v e d an e r r o r . In g e n e r a l , t h e editorial principles f o r Par are t h e s a m e as t h o s e f o r Nil (see p p . 184-187). T h u s r e a d i n g s which are grammatically impossible have b e e n c o r r e c t e d ; b u t w h e r e a s [Nilus] may b e s u p p o s e d to have c o p i e d c o r r u p t o r even n o n s e n s i c a l passages, I t h i n k it i m p r o b a b l e that t h e a u t h o r of Par c o n t e n t e d himself with d o i n g so, b e c a u s e h e shows himself to be m u c h m o r e intelligent t h a n [Nilus]. If a n in itself unattractive r e a d i n g is also f o u n d in o t h e r b r a n c h e s of t h e tradition I have almost always r e t a i n e d it, b e c a u s e in such cases t h e r e a d i n g may have o c c u r r e d in t h e copy of Ench u s e d by t h e a u t h o r of Par, f o r instance, P a r a n d Simplicius have ή ρ ξ ω f o r ά ρ χ η at Par 61 4 ,5, which is n o t impossible. An e x c e p t i o n is m a d e for i m p r o b a b l e r e a d i n g s o c c u r r i n g in Par a n d Vat exclusively: b e c a u s e t h e tradition of Vat shows traces of intensive c o n t a m i n a t i o n (see p p . 262263), t h e o c c u r r e n c e of such r e a d i n g s in Vat may be ascribed to cont a m i n a t i o n as well; see for instance 57 3 ,4, w h e r e t h e MSS of Par (with t h e e x c e p t i o n of P) a n d Vat have σοί instead of συ (omitting εί). It has already b e e n n o t e d that Par d o e s n o t follow t h e text of Ench as slavishly as Nil. T h e r e f o r e a deviation f r o m Ench may well have

1

Of course, I am speaking about the archetype of Par, not about the individual primary MSS.

b e e n i n t e n d e d by t h e a u t h o r of Par; f o r instance, at 2 6 ' , 2 P a r has σ υ ν α ρ π α σ θ ε ί ς without the words υπό τής φ α ν τ α σ ί α ς , which are f o u n d in Ench ( a n d Nil Vat)·, Piscopo, Par 503, wants to a d d t h e words in Par c o n j e c t u r a l l y , b u t I t h i n k it possible t h a t t h e a u t h o r o m i t t e d t h e w o r d s i n t e n t i o n a l l y 2 . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e a r e m a n y passages w h e r e t h e a u t h o r of Par wrote s o m e t h i n g of his own i n v e n t i o n , so t h a t t h e text c a n n o t b e c o m p a r e d to Ench (or to any o t h e r b r a n c h of t h e tradition); in such cases each r e a d i n g has to be j u d g e d o n its own merits, a n d if a r e a d i n g is obviously c o r r u p t , an e d i t o r is e n t i t l e d to e m e n d it by m e a n s of c o n j e c t u r e . For instance, at 32 1 2 ,23 t h e MSS give t h e word ά ν θ υ π α κ ο ΰ σ α ι , which justifiably raised Schweighäuser's suspicion; I believe that it s h o u l d be c h a n g e d into άνθυποκροΰσαι. T h e m a i n p r o b l e m in e d i t i n g Par lies in c h o o s i n g b e t w e e n t h e r e a d i n g s of M a n d a . T h e r e a r e m a n y places w h e r e o n e of t h e s e witnesses a g r e e s with Ench, while t h e o t h e r o n e has s o m e t h i n g else. Now it is n o t inconceivable that in s o m e of such cases t h e a r c h e t y p e h a d a r e a d i n g d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o n e in Ench, a n d that M o r α c a m e to s h a r e t h e r e a d i n g of Ench as a result of c o n t a m i n a t i o n . But t h e r e a r e n o certain traces of c o n t a m i n a t i o n in e i t h e r of t h e two p r i m a r y sources, in t h e f o r m of d o u b l e r e a d i n g s , o r significant a g r e e m e n t with a specific b r a n c h of MSS of Ench?. Moreover, it is a prion m o r e likely t h a t a r e a d i n g also f o u n d in Ench was c o r r u p t e d in o n e of t h e primary sources, than that a c o r r u p t r e a d i n g (or r a t h e r , a r e a d i n g n o t f o u n d in Ench) in t h e a r c h e t y p e was r e p l a c e d by t h e r e a d i n g of Ench 2

It is also possible that the words were absent from Par's copy of Ench, and in that case the omission need not have disturbed the author. At 27 2 ,4 Par has πειρώ μή συναρπασθήναι (sc. ύπό τής ύπολήψεως), but there is no addition of (e.g.) υπ' αυτής. 3 There are two passages where M shares a number of readings with Ench against a. T h e first of these is chs. 24-25: at 24 3 ,5 M has ώφεληθήναι with Ench, while α has εύοδωθήναι, which is clearly lectio difficilior (cf. Schweighäuser ad loc.)\ ch. 25 in M runs ανίκητος είναι δύνασαι, έάν μηδενός άρξη ού έπί σοί τό νικήσαι ούκ εστίν; here α has three variant readings against M (and Ench): άόργητος for ανίκητος, δυνήση for δύνασαι, νικάν for νικήσαι. The second passage is the end of ch. 27: here M has (...) καί πειρώ μή συναρπασθήναι. "Αν γαρ ίάπαξ χρόνου καί διατριβής τύχης, ραον κρατήσεις σεαυτοΰ; α has (...) καί ού τό συναρπασθήναι. "Αν γαρ άπαξ έκ χρόνου καί συναρπαγής τοΰτο ήν, κτέ (β has έκράτησας for κρατήσεις, δ lias αν έκράτησας). In the first passage the word εύοδωθήναι is in itself attractive; but άόργητος is certainly less attractive than ανίκητος, while the other two readings are not very interesting in themselves; but if the four readings came into M through contamination, why then did not the scribe rewrite the whole chapter? In the second passage the readings of α are so bad that one cannot assume that they stem from the author of Par, and again, if M underwent contamination here, why was not the text brought into full accordance with Ench, by adding the words ύπό τής φαντασίας before συναρπασθήναι?

t h r o u g h c o n t a m i n a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e I have d e e m e d it m e t h o d i c a l l y c o r r e c t to accept t h e r e a d i n g of Ench, w h e n it occurs in o n e of t h e two p r i m a r y sources, b u t I stress that in this way we c a n n o t be fully c o n f i d e n t a b o u t the original r e a d i n g of Par. I n t h e following I will give a discussion of a selected n u m b e r of passages. 3 a , 3 έπειτα δοκίμαζε τοις κανόσι τούτοις, πότερον περί τών έφ' ή μ ΐ ν έστιν ό λογισμός ή περί τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν. τοις κανόσι τούτοις Μα: τοις κανόσιν οίς έχεις Comm.·. t h e r e a d i n g of Comm is, I think, the result of c o n t a m i n a t i o n ; the r e a d i n g of Μα looks a bit clumsy: if τούτοις is correct, it must refer to πότερον περί τών έφ' ή μ ΐ ν έστιν ό λογισμός ή περί τών ούκ έφ' ή μ ΐ ν as to two d i f f e r e n t questions, whereas in fact we are dealing with o n e question with two alternatives; b u t it is difficult to see how οίς έ'χεις should have b e e n c o r r u p t e d into τούτοις, a n d t h e r e f o r e we have to accept it as having b e e n i n t r o d u c e d intentionally. 3 4 .6-7 μ έ μ ν η σ ο ότι ορέξεως μέν έ π α γ γ ε λ ί α τ υ χ ε ΐ ν ού όρέγη, έκκλίσεως δέ τό μή περιπεσεΐν έκείνφ φ έκκλίνεις · ΜΡΑ give τό μή περιπεσεΐν έκείνψ (έκεΐνο VA) ώ έκκλίνεις, w h e r e we would e x p e c t ο έκκλίνεις (the r e a d i n g of V a n d Cas, in all probability a c o n j e c t u r e ) . Schweighäuser devotes a l o n g discussion to this passage, c o n c l u d i n g that φ must be accepted; φ, h e argues, is to be exp l a i n e d by case attraction. I too believe that φ should be m a i n t a i n e d ( b e c a u s e it is possible), b u t I am almost sure that it results f r o m c o r r u p t i o n of δ, u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e of t h e p r e c e d i n g έκείνω. T h e s a m e c o r r u p t i o n is f o u n d at 14 r \6, w h e r e MP r e a d τώ λ α β ε ί ν βουλομένω ώ δέδωκε instead of ό δέδωκε 4 . 4 4 ,7: the MSS have μόνον τό όρμάν καί άφορμάν χρώ; t h e editions have τω f o r τό; b u t in later Greek χ ρ ά ο μ α ι + acc. is n o t u n c o m m o n , a n d t h e r e f o r e the MSS r e a d i n g must be retained. 6 4 .7-8 ούτω γαρ άσφαλέστερον άψη τού έργου, μ ά λ ι σ τ α έάν εύθύς έ π ι λ έ γ η ς · « ά π ε λ θ ε ΐ ν εις τήν έ σ τ ί α σ ι ν θέλω, ( κ α ί ) τήν έ μ α υ τ ο ύ προαίρεσιν κατά φύσιν έχουσαν φυλάττειν.» α has φυλάττων, while Μ r e a d s φ υ λ ά τ τ ε ι ν ; at first sight, the latter r e a d i n g looks like a clerical e r r o r , b u t the fact that t h e same r e a d i n g is f o u n d in Ench makes o n e suspicious, because it is n o t immediately 4

At 14 n ,6 I have corrected ώ into ö, because in that place case attraction cannot serve to defend φ, as the relative pronoun does not refer to the immediately preceding βουλομένω.

clear how t h e c o r r u p t i o n may have arisen. I think that originally Par r e a d και τήν έμαυτοΰ π ρ ο α ί ρ ε σ ι ν κ α τ ά φ ύ σ ι ν εχουσαν φυλάττειν; w h e n κ α ί d i s a p p e a r e d , t h e text b e c a m e u n g r a m m a t i c a l , w h i c h i n d u c e d α to c h a n g e φυλάττειν into φυλάττων 5 . In itself, the r e a d i n g κ α ί - φ υ λ ά τ τ ε ι ν gives m o r e e m p h a s i s to this clause, which is attractive b e c a u s e of line 11 ά λ λ ά καί τήν έμαυτοΰ π ρ ο α ί ρ ε σ ι ν κ α τ ά φ ύ σ ι ν έχουσαν φ υ λ ά ξ α ι . 9 3 , 6 ώστε όταν χρήσιν φαντασιών κατά φύσιν έχης, τότε μόνον έπί σώ άγαθώ σεμνύνου. T h e MSS are divided between σεμνύνη (α) a n d σεμνύνου (M), a n d it is difficult to m a k e a choice. In itself, σ ε μ ν ύ ν η gives a s m o o t h e r text, a l t h o u g h it m i g h t be better to read σεμνυνή (because of έπαρθήση in Ench)\ o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , σ ε μ ν ύ ν ο υ recalls Ench's έπάρθητι 6 . T h e whole p h r a s e in Par is a c o n d e n s e d version of t h e original text, such as we e n c o u n t e r regularly in Par, a n d t h e r e f o r e I think that σεμνύνου is to b e p r e f e r r e d 7 : ' T h e r e f o r e , whenever you use your impressions in a c c o r d a n c e with Nature, exult only t h e n at your own g o o d . " ΙΟ',Ι "Ωσπερ έν π λ ο ί ω τοΰ πλοίου καθορμισθέντος εί έξέλθοις ύ δ ρ ε ύ σ α σ θ α ι , όδοΰ μέν πάρεργον έστι κ ο χ λ ί δ α ς ά ν α λ έ ξ α σ θ α ι ή ψ η φ ί δ α ς σ υ ν ά ξ α ι , τ ε τ ά σ θ α ι δέ δει πρός τό π λ ο ΐ ο ν καί σ υ ν ε χ ώ ς έπιστρέφεσθαι μή τι ό κυβερνήτης καλέση, κτέ. T h e MSS read ώσπερ έν πλοίω, which is c h a n g e d into ώσπερ έν πλω by Schweighäuser; b u t έν π λ ο ί φ is also f o u n d in the l e m m a in SAB, a n d t h e r e f o r e it must be retained h e r e too. T h e leading MSS o m i t εί b e f o r e έξέλθοις; t h e word is supplied by δ, in all probability as a conjecture; it is indispensable here. T h e editions have τετάσθαι δέ δει τήν διάνοιαν πρός τό πλοΐον, b u t t h e MSS o m i t t h e words τήν δ ι ά ν ο ι α ν . Schweighäuser wrongly believes that M has t h e words, b u t r e m a r k s that they "abesse u t c u m q u e p o t e r a n t " . I n d e e d τετάσθαι without τήν διάνοιαν is quite possible; see f o r i n s t a n c e Epict. IV 12,19 (...) ά λ λ ' έκεΐνο δ υ ν α τ ό ν πρός τό μή άμαρτάνειν τετάσθαι διηνεκώς.

5

A comparable instance of conjectural emendation in α is found at 13 1 ,1-2: here τίνα δΰναμιν έχεις was corrupted into τήν δύναμιν εχεις, which destroyed the syntax; accordingly the conjunction εί was added before εχεις. 6 This is the reading of SiC, Stobaeus and Vai; the other sources either have έπαρθήση (£ACSá>) or omit the word (£T, which omits έπάρθητι-άγαθω, as a result of le saut du même au même). 7 An additional argument might be that σεμνύνου seems to be lectio diffidlior compared to σεμνύνη.

10 7 ,10 ό γαρ εκών μή επόμενος άκων ανάγκη τοΰτο πείσεται. Μ has άκων άνάγκη, α only ά ν ά γ κ η ; Schweighäuser a r g u e s that t h e w o r d εκών i n d u c e d a scribe to a d d άκων, after which h e did n o t delete t h e word "ne liturâ d e f o r m a r e t librum", a r a t h e r far-fetched e x p l a n a t i o n . T o my m i n d , t h e a d d i t i o n of άκων gives us two pairs of opposites: εκών vs. άκων, a n d επόμενος vs. άνάγκη; moreover, I think t h e word is m o r e readily omitted t h a n a d d e d . T h e m e a n i n g of τοΰτο, of course, is "board t h e vessel", in a n e u t r a l way. For t h e pleonastic collocation άκων άνάγκη cf. 70 4 ,6 εκών ευπειθώς. 16',1 ά λ λ ά κτήσασθαι θέλεις, και οίος ει(ναι) μακροθυμείν (μακροθυμείν o m . Μ). Schweighäuser devotes a long discussion to this phrase, b u t d o e s n o t arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. T h e first part presents n o difficulties, if δοΰλον is supplied f r o m 15',2-3: "but you want to buy a slave". T h e p r o b l e m s lie in the r e m a i n i n g f o u r words; Schweighäuser m e n tions t h e following solutions: 1. et patientinm, quanta opus est, superare tibi confidis ( C a s a u b o n ) : Schweighäuser q u o t e s Gronovius' criticism with approval: " Q u a r e ei, cui s u p e r a t j a m patientia, d a t consilium ad se m u n i e n d u m ? Id p l a n e tali j a m p r a e p a r a t o Sc c o n f i d e n t i supervacuum." 2. habes etiam facultatem (id est, memento etiam, te habere facultatem) patientiâ atque dementia adversus eum utendi (Schweighäuser): if t h e a u t h o r of Par i n d e e d h a d wished to state what Schweighäuser suggests, h e would certainly have chosen a less obscure way of expressing himself. Besides, in that case it would be very s t r a n g e to f i n d two phrases of a quite d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r (the first a question or declaration, t h e second an e x h o r t a t i o n ) linked by m e a n s of καί. 3. a d o p t i n g the p u n c t u a t i o n of γ: ά λ λ ά κτήσασθαι θέλεις καί οίος εί; μακροθυμείν ά ρ ξ α ι άπό τών σμικρών κτέ: At tu comparare (servum) vis atque potes? Patientiâ uti indpe a minimis. This division of the text seems very u n n a t u r a l to me. 4. At tu comparare (servum) vis! Potes-ne etiam iram tuam temperare, & indulgentiâ adversus eum uti? ( S c h w e i g h ä u s e r ) : this implies a very awkward use of καί. 5. Sed comparare tarnen (seil, servum Se opes) stat tibi sententia, & poles (Gronovius, o m i t t i n g μακροθυμείν with M ) : t h e omission of μακροθυμείν c a n n o t be c o r r e c t , b e c a u s e t h e rest of t h e c h a p t e r is c o n c e r n e d with the question of how this quality can be acquired. A n o t h e r possible i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is suggested to m e by Prof. I n e k e Sluiter, w h o hesitantly submits that καί (θέλεις) οίος εί μακροθυμείν

m e a n s "and you want to be m a g n a n i m o u s , as you are already"; b u t in this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , too, it is strange that the a d d r e s s e e is advised to train himself in o r d e r to preserve a quality h e already possesses; moreover, the phrasing would be rather obscure, and one would have e x p e c t e d s o m e t h i n g like ... καί μακροθυμείν ώς καί νυν. As I said, n o n e of t h e s e e x p l a n a t i o n s s e e m s a c c e p t a b l e to m e ; accordingly, I submit that t h e text should be e m e n d e d : if we c h a n g e εί into ε ί ν α ι , we have an acceptable text: "but you w a n t to a c q u i r e a slave, a n d to b e able to have patience." In this way we have a fitting o p e n i n g - s e n t e n c e f o r this c h a p t e r , which gives advice to preserve o n e ' s p e a c e of m i n d in d e a l i n g with o n e ' s slave. T h e c o r r u p t i o n of ε ί ν α ι into εί c o u l d be t h e result of perseveration of θ έ λ ε ι ς it is also possible that a scribe failed to notice the c o m p e n d i u m for ναι. 16 8 ,13 «έδερον άν σε» είπεν «εί μή έχόλεσα». έ χ ό λ ε σ α α : έ χ ό λ ε σ α ς Μ: έχόλωσα edd.: έ χ ό λ η σ α ci. De Nicola: Sophocles m e n t i o n s t h e verb χολέω (aorist έχόλεσα) as an alternative f o r m of χολάω; t h e r e f o r e the r e a d i n g of α is correct. 17',1 Εί προκόψαι θέλεις, ΰπόμεινον παρά τών έκτός ά ν ο υ ς δόξαι καί ήλίθιος. π α ρ ά τών έκτός Μα: π α ρ ά τοις έκτός Heyne. In itself t h e preposition l o o k s s u p e r f l u o u s in c o m b i n a t i o n with δ ο κ ε ΐ ν , b u t it p r o b a b l y o r i g i n a t e d f r o m ένεκα τών έκτός of Ench, a l t h o u g h τών έκτός in Ench is n e u t e r , while π α ρ ά τών έκτός in Par is masculine (as a p p e a r s also f r o m t h e p h r a s e τοις έκτός άρέσκειν f u r t h e r o n ) . T h e similar p h r a s e μηδέν π α ρ ' α ΰ τ ο ΐ ς βούλου δοκεΐν έπίστασθαι, which follows i m m e diately 8 , i n d u c e d H e y n e to c h a n g e τών into τοις. I n d e e d , π α ρ ά with t h e dative can be used for "according to s o m e o n e ' s j u d g m e n t " (LSJ s.v. B.II.3). But it would be difficult to explain t h e c o r r u p t i o n of a n original τοις into τών in this place; a n d τών is closer to t h e text of Ench t h a n τοις. Possibly t h e a u t h o r i n t e n d e d t h e p h r a s e π α ρ ά τών έ κ τ ό ς to be j o i n e d with ΰπόμεινον r a t h e r t h a n with δ ό ξ α ι : " f r o m outsiders you have to bear that you make the impression" etc. LSJ s.v. A.III r e m a r k that π α ρ ά with the genitive is rarely used f o r π α ρ ά with the dative; b u t they only q u o t e instances for the m e a n i n g "by, near". 22',2 "Οταν κ λ α ί ο ν τ α ϊδης έπί πένθει ή άποδημοΰντος τέκνου ή άπολωλεκότος χρήματα, κτέ. άπολωλεκότος Μ: άπολελωκότας Ρ: άπολελοκότας V: άπολωλεκότα γ: t h e r e a d i n g άπολωλεκότος is also f o u n d in Stobaeus a n d Sa; if it was

8

This is also noted by Schweighänser ad loc.

also t h e r e a d i n g of t h e a r c h e t y p e of Par (as I s u p p o s e it was), t h e r e a d i n g of α is a f u r t h e r c o r r u p t i o n , or ( m o r e probably) an u n f o r t u n a t e a t t e m p t at correction. T h e r e a d i n g of γ, άπολωλεκότα (which is t h e g e n u i n e r e a d i n g in Ench), is in all probability a c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n of άπολωλεκότας. 22 2 .4 ού τό γεγονός α ύ τ ω φύσει κακόν, και ού δ ι α τοΰτο ούτος θλίβεται· τό γεγονός αύτω Μα: τό γεγονός αύτό δ: Schweighäuser (who wrongly believes that M has αύτό) calls t h e r e a d i n g α ύ τ ό percommodum, b u t I think that the transmitted text is quite acceptable: "that which has befallen him"; moreover, αύτό is r e d u n d a n t in c o m b i n a t i o n with φύσει. 24·\4 ότι γ ά ρ ά ν σ υ μ β ή , έπ' έμοί έστι δ ι α τής ύ π ο μ ο ν ή ς και εύχαριστίας ώφεληθήναι ύ π ' αύτοΰ. ότι γ ά ρ α ν σ υ μ β ή e d d . : εϊ τι γ α ρ έάν σ υ μ β ή Μα: h e r e we a r e c o n f r o n t e d with two problems: first t h e r e is εϊ τι for ότι, t h e n t h e r e is έάν f o r αν. It can hardly be d o u b t e d that εϊ τι is a c o r r u p t i o n of ότι, b u t t h e n t h e text can only be u n d e r s t o o d if έ ά ν is taken as t h e equivalent of αν with short a , which is n o t u n c o m m o n in later Greek, b u t u n p a r a l l e l e d in Par, t h e r e f o r e it should be r e g a r d e d as a clerical error. 24 3 .5 ώ φ ε λ η θ ή ν α ι Μ: ε ύ ο δ ω θ ή ν α ι α; 25,1-2 α ν ί κ η τ ο ς , δ ύ ν α σ α ι , νικήσαι Μ: άόργητος, δυνήση, νικάν α: see ρ. 240, n o t e 3. 26',1 "Ορα μή ποτε ίδών τ ι ν α προτιμώμενον ή δ υ ν ά μ ε ν ο ν ή νομιζόμενον εύδοκιμεΐν κτέ. δυνάμενον Μα: μέγα δυνάμενον edd.: Schweighäuser ad loc. r e m a r k s that ό δυνάμενος may b e an equivalent of ό μέγα δυνάμενος, b u t t h e r e is n o article here; even so, I think that we can d o without μέγα. 30 2 ,2 άρκοΰ ούν τό ε ί ν α ι έν παντί τών τω θεώ μόνφ άνακειμένων · a n d 66 2 ,2 ά λ λ ά άρκοΰ το ποιείν τά ά π ' αύτών: in b o t h these places we f i n d the imperative άρκοΰ with an infinitive p r e c e d e d by t h e d e f i n i t e article; in b o t h cases the editions have τω, but this is n o t the r e a d i n g of the archetype. At 30 2 ,2 MVA have άρκοΰ ούν τό είναι, Ρ has τοΰ f o r τό, a n d δ offers τώ; at 66 2 ,2 Μ has ά λ λ ' άρκοΰ τό ποιείν, PV have τοΰ for τό, a n d δ gives τώ. Now the c h a n g e of τω into τό a n d vice versa is a very slight o n e i n d e e d , the two words being h o m o p h o n o u s . But t h e r e a r e only a few places in Par w h e r e t h e a r c h e t y p e has t h e article (or relative p r o n o u n ) in a case which raises suspicion, a n d in t h e majority of these cases t h e e r r o r (if it is o n e ) is easily e x p l a i n e d as t h e result of perseveration: at 3 4 ,7 MPA have έκείνω ώ έκκλίνεις, which I have r e t a i n e d ; at 4 4 ,7 Μ α r e a d μόνον τό όρμάν καί άφορμάν χρώ,

which is possible; at 14 5 ,6 MP read τώ λαβείν βουλομένω ώ δέδωκε, which is certainly wrong; at 17',1 Μ α have παρά τών έκτός for π α ρ ά τοις έκτός (but this is n o t an e r r o r resulting f r o m isochrony). T h e closest parallel for o u r two passages is f o u n d at 48 4 ,7, where MP have τό άποσιωπάν καί έρυθριάν δήλος γίνου, which is indefensible. T h e r e are three places in Par where the MSS have τω + infinitive, p r e c e d e d by a p r e p o s i t i o n ; (32 1 ,1-2 έν τώ π α ρ α λ η φ θ ή ν α ι , 5 3 ' , 1 έν δέ τ φ περιπατείν, 66 s ,4 έπί δέ τώ έξηγεΐσθαι μόνω Μ: έπί δέ τό έξηγείσθαι μόνον a ) ; in these cases the dative is protected by the preposition, a l t h o u g h at 66 3 ,4 the protection was n o t strong e n o u g h in α (but then έπί can be construed with the accusative). T h u s there are three cases of τό + inf. without a preposition, where we would r a t h e r expect the dative. T h e main a r g u m e n t in favour of e m e n d i n g τό into τω after άρκοΰ is that there is o n e certain instance of exactly the same c o r r u p t i o n in Par, namely 48 4 ,7 (in MP). T h e main a r g u m e n t in favour of retaining τό is that the phrase άρκοΰ + inf. is f o u n d twice, although in o n e of the two cases of άρκοΰ (66 2 ,2) the MSS are divided. At 30 2 ,2 the reading άρκοΰ τό είναι is also f o u n d in Nil, ET, and SiC (the text of 66 2 ,2 is an adaptation by Par). All of which induces me to decide with much hesitation on the reading τό in both places. It is not inconceivable that in Byzantine Greek the f r e e dative of the substantivated infinitive b e c a m e obsolete, a n d in o u r passages άρκοΰ τό + inf. may have been influenced by instances of χράομαι with the accusative (as at 4 4 ,7) y . But the present state of o u r knowledge of Byzantine Greek is insufficient to draw well-founded conclusions in cases like the present one. 31 9 ,15 δρα πώς άτακτος εί καί ασύμφορος, άσύμφορος MPVA άσύμφωνος δ: the reading of δ is in all probability the result of conjectural e m e n d a t i o n . Schweighäuser d o u b t s if the word άσύμφορος can be used to indicate a quality of persons, a n d indeed the word is usually f o u n d as a predicate of things; to this De Nicola [in prep.] rightly objects that άσύμφορος refers to ό λογισμός. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , I w o n d e r w h e t h e r ά σ ύ μ φ ω ν ο ς can be used absolutely; in o u r passage o n e would e x p e c t to find ά σ ύ μ φ ω ν ο ς σ ε α υ τ ω (cf. Par 6 7 ' , 8 άσύμφωνα ... τούτφ). In itself, άσύμφωνος is attractive: it is illogical to lose o n e ' s own goods in o r d e r to provide others with things that are not good 1 0 ; but this behaviour could also 9

At 66^,2TOποιείν may have been influenced by the followingTOλέγειν. Therefore it would have been more logical to find something like ορα πώς άσύμφωνα ταΰτα τά εργα; but it seems strange to indicate as άσύμφωνος someone 10

a p p r o p r i a t e l y be d e s i g n a t e d as u n p r o f i t a b l e . F u r t h e r , ά σ ύ μ φ ω ν ο ς is m o r e or less s y n o n y m o u s with ά τ α κ τ ο ς , a n d t h e r e f o r e pleonastic, while άσύμφορος gives new i n f o r m a t i o n in c o m p a r i s o n with άτακτος. As b o t h r e a d i n g s have their difficulties I have c h o s e n άσύμφορος, because this is clearly the r e a d i n g of the archetype; b u t I a d m i t that t h e r e is a m p l e r o o m for d o u b t . 31 1 y , 19 ά λ λ ' ένοχλοΰσί σοι oi λογισμοί λέγοντες οτι «τούτον εί στέρξομεν τόν βίον, κτέ. ότι γ: τί PV: o m . Μ: the r e a d i n g τί could only be m a i n t a i n e d if we p u n c t u a t e τί τούτον εί στέρξομεν τόν βίον; Ουδεμία κτέ, b u t this is very awkward. T h e r e f o r e the choice is between ότι (which must be d u e to c o n j e c t u r a l e m e n d a t i o n ) or n o t h i n g at all. In Par we find f o r m s of λέγειν followed by oratio recta b o t h with a n d without ό τ ι " , a n d theref o r e b o t h r e a d i n g s are in themselves equally possible. T h e p r o b l e m lies in establishing the reading of the archetype: if the archetype read ότι, t h e omission of t h e word in M is d u e to carelessness ( a n d M c o n t a i n s many such errors); if the a r c h e t y p e o m i t t e d the word, how t h e n did τί find its way into a? T h e fact that the intrusion of τί is less likely t h e n the omission of a word in M, t u r n s the scales in favour of ότι; the s u b s e q u e n t c o r r u p t i o n of this word into τί may have resulted f r o m h a p l o g r a p h y , because the final (uncial) c or ( m i n u s c u l e ) σ of t h e p r e c e d i n g word λέγοντες looked very m u c h like the initial ο of ότι. But again, t h e r e is r o o m for d o u b t . 31 1 3 ,22.24 ποίαν ταύτην π ά λ ι ν τιμήν λέγουσιν; ού χειροτονήσουσί (σε) πρεσβύτην, ούδέ άρχοντα αίρήσονται. καί τί τούτο; ούδέ γάρ εις τούτο έταξας σεαυτόν, ούδέ τοΰτο έπηγγείλω· ού χειροτονήσουσί (σε) πρεσβύτην· the text as it occurs in the MSS is clumsy: "they will n o t c h o o s e an ambassador"; what o n e expects is "they will n o t c h o o s e you as an ambassador", a n d t h e r e f o r e I have s u p p l i e d σε a f t e r χ ε ι ρ ο τ ο ν ή σ ο υ σ ί . T h e omission of σ ε is easily exp l a i n e d by t h e fact that t h e p r e c e d i n g w o r d e n d s with two syllables c o n t a i n i n g a sigma. πρεσβύτην Μα: πρεσβευτήν ci. Schweighäuser: Schweighäuser argues that πρεσβύτης can only m e a n "old man"; b u t Sophocles simply states that it can b e used as a synonym of πρεσβευτής; L a m p e cautiously says that it can be used " p e r h a p s in sense of πρεσβεύτης (sic), of Manich. savour". It is safest to accept πρεσβύτην. who cloes άσύμφωνα. 11 Some instances of λέγειν without οτι: 16\3; 2 4 ^ . 2 ; 31^,2; 31 8 ,12. Some instances of λέγειν with οτι: 22^,3-4; 29',3; 56H,12.

έ π η γ γ ε ί λ ω Μ: έ π α γ γ έ λ λ η α: in itself, t h e p r e s e n t έ π α γ γ έ λ λ η is certainly possible, b u t the fact that the aorist έπηγγείλω is also f o u n d in two o t h e r places in this c h a p t e r (31 l 7 ,29; 1 9 32) i n d u c e s m e to d e c i d e o n the r e a d i n g of M. 31 l 5 ,26-27 τί προς σέ, τόν ά ν α κ ε ΐ σ θ α ι θεώ θέλοντα καί είς τοΰτο όντα; καί εις τοΰτο όντα: Schweighäuser remarks: "Rectius, p u t o , erat f u t u r u m καί πρός τούτω όντα." But if είς is taken as indicating p u r p o s e (LSJ s.v. V.2), t h e r e is n o p r o b l e m at all: "living with that p u r p o s e (sc. of being devoted to God)". Alternatively, είς τοΰτο may be an equivalent of έν τούτφ (see Sophocles s.v. 6): "being o c c u p i e d with this". 31 2 2 ,39 ά λ λ ά τ α ΰ τ α μέν ούχ ύποβάλλουσί σοι οί λογισμοί· τό δέ τού ηγουμένου καί προύχοντος πρόσωπον μόνον άρμόττειν σοι λέγοντες ούκ έώσιν έ π ε σ θ α ι θεω καί εϊκειν εύχαριστοΰντα έν τή τ ά ξ ε ι είς ην κληθηναι ήξιώθημεν. εύχαριστοΰντα α: εύχαριστοΰντά σε Μ: of course, σε must be mentally s u p p l i e d with έπεσθαι θεω καί εϊκειν εύχαριστοΰντα, b u t its position at t h e e n d of t h e p h r a s e is very clumsy: o n e w o u l d r a t h e r have e x p e c t e d it a f t e r έώσιν; t h e r e f o r e I think that α is right in o m i t t i n g the word. 31 2 4 ,42 εί δέ έν τή πόλει τιμάσθαι θέλων τών ούρανίων έκπέσεις, τί όφελος; τί όφελος Μ ν ζ : τί τό όφελος Ργε: it is almost certain that τί όφελος is t h e r e a d i n g of t h e archetype; moreover, in Epictetus τί όφελος is an i d i o m a t i c e x p r e s s i o n . For t h e s e r e a s o n s it s e e m s best to r e a d τί όφελος. 32 2 ,3 εί δέ κακά, γίνωσκε ότι ού δ ύ ν α σ α ι μή τά α ύ τ ά ποιών πρός τό τ υ γ χ ά ν ε ι ν τών ούκ έφ' ή μ ΐ ν τών ϊσων τοις π ο ι ο ΰ σ ι ν ά ξ ι ο ΰ σ θ α ι . C a s a u b o n believes that t h e r e is a lacuna a f t e r κακά; Schweighäuser too suspects that words with the same sense as t h e passage in Ench (εί δέ κακά, μή άχθου δτι σύ ούκ έτυχες) must have got lost. But if t h e omission of these or similar words in Par was u n i n t e n t i o n a l it is n o t easy to explain how it originated, because (at least in Ench) t h e r e is n o h o m o i o t e l e u t o n . So I believe that it is safest to accept the text as it stands: t h e a u t h o r of Par may have i n t e n d e d to p o i n t o u t that t h e privileges m e n t i o n e d in the o p e n i n g lines of the c h a p t e r d o n o t only b e l o n g to the category of τά ούκ έφ' ή μ ΐ ν , but are in fact κακά. 32 7 ,13 ού γαρ έδωκας τω κ α λ ο ΰ ν τ ι όσου πωλεί τό δεΐπνον- έπαίνου πωλεί αύτό, θεραπείας, κολακείας. καλοΰντι ci. Schweighäuser: πωλοΰντι Μα: the MSS r e a d i n g is clearly

a c o r r u p t i o n resulting f r o m anticipation of the almost immediately following πωλεί (sic Μ: πωλείται a ) ; Schweighäuser states that "ferri hoc nullo m a g n o i n c o m m o d o potest", b u t I believe that the a u t h o r of Par was too intelligent to write it in his text, even if h e f o u n d it in his copy of Ench. Accordingly I have a c c e p t e d Schweighäuser's correction. 3 2 1 2 , 2 3 και γ α ρ το ά ν α σ χ έ σ θ α ι δ υ σ κ α τ ό ρ θ ω τ ο ν , καί τό ά ν θ υ ποκροΰσαι ταραχώδες, κτέ. ά ν θ υ π ο κ ρ ο ΰ σ α ι scripsi: ά ν θ υ π α κ ο ΰ σ α ι Μα: t h e r e a d i n g of Μα is j u s t t h e o p p o s i t e of what o n e would e x p e c t (cf. Schweighäuser ad loc.)\ C a s a u b o n translates the word as "repugnare", but this is impossible 1 2 . What we n e e d is a word which designates the opposite of ά ν α σ χ έ σ θ α ι , "protest". In Sophocles' lexicon I have f o u n d the r a r e word ά ν θ υ π ο κρούειν, which is translated by him as "to c o n t r a d i c t by asking": this m i g h t qualify as the original r e a d i n g , b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t indicate vigorous p r o t e s t (which would be o u t of the q u e s t i o n at a d i n n e r ) , b u t only slight disagreement. T h e c o r r u p t i o n of άνθυποκρουσαι into ά ν θ υ π α κ ο ΰ σ α ι is of course very easy. 33a 6 ,8 καί ö πάντως καί τοις άπαιδεύτοις ποιήσει ό χρόνος, προεγέτω ή σύνεσις. προεχέτω Μ: προσεχέτω α: παρεχέτω (vel παρεχέσθω) Schw. N Schweighäuser takes o f f e n c e at the p h r a s e προσεχέτω ή σύνεσις, a n d would r a t h e r have π α ρ ε χ έ τ ω or π α ρ ε χ έ σ θ ω (sc. σοι): "praestet tibi". I n d e e d the c o n t r a s t between t h e b e h a v i o u r of t h e c o m m o n p e o p l e a n d the p h i l o s o p h e r / m o n k is b r o u g h t o u t m o r e neatly if ποιήσει ό χρόνος is o p p o s e d to παρεχέτω ή σύνεσις. If προσεχέτω is a c o r r u p t i o n (as I t h i n k it is) it may be d u e to m e n t a l association of t h e v e r b προσέχειν "be attentive" with σύνεσις " u n d e r s t a n d i n g " . But Schweigh ä u s e r did n o t know that M reads προεχέτω, which makes excellent sense: "let your insight have b e f o r e that which time will d o to t h e u n e d u c a t e d " . T h e c o n f u s i o n of t h e p r e v e r b s πρό a n d π ρ ό ς is very f r e q u e n t in the MSS. 35',2 (...) μηδέ σκόπει τί έκεΐνος π ο ι ή σ ε ι , ά λ λ ά τί σοι π ο ι ή σ α ν τ ι κατά φύσιν έξει ή προαίρεσις. C a s a u b o n a n d Schweighäuser are n o t quite h a p p y with t h e f u t u r e ποιήσει. C a s a u b o n translates "nec q u i d ille agat, c o n s i d é r a " , a n d p r o p o s e s r e a d i n g ποιεί σοι or έποίησε; Schweighäuser p r e f e r s ποιεί 12 The dictionaries give die following meanings for άνθυπακούω: "1. listen to in turn 2. correspond, answer to" (LSJ); "correspond" (Sophocles); "be obedient in reparation" (Lampe); "vicissim audio" (Thesaurus); "escuchar a su vez" (DGE).

σε, which seems p r e f e r a b l e to C a s a u b o n ' s e m e n d a t i o n s . But a l t h o u g h I a d m i t that t h e c o r r u p t i o n of ποιεί σε into ποιήσει is easy, it s h o u l d be n o t e d that Ench d o e s n o t have σε, a l t h o u g h this is n o t conclusive. W h a t is m o r e i m p o r t a n t , I think, is that the f u t u r e may well have b e e n i n t r o d u c e d deliberately by Par. the addressee is advised n o t to worry a b o u t t h e f u t u r e behaviour of his unjust b r o t h e r , b u t a b o u t the line of c o n d u c t h e is to follow himself; this may have b e e n i n f l u e n c e d by the following σέ γάρ άλλος ού βλάψει. 42 2 ,2 Τά περί τό σώμα μέχρι τής χρείας ψιλής π α ρ α λ ά μ β α ν ε · τό δέ πρός δόξαν ή τρυφήν όλον περίγραφε. όλον scripsi: όρών α: όρω Μ: όλως Casaubon: Schweighäuser explains M's r e a d i n g as "justo m o d o a t q u e t e r m i n o circumscribe", b u t I d o not see why o n e s h o u l d cancel everything that r e g a r d s f a m e or luxury only u p to the right measure, instead of completely; moreover, όρος a l o n e d o e s n o t m e a n t h e right m e a s u r e , a ' s r e a d i n g , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , Schweighäuser interprets as " ( q u i d q u i d a u t e m ) ad (ostentation e m aut) ad (delicias) spectat, (circumscribe)", but I d o u b t w h e t h e r τό όρών πρός + acc. can be used in this sense. Moreover, t h e r e is n o obvious r e a s o n why Par m i g h t have wished to d e p a r t substantially f r o m Ench1 s ά π α ν . T h e r e f o r e I think that C a s a u b o n is right in rejecting the t r a n s m i t t e d r e a d i n g , b u t I p r e s u m e that instead of όλως t h e original r e a d i n g must have b e e n όλον: that λ is r e p l a c e d by ρ is n o t impossible, b u t I think it m o r e p r o b a b l e that ω a n d ο were c o n f u s e d t h a n that ς was substituted by v. T h a t ά π α ν s h o u l d be r e p l a c e d by όλον is n o t s u r p r i s i n g in Par: in later ( a n d M o d e r n ) G r e e k π ά ς is gradually substituted by όλος. 4 4 ' , 3 οίόμενος έκεΐνος έργον ποιείν κακώς με λέγει έργον ποιείν looks a bit flat: "to d o a job"; o n e would s o o n e r e x p e c t αύτού έργον ποιείν or έργον καλόν ποιείν; Schweighäuser suggests that έργον ποιείν m e a n s "operae p r e t i u m facere, m a g n u m aliquid facere", while C a s a u b o n translates t h e p h r a s e οίόμενος εκείνος έργον ποιείν as " q u o d ille sibi f a c i e n d u m credidit". 1 have n o t c h a n g e d t h e transmitted text. 45 2 ,2 εί δέ ποτε καιρός καλέσοι, μηδενί ά λ λ φ φαίνου σπουδάζων, εί μή σεαυτω • t h e aorist optative κ α λ έ σ ο ι is r e m a r k a b l e in this c o n d i t i o n a l clause, a n d t h e word may be a c o r r u p t i o n of κ α λ έ σ ε ι or καλεί σε. But in a Byzantine text such anomalies n e e d n o t b o t h e r us too m u c h . 47 2 ,3-4 ότι άποσκώψουσιν εϊς σε οί παίδες- ότι έρεί σοι εκείνος ότι ύπερβαίνει σε ο αιτείς.

άποσκώψουσιν ε'ίς σε α: ά π ο σ κ ώ ψ ο υ σ ί σε Μ: a c c o r d i n g to LSJ άποσκώπτειν with εις is somewhat stronger than without it ("jeer" and "banter" respectively); therefore I have accepted a ' s reading. ο α: α M: both readings are possible, but it is easier to explain that Ö was c h a n g e d into ot than the other way r o u n d , because α may result f r o m assimilition to the initial α of the immediately following word α ι τ ε ί ς . Moreover, a client is m o r e likely to address himself to his patron with o n e request than with a long list. 49',4 και κ α θ ' ov (sc. χρόνον) πράξας ύστερον μετανοήσεις και αύτός σεαυτω λοιδορήση · λοιδορήση ξ: λοιδωρήση A (nisi fallor): λοιδώρησαι Μ: λοιδορησαι (nisi fallor) Ρ: λοιδορήσεις ν ε : the reading of the archetype clearly was λοιδορησαι or λοιδορήσαι; the infinitive is quite impossible, but the imperative middle could at a pinch be d e f e n d e d if taken on the same level as μνήσθητι in line 1 l 3 . I think, however, that the a u t h o r of Par could not have accepted such a clumsy reading, even if it was in his source. T h e r e f o r e I have accepted ζ'β reading, which is certainly d u e to conjectural emendation. 51,2 "Οταν συνεσθίης τινί, μή τί π α ρ α β ά λ λ ε ι έκεΐνος έδώδιμον λογίζου,άλλά τί ποιήσας άνεπαχθής αύτω γενήση καί μάλλον αίδήμων. γενήση α: φ α ν ή σ η Μ: given the general tenor of Par the r e a d i n g γενήση would seem preferable, because it is o n e ' s real character that counts, a n d not the impression o n e makes on others; on the o t h e r h a n d , the c h a p t e r deals with social intercourse. Besides, γενήση is m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e to άνεπαχθής than to αίδήμων; with φ α ν ή σ η it is the o t h e r way r o u n d . But because άνεπαχθής comes first, I think that a zeugma of αίδήμων with γενήση is more palatable than a zeugma of άνεπαχθής with φανήση. Accordingly I have decided on γενήση. 56',2 (...) ένθυμού ότι οίόμενος λυσιτελεΐν αύτω τούτο ποιεί, εί καί σοί ού λυσιτελεΐ. εί καί σοί ού λυσιτελεΐ scripsi: εί δέ σοί ού λυσιτελεΐ MP: άν δέ σοί ού λυσιτελή / λ υ σ ι τ ε λ ε ΐ β: έάν καί σοί μή λυσιτελή Q: the main problem lies in the word δέ, which, as Schweighäuser notes, indicates that a new sentence starts with this phrase, which is impossible, because the phrase contrasts with λυσιτελεΐν αύτω. This was realized by Q, who c h a n g e d δέ into καί; but instead of έάν καί μή o n e would p r e f e r εί καί μή. T h e r e f o r e the most p r o b a b l e correction is εί καί σοί ού λυσιτελεΐ, with ού instead of the expected μή.

13

In Nil the reading of the primary MSS is λοιδορεί, the present imperative.

56 ; | ,15 π α ρ ' ού ήκιστα έχρήν ήδίκημαι, ώς ένόμισεν ώς ένόμισεν: this is a puzzling phrase, at least to me; that the l e x e m e νομίζειν is correct a p p e a r s f r o m ή νομιζομένη α δ ι κ ί α f u r t h e r o n , b u t w h o is the subject of ένόμισεν? C a s a u b o n translates "ut ille q u i d e m credidit", ostensibly taking t h e u n j u s t b r o t h e r or n e i g h b o u r as t h e subject, a n d i n d e e d this seems to be the only possibility. But t h e n the p o i n t of t h e p h r a s e is r a t h e r o b s c u r e ; t h e only e x p l a n a t i o n I can think of is that the a d d r e s s e e s h o u l d realize that it is in fact impossible to be w r o n g e d by a n y o n e else (cf. the final c h a p t e r ) , while t h e u n j u s t b r o t h e r or n e i g h b o u r deliberately c o m m i t s an act of injustice. It is r e m a r k a b l e that ώς ένόμισεν is part of a p h r a s e which expresses what t h e a d d r e s s e e s h o u l d not think (μή λογίζου), while in fact t h e s t a t e m e n t ώς ένόμισεν is exactly what t h e addressee should think; t h e whole p h r a s e , t h e r e f o r e , is a c o n d e n s e d version of "do n o t think «I have b e e n w r o n g e d by the o n e who should have b e e n t h e last p e r s o n in t h e world to d o so», that t h e injustice only exists in the m i n d of the w r o n g d o e r " . Cf. ch. 7 l 2 , 2 , w h e r e we find ώς νομίσουσι. 57' ,2-3 «έγώ σου λογιώτερος, (έγώ σου ά ρ α κρείττων)». (έγώ σου α ρ α κρείττων) add. Schweighäuser ( l a c u n a m iam indicaverat C a s a u b o n , qui vertit ego sum te eloquentior, ergo melior): o m . Μα: given t h e c h a r a c t e r of Par, I believe that t h e text given by Μ α c a n n o t possibly r e p r e s e n t what t h e a u t h o r of Par wrote; t h e a d d i t i o n of έγώ σου α ρ α κρείττων is t h e r e f o r e necessary. 57 2 ,3 ούτοι δέ μάλλον αληθείς καί συνεκτικοί· συνεκτικοί: this m i g h t be a c o r r u p t i o n of σ υ ν α κ τ ι κ ο ί (in e i t h e r the tradition of Par or the copy of Ench used by the a u t h o r of Par), b u t it is equally possible that σ υ ν α κ τ ι κ ο ί was c h a n g e d i n t o συνεκτικοί deliberately: "able to be h e l d t o g e t h e r " is s o m e w h a t s t r o n g e r than "able to b e b r o u g h t together"; b o t h συνακτικός a n d σ υ ν ε κ τ ι κ ό ς are f a v o u r i t e w o r d s in Stoic texts: see LSJ; SVE i n d e x s.v. F u r t h e r , it s h o u l d be realized that in line 1 Par has άσύντακτοι for Ench's άσύνακτοι 1 4 : t h u s t h e r e was n o n e e d for Par to b r i n g the two words into accordance. 57 :ί ,4 σύ δέ ούδέ κτήσις ούδέ λέξις. συ C a s a u b o n γρ. in m a r g i n e , et h a b e t Ρ: σοί Μβ: σού C a s a u b o n in textu: t h e r e a d i n g σοί is in fiat c o n t r a d i c t i o n with t h e g e n e r a l t e n o r of t h e c h a p t e r , a n d t h e r e f o r e C a s a u b o n ' correction is necessary.

14

The reading άσύντακτοι is also found in ET and NiL

63,1 Μή κατάξηρον επιδείκνυε τό στόμα, κτέ. σ τ ό μ α α: σ ώ μ α Μ : t h e r e a d i n g σ τ ό μ α s e e m s p r e f e r a b l e f o r two reasons: in t h e first place it is easier to show off a dry m o u t h t h a n a dry body; in t h e s e c o n d p l a c e Ench deals with a b s t a i n i n g f r o m drinking. 64 2 ,3 θεοφιλούς δέ ανδρός χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ π ά σ α ν ώφέλειαν καί β λ ά β η ν έξ έαυτοΰ προσδοκάν. έξ α: ά φ ' Μ: in line 2 b o t h M a n d α r e a d άφ'; Ench has έξ in b o t h places; again, in 65 Γ \7 Μα r e a d ά φ ' f o r EncKs έξ: because P a r n e e d n o t have a i m e d at consistency in matters such as this, I think that a ' s έξ is t h e original r e a d i n g ; M ' s r e a d i n g probably is a c o n s c i o u s o r u n c o n s c i o u s a t t e m p t at normalization. 6 7 ' , 7 ένθυμοΰ δέ όποία αισχύνη, δέ o m . α: the omission of δέ in α is probably intentional, serving to s e p a r a t e ch. 67 f r o m ch. 66; of course, t h e two c h a p t e r s s h o u l d n o t have b e e n separated. 69 s ,3.4 έάν καί νΰν ά μ ε λ ή σ η ς καί άεί προθεσμίας έκ προθεσμιών διδως σ ε α υ τ ω και η μ έ ρ α ς έξ ημερών ό ρ ί ζ η έν α ί ς μ έ λ λ ε ι ς ά ρ έ σ α ι θεώ, προθεσμίας Μ: προθεσμίαν β: προθεσμία Ρ: the plural is s u p p o r t e d by Simplicius (who also has προθεσμίας) a n d by Ench's υπερθέσεις. T h e s i n g u l a r π ρ ο θ ε σ μ ί α ν in α may b e e x p l a i n e d by t h e MSS r e a d i n g ή μ έ ρ α ν w h i c h follows i m m e d i a t e l y ; b u t this s i n g u l a r ή μ έ ρ α ν is surprising in itself, a n d is in all probability a c o r r u p t i o n , because t h e clause έν α ί ς μέλλεις άρέσαι θεώ d e p e n d s o n η μ έ ρ α ς (which I r e a d with I K Q ) r a t h e r than o n έξ ήμερών (the c o r r u p t i o n may be d u e to t h e final ν of the following ήμερών); moreover, ήμέρας is the r e a d i n g of t h e o t h e r witnesses, while t h e r e is n o obvious r e a s o n why Par should have wished to c h a n g e the plural. 70 4 ,6 ό γάρ τω θεώ φίλον, τοΰτο ή μ ΐ ν γενέσθαι εύχόμεθα. εύχόμεθα α: αίτούμεθα Μ: it is difficult, if n o t impossible, to m a k e a choice o n internal g r o u n d s , because both verbs are equally fitting in this context. In ch. 38 b o t h verbs are used in c o m b i n a t i o n (προσευχόμενοι ... α ί τ ώ μ ε θ α ) , b u t this d o e s n o t m e a n that α ί τ ε ΐ σ θ α ι is a full equivalent of εύχεσθαι, which, of course, is the terminus technicus in this context; t h e r e f o r e I have d e c i d e d for εύχόμεθα, a l t h o u g h it is n o t inconceivable that an original αίτούμεθα was c h a n g e d into εύχόμεθα precisely f o r this reason. T h e a u t h o r u n d o u b t e d l y h a d in m i n d t h e Christian prayer par excellence, esp. Ev. Matt. 6,10 γενηθήτω τό θέλημα σου (in Par. 38 we even read τό θέλημα αύτοΰ αίτώμεθα); the L o r d ' s

Prayer is introduced with the formula οϋτως ούν προσεύχεσθε ύμεΐς; on the other hand, this formula is preceded by οίδεν γαρ ό πατήρ ύμών ών χρείαν έχετε προ τού ύμάς αίτήσαι αύτόν. With regard to the construction it should be noted that εύχομαι is often followed by an accusative with infinitive, while this construction is not mentioned in the dictionaries for αίτέω; although this does not necessarily mean that αίτέω + a.c.i. is impossible in Byzantine Greek (esp. when αίτεΐσθαι is used as a synonym for εϋχεσθαι), it is an additional argument in favour of the reading εύχόμεθα in our passage. 71 ',2 καν γάρ, ώς νομίσουσι, συσκευάσωνταί τίνες, κτέ. ώς νομίσουσι α: ώς νομίσωσι Μ: ώς νομίζουσι V: Schweighäuser remarks "vide vero, ne quid aliud sub his verbis lateat", and indeed the words are puzzling: what is the sense of the addition "as they will think"? T h e passage is similar to 56 9 ,15, where we find ώς ένόμισεν (see above, p. 252), and precisely the fact that the phrase is f o u n d in two places in Par makes it hard to believe that the text is corrupt; t h e r e f o r e I think we have to accept the transmitted text in both places. As in 56 9 ,15 the words are said about someone who believes that he is in a position to harm someone else; in both passages the message is that nobody can be really h a r m e d by someone else, but only by himself: therefore the addition of ώς νομίσουσι/ώς ένόμισεν may serve to stress the fact that the injustice only exists in the mind of the o n e who does wrong. 71 s ,5 ώς γαρ μή δυναμένων βλάψαι παρήγγειλεν ό κύριος λέγων · «μή φοβεΐσθε κτέ. κύριος λέγων μή φοβεΐσθε Μ: κύριος μή φοβεΐσθαι λέγων μή φοβηθήτε α: with regard to the addition of μή φοβεΐσθαι in α I think that the words are better omitted with M, because the double occurrence of the words is rather clumsy; moreover, the emphasis is not on μή φοβεΐσθαι, but on μή δυναμένων βλάψαι. As to the choice between φοβεΐσθε and φοβηθήτε' 15 the addition in α might provide us with a clue, because μή φοβεΐσθαι is easily explained as a dittography of μή φ ο β ε ΐ σ θ ε (with λέγων in between); subsequently, φοβεΐσθε was changed into φοβηθήτε in α in order to avoid repetition.

15 The leading MSS of the New Testament are divided too, as appears from Nestle-Aland's apparatus ad Ev. Matt. 10,28: AlephC have φοβεΐσθε, while BD read φοβηθήτε.

CONSTITUTION OF T H E TEXT OF THE PARAPHRASIS

CHRISTIANA

255

The division of the chapters T h e two b r a n c h e s of t h e tradition, r e p r e s e n t e d by M a n d a , show only a few discrepancies with regard to the division of t h e chapters 1 6 . At 32 Γ \9 εί M starts a new c h a p t e r ; chs. 33a, 33b 1 7 a n d 33c c o n s t i t u t e o n e c h a p t e r in a ; at 60 2 ,2 έν M b e g i n s a new c h a p t e r ; at 67 1 ,6 έ ν θ υ μ ο ΰ a new c h a p t e r starts in α ( a n d in C a s a u b o n ' s e d i t i o n ) . I n C a s a u b o n ' s edition t h e r e is the b e g i n n i n g of a new c h a p t e r at 5 9 \ 3 οίον. I have retained the c h a p t e r n u m b e r s of C a s a u b o n ' s edition. In t h e only case w h e r e a c h a p t e r of C a s a u b o n is split u p (ch. 33), I indicate t h e c h a p t e r s with 33a, 33b, 33c. In t h e cases w h e r e two c h a p t e r s of C a s a u b o n are p u t t o g e t h e r (58-59 a n d 66-67), the c h a p t e r n u m b e r s 59 a n d 67 are p r i n t e d in the text between square brackets. Orthography With r e g a r d to o r t h o g r a p h i c a l m a t t e r s like ν ΰ έφελκυστικόν, scriptio plena, οϋτω/οϋτως, άν/έάν etc. I have always followed the παράδοσις in those cases w h e r e M a n d a are in a g r e e m e n t . W h e n M is s u p p o r t e d by Ρ, V, γ, A or δ, I have usually accepted the r e a d i n g of M. W h e n M a n d α are divided, I have j u d g e d a c c o r d i n g to circumstances. For instance, Par s e e m s to have a t e n d e n c y to use scriptio plena f o r δέ; t h e r e f o r e I have a c c e p t e d M's δέ at 31 2(1 ,33 a n d 31 2 1 ,35 against a ' s δ\ But it is hardly necessary to p o i n t o u t that in such m a t t e r s we c a n n o t even d r e a m of r e c u p e r a t i n g exactly with certainty w h a t t h e a u t h o r wrote. The reporting of variant readings In o r d e r to avoid m a k i n g the critical a p p a r a t u s o v e r b u r d e n e d a n d t h e r e f o r e difficult to consult, I have a d m i t t e d only a selection of r e a d i n g s to t h e apparatus. In the first place o r t h o g r a p h i c a l variants a r e n o t r e p o r t e d in the a p p a r a t u s . T h e a p p a r a t u s c o n t a i n s m o s t of t h e r e a d i n g s of M, because this MS o n its own r e p r e s e n t s o n e of the two b r a n c h e s of the tradition. It also contains most of the variants of a. For Ρ a n d β I have b e e n selective. T h o s e r e a d i n g s of Μ, Ρ, β that 16 17

For a full discussion see De Nicola [in prep.]. In M there is no chapter number for 33b.

are not r e p o r t e d in the apparatus, plus the variant readings of Cas, V, A and δ, can be f o u n d in the two lists of readings on pp. 389-394. It seems pointless to me to r e p o r t the readings of all the primary MSS, because most of these (the descendants of δ) occupy such a low place in the stemma that it is highly unlikely that their characteristic readings result f r o m direct vertical transmission. Accordingly my r e p o r t is c o n f i n e d to the readings of MPVAô; readings of ô's derivatives are only noted occasionally, when they a p p e a r to be worth noting in themselves.

PART FOUR THE ADAPTATION OF VATICANUS GR. 2231

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

T H E ADAPTATION O F VATICANUS GR. 2231

T h e t h i r d C h r i s t i a n a d a p t a t i o n of E p i c t e t u s ' Encheiridion was discovered by M. S p a n n e u t in Vaticanus gr. 2231 ( S p a n n e u t , Moines 53-55). At t h e e n d of his brief discussion S p a n n e u t r e m a r k s (55): "II serait é t o n n a n t q u e le c o d e x Vatic, gr. 2231 soit le seul r e p r é s e n t a n t d e ce passage d u Manuela la spiritualité religieuse (...)", b u t in fact Vaticanus gr. 2231 (V) d o e s prove to be the only MS to c o n t a i n t h e a d a p t a t i o n , which I accordingly designate Vat. As in Nil (cf. p. 156, with n. 3), t h e original title επικτήτου έγχειρίδιον (written by t h e l ubricator) is retained.

Description of Vaticanus graecus 2231 H e r e follows a brief description of V: written between 1317 a n d 1338; p a p e r ; 2 0 6 / 7 x 140 mm.; ff. II, 281; Vat ff. 62'-74'; 30 lines; siglum V. For a full description see H a d o t , Tradition 89-92; see also Lilla 328333. T h e text of Vat in V is written in o n e h a n d . T h e title, the initials of t h e c h a p t e r s a n d the c h a p t e r n u m b e r s are written in red ink; they are probably d u e to a n o t h e r scribe. It is r e m a r k a b l e that the r u b r i c a t o r did his work in a way d i f f e r e n t f r o m w h a t seems to have b e e n t h e scribe's i n t e n t i o n . W h e n t h e b e g i n n i n g of a new c h a p t e r d o e s n o t c o i n c i d e with the b e g i n n i n g of a new line, t h e scribe writes t h e first letter of t h e new c h a p t e r in t h e text-ink, b u t lie o f t e n ( t h o u g h n o t always) leaves o u t the first letter of the first word in t h e next full line: the scribe obviously i n t e n d e d the rubricator to fill in this letter. W h a t the r u b r i c a t o r in fact does is the following: h e erades the first letter of

t h e new c h a p t e r , a n d writes it in red ink in rasura, o f t e n leaving the original spiritus ( a n d accent) u n i m p a i r e d ; t h e first letter of t h e next line is e i t h e r a d d e d in brown ink or it is o m i t t e d a l t o g e t h e r . S o m e instances: in ch. 6 (f. 62 v ) the scribe wrote όταν ά ψ α σ θ α ι / ινός έργου κτέ; t h e r u b r i c a t o r erased t h e ο a n d the spiritus, writing it again in red ink (the accent, written in brown ink, has survived); the τ of τινός, o m i t t e d by t h e scribe, is written extra lineam in brown ink (slightly d i f f e r e n t f r o m the text ink). In ch. 52 (f. 70 v ) t h e scribe wrote όταν / ιαγνους κτέ; the r u b r i c a t o r erased the original ο a n d r e p l a c e d it by a red o n e , leaving b r e a t h i n g a n d accent u n i m p a i r e d ; but h e o m i t t e d to a d d the initial δ of t h e first word of the next line, διαγνούς. T h e first w o r d of c h . 4, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d (f. 62 v ), c o i n c i d e s with t h e b e g i n n i n g of a new line; accordingly t h e scribe starts t h e line with έμνησο, to which a capital M is a d d e d in red ink by the rubricator. T h e script of the r u b r i c a t o r resembles that of t h e c o r r e c t o r very closely, a n d t h e r e f o r e it is quite possible that t h e r u b r i c a t o r a n d t h e c o r r e c t o r are o n e a n d the same person. A s t r o n g a r g u m e n t in favour of the hypothesis that the r u b r i c a t o r a d d e d t h e c o r r e c t i o n s as well is f u r n i s h e d by t h e case of ch. 15 (f. 64 r ). H e r e the scribe p u t a colon after κακοδαίμονα (the last word of t h e line) to i n d i c a t e c h a p t e r e n d ; in t h e n e x t line, w h e r e a new c h a p t e r s h o u l d start, h e d o e s n o t write the initial α of ά ρ ξ α ι . T h e h i g h p o i n t a f t e r κ α κ ο δ α ί μ ο ν α has b e e n erased, a n d t h e α of α ρ ξ α ι has b e e n a d d e d extra lineam in b r o w n ink. T h e r e is n o c h a p t e r n u m b e r in t h e margin. With regard to the corrections a n d variant readings in V Prof. Paul C a n a r t writes to tell me: "Les corrections et les variae lectiones d u Vat. gr. 2231 sont d u e s à u n e seule main; elle ressemble f o r t à celle d u scribe, mais p o u r r a i t ê t r e d i f f é r e n t e : p. ex. les d e u x points d u t r é m a sur le iota m e s e m b l e n t plus distants sur les corrections et additions." Having inspected the MS in situ in O c t o b e r , 1997, I believe that Prof. C a n a r t is right in s u p p o s i n g that the c o r r e c t i o n s are d u e to a later h a n d . Apart f r o m the d i f f e r e n t ways of writing points above ι a n d υ, m e n t i o n e d by Prof. Canart, I have observed slight d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e c o l o u r of the ink; f u r t h e r , t h e s e c o n d h a n d has a s o m e w h a t s h a r p e r a n d t h i n n e r script; finally, t h e s e c o n d h a n d writes s o m e letters consistently in a distinctive m a n n e r , esp. the μ, τ a n d the ligature of et 1 . 1

For the text of Hierocles' commentary on the Golden Verses in Vat. gr. 2231, see Köhler XV. With regard to the corrections in V Köhler remarks: "(...) utrumque

M a n y c o r r e c t i o n s a r e w r i t t e n in rasura. U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e c o r r e c t o r erased the original text so t h o r o u g h l y that it has b e c o m e absolutely illegible in most places. In a n u m b e r of places Prof. C a n a r t has i n s p e c t e d V with ultra-violet light, b u t h e c o n c l u d e s (letter of 1 1 / 1 1 / 9 7 ) : "(...) le résultat est p r e s q u e e n t i è r e m e n t négatif: les g r a t t a g e s o n t été faits avec u n tel soin q u ' i l n e reste, des lettres originales, q u e des traces a b s o l u m e n t indistinctes; parfois, o n p e u t se d e m a n d e r si ces traces n e sont pas d u e s à des défauts d u p a p i e r ou à l'écriture d e l'autre face d u folio." It is r e m a r k a b l e that many variant r e a d i n g s in V a r e b o r r o w e d f r o m the a u t h e n t i c Encheiridion, for instance Vat 69,1 Σολομώντος, in m a r g i n e γ ρ ' χρυσίππου V 2 . T h i s is especially clear in t h o s e places w h e r e a passage is left o u t because of its incompatibility with Christian o r t h o d o x y , for instance Ench 32 s , 16 ff. ( a b o u t Apollo); t h e text which is a d d e d in the margin by the second h a n d contains the variant r e a d i n g ενι for αίρει, which is also f o u n d in EAQSib. T h e r e a r e n o c h a p t e r n u m b e r s b e t w e e n chs. λ θ ' (39) a n d μθ' (49); Prof. C a n a r t states that these n u m b e r s "ne s e m b l e n t pas avoir été effacés ou avoir pâli au p o i n t d e disparaître." Instead, in t h e text the transition of o n e c h a p t e r to a n o t h e r is indicated in the usual way (colon; r u b r i c a t e d initial); b u t s o m e t h i n g must have g o n e w r o n g , because t h e r e are only eight chapters between the n u m b e r e d chs. λ θ ' a n d μθ', so that μθ' should in fact have b e e n μη'.

The character of the adaptation of Vaticanus gr. 2231 S p a n n e u t , w h o discovered the third Christian a d a p t a t i o n of Ench in Vaticanus gr. 2231, calls Vat "la plus f r a p p a n t e " of the t h r e e Christian a d a p t a t i o n s ( S p a n n e u t , Moines 53); I, however, d o not quite perceive t h e positive distinguishing f e a t u r e s of Vat, because t h e text is even less consistently christianized than Nil, n o t to speak of Par. A n o t h e r r e m a r k by S p a n n e u t , namely that Vat is "plus t y p i q u e m e n t monastique m ê m e q u e la Paraphrase", seems hardly d e f e n s i b l e to me: f o r instance, t h e c h a p t e r o n love (Ench 33 H ), which is o m i t t e d in MY a n d

opusculum [the Golden Versesand Hierocles' commentary—GJB] scriptum ab una manu atque correctum. Correxit autem postea altera m. (...)." I have not been able to consult Köhler's Textgeschichte von Hierokles' Kommentar zum Carmen Aureum der Pythagoreer, Mainz 1965.

Par, is r e t a i n e d in Vat (ch. 44). T h e C h r i s t i a n c h a r a c t e r of Vat r e m a i n s restricted to the c h a n g i n g of s o m e specific terms a n d of all non-Christian p r o p e r names. Many things for which S p a n n e u t finds fault with Nil ( S p a n n e u t , Moines 50) are also f o u n d in Vat; at Ench 53 4 ,9 the substitution of "Ανυτος καί Μέλητος by πονηροί άνθρωποι is n o t very striking in c o m p a r i s o n with τ ι ς (Nil) a n d τ ί ν ε ς (Par). S p a n n e u t is w r o n g w h e n h e states that Vat is t h e only C h r i s t i a n a d a p t a t i o n that has an alternative version of Ench 53',2, because Par has ώ σώτερ σύ καί τό άγιόν σου πνεύμα. T h e only r e m a r k a b l e differ e n c e s in c o m p a r i s o n with Nil a n d Par are constituted by t h e choice of t h e p r o p e r n a m e s to r e p l a c e S o c r a t e s a n d o t h e r s ( A n t o n i u s , E u t h y m i u s , G r e g o r i u s , Basilius, Arsenius, S o l o m o n ) , a n d by t h e p h r a s e which replaces Ench 5 3 ' , 2 άγε με ό θεός καί ή δ ι ά πάντων φοιτώσα ποιητική και κινητική α ι τ ί α ( Vat 73',1-2) 2 . I suspect that S p a n n e u t ' s enthusiasm is d u e to "Entdeckersfreude"; i n d e e d , his discovery is very i m p o r t a n t , both because the existence of a third Christian a d a p t a t i o n is r e m a r k a b l e as such, a n d because it is a n o t h e r witness to the text of Ench. I will now d e s c r i b e t h e several ways in which t h e text of Ench is m o d i f i e d in Vat; it goes without saying that here, as in t h e cases of Nil a n d Par, my a c c o u n t o f t e n rehearses S p a n n e u t ' s account. 1.

Christianization

a. Omissions All in all, t h e r e are f o u r omissions of passages or p h r a s e s t h a t a r e incompatible with Christian belief a n d practice:

2 Spanneut, Moines 54, comments: "Mais ces derniers attributs de la divinité, s'ils sont conciliables avec la théologie chrétienne, ne détonneraient pas dans la physique des maîtres du stoïcisme. Cléanthe ne dit-il pas, dans la fameuse prière rapportée par Stobée: δς διά πάντων φοιτά? L'adaptation est l'œuvre d'un auteur cultivé, qui savait son stoïcisme." However, as De Nicola [in prep.] rightly remarks, it is much more probable that the author of Vat borrowed the phrase from Simp LXXI 11-13 εύχεται δέ ούτος (Κλεάνθης) έν τοις ίαμβείοις τούτοις άγεσθαι ύπό θεοΰ και τής άπ' αύτοΰ διά πάντων έν τάξει φοιτώσης αιτίας ποιητικής τε καί κινητικής, ήν Πεπρωμένην και Είμαρμένην έκάλει (...). This hypothesis is corroborated by the fact that the Commentary on Par also shows unmistakable traces of influence from Simplicius: cf. Santerini Citi 58-62. Vaticanus gr. 2231 contains Vat, the Commentary on Par, and Simplicius' commentary. The fact that Vat borrows a phrase from Simplicius provides us with a terminus post quem for the date of composition, but that is all there is to be said about this problem.

Ench 314,17-18 ( Vat 37 4 ,16): about Eteocles and Polyneices Ench 32 s , 11-12 (Va ) / / S i ô ( . S t G / H J ) | a b 2 πρός)—TSiC[ab 2 πρόςΙ xo)///Tt— c. 11 A C / δ (ρ[ΠΨ/ΦΩ ]ς[Γ/Λ/τ ( Ξ / Σ / Δ Θ ) ] ) / / S i h ( StG/HJ) |ab 2 TSîCjab 2 rà| c. 8 aff. Gnom. (III 471 Β.); [Max.], Loc. comm. 42 (col. 924A); Mel., Loc. comm. II 89 (col. 1220B); S A / a [ BD (CEFGHJx) ] (XIV 1-2); Simp. LXXI 17-19; Stob. II 8,23 (FP; II 157,18-19 W.); cit. ΑΠΜ 83 (25 S.); Bas., Ep. 151 (II 76,14-15 C.); Marc. 109a (111 O.); Procop., Ep. 30,14 (20 G.-L.); Simp. XV 3-4; imit. Dor., Ep. 2,187 (502,1416 R.-P.); —, Sent. 12,202 (528,43-44 R.-P.); al-Kindi, Risalà II 4 (33 [arabice], 49 [italice] R.-W.); 1 Μή-θέλεις aff. Simp. XXXV 251-252; 1-2 θέλε-γίνετοα cit. Simp. XVI 5-6 c. 9 aff. Stob. II 8,22 (FP; II 157,12-16 W.); resp. Simp. XVI 5; fort. resp. Hierocl. XI 1 (42,20-43,1 K ) ; 1-2 Νόσος-θέλη aff. SA/α[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XV 1-2); 1-2 έάν μή αύτή θέλη fort, usurp. Hierocl. XI 1 (42,21 Κ.) c. 10 imit. [Ant.] 39 (9 Atb.); resp. Simp. XVII 3-5; fort. resp. [Ant.] 3 (4 Atb.); 12 Έφ'-αύτου aff. .SA (XVI 1-3): 1-2 Έφ'-έχεις aff. .SBD(CEFGHJx) (XVI 1-2); 5-6 ού-φαντασίαι usurp. [Ant.] 32 (8 Ath.) c. 11 aff. Stob. IV 1,44,79 (SMA; IV 2,978,17-979,2 H.); resp. [Ant.] 36 (9 Atb.); Ibn Fatik, Mukhtār p. 42 B.; imit. al-Kindi, RisalāVUl (38-39 [arabice], 54-55 [italice] R.-W.); 1-4 Μηδέποτε-άπήτησε aff. Eng., Theod. 87,10-13 L. (4 τί-άπήτησε libéré reddens); 1-2 Μηδέποτε-άπέδωκα aff. S A / α [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XVII 1-2); 2 τό παιδίον άπέθανεν; άπεδόθη cit. Hierocl. XI 6 (44,13 K); fort, usurp. B a s J u l . 36 (col. 245b) c. 8 cf. I 12,15; II 14,7; II 17,17-18.22.28; IV 1,89-90; IV 7,20 c. 9 cf. omnino I 1,23; I 18,17; I 19,8; 2 σκέλους-οΰ cf. I 12,24 c. 10 cf. o m n i n o I 6,28-29; 2-3 έ ά ν - κ α λ ή ν sim. II 18,15; III 3,14; 5-6 οϋτωςφαντασίαι cf. II 18,24-28 c. 11 cf. o m n i n o II 16,28; IV 1,101-103.172; IV 10,16; 1-3 Μηδέποτε-άπεδόθη alterum cf. fr. XXIII,15-16; 2 τόπαιδίον άπέθανεν = IV 1,141

5

c. 8 Μή ζήτει τά γινόμενα γ ί ν ε σ θ α ι ώς θέλεις, ά λ λ α θέλε τα γινόμενα ώς γίνεται, καί εύροήσεις. c. 9 Νόσος σώματος έστιν έμπόδιον, προαιρέσεως δέ οΰ, έάν μή αύτη θέλη. χώλωσις σκέλους έστίν έμπόδιον, προαιρέσεως δέ οΰ. καί τούτο έφ' έκαστου τών έμπιπτόντων έπίλεγε· εύρήσεις γαρ αύτο άλλου τινός έμπόδιον, σόν δέ οΰ. c. 10 Έ φ ' έκαστου τών προσπιπτόντων μέμνησο έπιστρέφων έπί σεαυτόν ζητείν τ ί ν α δ ύ ν α μ ι ν έχεις πρός τήν χρήσιν αύτού. έάν καλόν 'ίδης ή καλήν, εύρήσεις δύναμιν πρός ταύτα έγκράτειαν- έάν πόνος προσφέρηται, εύρήσεις κ α ρ τ ε ρ ί α ν · άν λοιδορία, εύρήσεις ά ν ε ξ ι κ α κ ί α ν . καί ούτως έθιζόμενόν σε ού σ υ ν α ρ π ά σ ο υ σ ι ν αί φαντασίαι. c. 11 Μηδέποτε έπί μηδενός εϊπης ότι «άπώλεσα αύτό», ά λ λ ' ότι «άπέδωκα». τό π α ι δ ί ο ν ά π έ θ α ν ε ν ; άπεδόθη. ή γυνή ά π έ θ α ν ε ν ;

c. 8 1 ζήτει] θέλε Gnom. II τά γινόμενα γίνεσθαι] γίνεσθαι τά γινόμενα ΑΠΜ [Max.]: γενέσθαι τά γινόμενα Mel. II γινόμενα] πράγματα Dor. (bis) II γίνεσθαι] σοι γίνεσθαι Gnom. II 1-2 θέλε-γίνεται] ώς γίνεται θέλε Gnom. (om. τά γινόμενα) II 1 θέλε] θέλειν ACWw: μάλλον θέλε Par II 1-2 τα γινόμενα ώς γίνεται S Simp (LXXI 19, totum caput verbatim reddens): ώς τά γινόμενα γίνεται ACWw: ώς τά γιγνόμενα γίγνεται Stob.: ώς άν τά γινόμενα γίνηται Τ ΑΠΜ (praeter cod. Heidelb.) [Max.] Mel.: ώς άν γίνηται (γίνεται Marc.) Bas. Marc. (om. τά γινόμενα): ώς γίνεται Dor. (bis) Gnom. (om. τά γινόμενα): γίνεσθαι τά γινόμενα ώς γίνεται Simp (XIV 19.52.400, XVI 6): τά γινόμενα γίνεσθαι ώς γίνεται Vat: αυτά γίνεσθαι ώς γίνονται Par: τά γινόμενα ώς γίνεται γίνεσθαι Nil: γίνεσθαι ώς γίνεται Simp (XV 3-4): γίνεσθαι τά γινόμενα Simp (XIV 293) II καί εύροήσεις om. ΑΠΜ Bas. Dor. (Sent.) Gnom. Marc. [Max.] Mel. II εύροήσεις] εΰ ποιήσεις ACWw (εύποιήσεις SE): εύρήσεις Stob.: ειρηνεύεις Dor. (Ep.\ om. altera loco): εύδαιμονήσεις Nil: άλύπωςδιάξεις Par c. 9 1 έστιν om. Simp (XV 11) II δέ] δέ δόξαACρΓΛ (et SJ lm Kx; non itat) II οϋ] ου A Q ) 0 A (lectio Γ incerta) SJ Im K: ούκ έστιν Stob.: om. Sx II 2 θελήση Stob.F II 2-4 χώλωσις-οΰ] τό ψέγειν άνθρώποις, τό έπαινεΐν, του έμπειρου ώσπερ του άργυρογνώμονος δοκιμάζειν νομίσματα SiC (altera loco) II 2 χώλανσις Sib SimpH's'jx (XV 45) II έστίν om. Simp (XV 45) II 2-4 προαιρέσεως-έμπόδιον om. Stob. Nil II 3 έκάστω Sib Par II προσπιπτόντων Τ Vat: συμπιπτόντων Si C (priore loco) Il ευρίσκεις AC II γαρ] δέ SiC (priore loco) II 4 σών Stob. c. 10 1 έκάστω SF'P C H Par II έμπιπτόντων T Par: έπιπτόντων SC II έπιστρέφων] έπιστρεφόμενος Τ Vat: έπιστρεί SC II 1-2 έπί σεαυτόν] πρός έαυτόν S (praeter SE) II 3 ϊδης] εχης SiC II ή om. SiC II 4 άν] έάν δέ SzJ Nil: om. SiC [2] II λοιδορίαν AC SzC NilP Vatdc2 II 5-6 ού συναρπάσουσιν αί φαντασίαι] αί φαντασίαι ούσαι πράσουσιν SzC II 5 συναρπάζουσιν Nil c. 11 1 Μηδέποτε] μήποτε δέ SBCD: om. Par II άπώλεσεν Nil II αύτό om. Par II 2 άποδέδωκα Τ ΡαrMP: άπέδωκεν Nil II τό παιδίον άπέθανεν] τέθνηκε τό παιδίον Hierocl. II παιδάριον Nil II άπεδόθη] ούκοΰν άπεδόθη Hierocl. II 2-4 ή-άφελόμενος om. Stob. II 2-3 ή γυνή άπέθανεν; άπεδόθη bSib Τ Nil Vat1 P c , et legit Simp (XVII 37.42): om. ACTt SzC Eug. Par Vat (add. Vat2·)

has died? She has been given back. Your land has been taken from you? T h a t too has been given back. "But the one who took it from me is a wicked m a n . " What concern is it of yours by whose intervention the giver asked it back from you? As long as these things are given to you, take care of them as things that belong to s o m e o n e else, just as travellers mind the inn. ch. 12 1 If you want to make progress, dismiss considerations of this type: "If I neglect my affairs, I will have n o t h i n g to live on"; "If I do n o t punish my slave-boy, he will be bad." For it is better to starve to death after a life without grief and fear, than to live in wealth in a state of mental disturbance; it is also better for the slave-boy to be bad than for you to be unhappy. 2 Start therefore from small things. T h e olive-oil is spilled; the wine is stolen: say, 'This is the price I pay for my equanimity, and this for an undisturbed state of mind; n o t h i n g is given without a price." And when you call your slave-boy, keep in mind that he may not heed you or, when he does heed you, may d o n o n e of the things you want. But he is not in such a fine position that your peace of mind is in his hands.

c. 11 A C / ô ( G [ n V ^ Q ] ç [ r / A / T ( E / L / A e ) ] ) / / S z ô ( S z G / H J ) | a b 2 τ ό } / / / Τ ΐ — T.SiC(ab 2 τό| c. 12 Α ^ δ ( ρ [ Π Ψ / Φ ] ς [ Γ / Λ / τ ( Ξ / Σ / Δ Θ ) ] ) / / . $ ΐ δ ( 5 ί ' 0 / Η ρ ^ Ι ; ) 2 αν p r i o r e ) / / / Tt—T.SiC)ab 2 αν priore) 5-6 ώς prius — παριόντες cit. Simp. XVIII 2-3; 5-6 ώς alterum — παρόντες resp. [Ant.] 80 (15 Atb.); Olymp., in Grg. 48,4 (252,31-253,2 W.) c. 12 s. 1 1-3 Ε ί - έ σ τ α ι aff. Eng., Tlieod. 87,4-6 L.; 1 Εί-έπιλογισμούς aff. SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XVIII 1); 2-3 α ν prius—έσται aff. Simp. XXXII 7-8; 3-4 κρεΐσσον-ταρασσόμενον fort. resp. [Max.], Loc. comm. 53 (col. 957B); Mel., Loc. comm. I 55 (col. 952B); —, — I 58 (col. 957D); 3 λιμώ άποθανείν resp. Simp. XXXII 10-11; 3-4 άλυπον καί άφοβον aff. Simp. VII 136, XII 3; s. 2 aff. Stob. III 19,15 (SMA (lectiones codicis Br ex Erich interpolati non citantur); III 533,12-17 H.); 5-6 άρξαισμικρών resp. Simp. IX 74-75, XVII 43-44; 6 έκχειται-οίνάριον resp. Eng., Theod. 87,13 L.; 7 έπίλεγε-άταραξία aff. Eng., Theod. 87,13-14 L. 4-5 τί-έπιμελοΰ cf. I 1,32; 5 μέχρι δ' αν διδώται cf. III 24,86; IV 1,79.105; πανδοκείου cf. I 24,14; II 23,36.37.41.43.45; IV 5,15 c. 12 cf. omnino III 26; s. 1 2 ούχ εξω διατροφάς cf. I 9,8; III 26,29; IV 10,27; 3-4 κρεΐσσον-ταρασσόμενον cf. fr. XXXII; 3-4 αλυπον καί αφοβον sim. III 22,48; III 24,117; IV 1,5; IV 6,16; cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 35; s. 2 5-6 άρξαι-σμικρών cf. I 18,18; IV 1,111; 6 έκχειται-οίνάριον sim. IV 1,141; έκχεΐται τό έλάδιον sim. IV 10,26; έλάδιον, οίνάριον sim. III 10,16; 7 έπίλεγε-άταραξία cf. IV 3,7-8; 8 προΐκα-περιγίνεται = IV 2,2; IV 10,19; 8-9 οταν-θέλεις sim. I 13,2

5

5

10

άπεδόθη. τό χωρίον άφηρέθη; ούκοΰν καί τοΰτο άπεδόθη. «άλλά κακός ό άφελόμενος.» τί δέ σοι μέλει, δια τίνος σε ό δούς άπήτησε; μέχρι δ ' άν διδώται, ώς αλλότριων αύτών έπιμελοΰ, ώς τοΰ πανδοκείου οί παριόντες. c. 12 Εί προκόψαι θέλεις, άφες τούς τοιούτους έπιλογισμούς· «άν αμελήσω τών έμών, ούχ έξω διατροφάς»· «άν μή κολάσω τόν π α ΐ δ α , πονηρός έσται.» κρεΐσσον γάρ έστι λιμώ άποθανείν άλυπον καί άφοβον γενόμενον ή ζην έν άφθόνοις ταρασσόμενον · κρεΐσσον δέ καί τόν π α ΐ δ α κακόν είναι ή σέ κακοδαίμονα. άρξαι τοιγαρούν άπό τών σμικρών, έ κ χ ε ΐ τ α ι τό έ λ ά δ ι ο ν , κλέπτεται τό ο ί ν ά ρ ι ο ν · έ π ί λ ε γ ε ότι «τοσούτου π ω λ ε ί τ α ι ά π ά θ ε ι α , τοσούτου ά τ α ρ α ξ ί α · προίκα δέ ούδέν περιγίνεται.» οταν δέ καλής τόν π α ΐ δ α , ένθυμοΰ ότι δ ύ ν α τ α ι μή ύπακοΰσαι, ή ύπακούσας μηδέν ποιήσαι ών θέλεις· ά λ λ ' ούχ ούτως έστίν αύτώ καλώς ι'να έπ' έκείνω ή τό σέ μή ταραχθήναι.

3 άφηρέθην Sib (ν del. SiG ' *PC) II ούκοΰν καί τοΰτο om. Tt II καί τοΰτο om. Nil II 3-4 άλλά-άφελόμενος om. Tt II 3 άλλά] άλλ' 6 SiC II 4 τί-άπήτησε] ό δούς σοι γάρ άπήτησε Eug. II σοι] μοι Slob. II μέλλει TtSiGHJ 1 s 1 Τ Μ Μ Ρ (μέλει SiJ1) II διά τίνος δ (praeter ΑΠ) T S i C Par Vat, et legit al-Kindi: διάτί AAIISiô (add. νος SiG>* sl ) Stob.: διότι C Nil II σε] με Stob.: om. Nil II άπήτησεν ό δούς Nil II 5 μέχρι δ' άν] οταν Tt II διδώται Simp (XVII 33) Nil Vat : δίδωται Stob.: δίδοται (sic) Tt: άποδιδώται Τ: διδώνται SiC: διδώ ΑΟρΛΓΧίδ: διδώς t II 5-6 ώς prius—παριόντες] έπιμελοΰμαι ώς τοΰ πανδοκίου Stob. II 5 άλλοτρίων αύτών TSzC'P c Nil Vat, et legunt Simp (XVII 2426.28.46, XVIII 2) Par: άλλοτρίων αύτοΰ S i C a c l : άλλοτρίου αύτοΰ ACbSib: άλλοτρίου Φ-tTt II τοΰ om. SiC c. 12 s. 1 1 διαλογισμούς AC6 SE Eug.: λογισμούς Φ Par II 2 äv prius om. Tt II έξει Tt II διατροφάς] διαστροφάς Tt: διατροφήν Nil II κολακεύσω Eng. II 3 γάρ έστι ÔTtSiGH Simp (XVIII 31) Nil Par Vat : πάρεστι SiC: γάρ ACVSiJ Τ II 4 καί om. SiC II γινόμενον Τ II 5 δέ καί Tt T S i C Simp (XVIII 36) Par: δ έ A C b S i b Vat : καί Μ Η I είναι] γενέσθαι Simp (XVIII 36) Il s. 2 5 τοιγαροΰν] ούν Stob. II 6 τό έλάδιον AC0Si0 SiC Nil Diss (III 10,16): τό έλαιον ΦΤι Τ Diss (IV 10,26) Stob. Par, et legit Simp (XVIII 49.90.93): τοΰλαιον Vat II 7λέγε Stob. II οτι om. Eug. Nil Par II τοσούτου prius] τοσούτω Τ: τοσοΰδε Stob. II εύπάθεια AC II τοσούτου alteram] τοσούτο Tt II 8 δέ prias om. Stob. II ούθέν Stob. II παραγίνεται bSib: γίνεται Diss (bis) Stob. II οταν] έάν SiC II δέ alteram om. Nil II ένθυμοΰ] προεπινόει Stob. II 9 οτι] καί οτι δ II μή] καί μή T S i C Stob. II ή Tt T S i C Simp (XVIII 65.84.87) Diss Nil Par: και ACôSiô Stob. Vat : ή καί G [Uppsal. gr. 25] (probantibus Villebrune et Koraes) Il ύπακούσας om. Stob. Il μηδέν] μηδέ M/M ac '^ Il 10-11 άλλ'-ταραχθήναι om. δ II 10 άλλ'] καί AC II έστίν] έστω vel ε'ίη ci. Wolf: εσται Par II αύτώ om. Tt II καλώς] καλώς, ολως δέ σοί καλώς TtSiô Vat : om. Stob. II έπ'] έν Stob. II έκείνων Τ: έκείνον A a c l (ut vid.) Il σέ μή] έμέ Tt T Simp (XVIII 67) Stob.: σέ SiG 1 V SiC Par

1

2

ch. 13 If you want to make progress, you should be c o n t e n t to a p p e a r senseless a n d silly in external matters. Do not wish to give the impression of knowing anything; a n d if some people believe you to be an important person, distrust yourself. For you must know that it is not easy to keep your choice in accordance with n a t u r e a n d at the same time to care for external things; but if you care for the o n e you must inevitably neglect the other. ch. 14a If you wish your children and your wife and your friends to live by all means, you are foolish; for you wish the things that are n o t u n d e r your control to be u n d e r your control, a n d the things that b e l o n g to o t h e r s to b e l o n g to you. In the same way, if you want your slave-boy to make no mistakes, you are stupid; for you wish badness not to be badness, but something else. But if you wish not to fail in what you desire, that is what you are able to achieve; t h e r e f o r e exercise yourself in those things that you are able to achieve. ch. 14b Each m a n ' s master is the o n e who has the power to achieve or prevent what that m a n does or does not wish. T h e r e f o r e everyone who wishes to be free should neither wish nor avoid any of the things that are u n d e r o t h e r p e o p l e ' s c o n t r o l ; if not so, it inevitably leads to slavery.

c. 13 A C / S i ô ( S Î G / H J ) | a b 3 ïa0i|//Tt—TS?C(ab 3 ϊσθι) c. 14a AC/SÎ6(.SÎG/HJ) |ab 2 τά|//Tt—TSiC(ab 2 tà) c. 14b A C / S z ô ( S î G / H J ) ( a b 3 0στις|//Π(3-4 οστις-άνάγκη)—TSîCiab 3 οστιςΙ c. 13 1-2 Εί-ήλίθιος aff. SA/α[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XIX 1-2); 2-3 μηδέν-σεαυτώ aff. SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XX 1-2); 2 μηδέν-έπίστασθαι aff. Simp. XXXI 21-22; 2-3 κάν-σεαυτω imit. [Ant.] 64 (13 Atb.); 3-4 ϊσθι-έκτός imit. [Ant.] 6 4 ( 1 3 A t h . ) c. 14a [s. 1] 1-2 Έάν-εΐ aff. S A / α [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXI 1-2); 5-6 τοΰτο alterumδύνασαι imit. [Ant.] 92 (17 Atb.) c. 14b [s. 2] 1-2 Κύριος-άφελέσθαι aff. S A / α [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXII 1-2) c. 13 1-3 Εί-σεαυτώοί. II 1,36; 1-2 Εί-ήλίθιος cf. I 22,18; 2-3 κάν-σεαυτώ cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 3; 3-5 'ίσθι-άμελήσαι cf. II 2,10; omnino IV 2; IV 10,25; gnom'. Stob. (C) 10; 3-4 τήν-φυλάξαι cf. ad c. 4; 5 άλλ'-άμελήσαι sim. IV 2,7 c. 14a [s. 1] 1-2 Έάν-εΐ cf. III 24,20.87; IV 1,67.107; 2-4 τά-ει sim. IV 5,7; 5 άνδύνασαι cf. II 2,4; IV 1,75 c. 14b [s. 2] 1-2 Κύριος-άφελέσθαι sim. II 2,26; IV 1,58-59; cf. I 4,19; II 13,10; IV 1,82.85; IV 4,38; IV 5,4; IV 7,10; IV 12,8; 3-4 οστις-άνάγκη cf. II 2,12-13.25; IV 1,77; 4 εί δέ μή, (...) άνάγκη = IV 10,6

5

5

c. 13 Et προκόψαι θέλεις, ύπόμεινον ένεκα τών έκτος ά ν ο υ ς δόξαι και ηλίθιος, μηδέν βούλου δοκεΐν έπίστασθαι· καν δόξης τις είναί τισιν, άπίστει σεαυτω. ϊσθι γαρ ότι ού ράδιον καί τήν προαίρεσιν τήν σεαυτού κατά φύσιν έχουσαν φ υ λ ά ξ α ι καί τά έκτός· ά λ λ ' άνάγκη τού έτέρου έπιμελούμενον τού έτέρου άμελήσαι. c. 14a Έ ά ν θέλης τά τέκνα σου καί τήν γ υ ν α ί κ α καί τούς φίλους πάντως ζην, ηλίθιος εί· τά γάρ μή έπί σοί θέλεις έπί σοί είναι καί τά ά λ λ ό τ ρ ι α σά είναι, ούτω κάν τόν παίδα θέλης μή άμαρτάνειν, μωρός εί· θέλεις γάρ τήν κακίαν μή είναι κακίαν, ά λ λ ' ά λ λ ο τι. άν δέ θέλης όρεγόμενος μή άποτυγχάνειν, τοΰτο δ ύ ν α σ α ι · τοΰτο ούν άσκει ό δύνασαι. c. 14b Κύριος έκάστου έστίν ό τών ύ π ' έκείνου θελομένων ή μή θελομένων έχων τήν έξουσίαν είς τό περιποιήσαι ή ά φ ε λ έ σ θ α ι . όστις ούν έλεύθερος είναι βούλεται, μήτε θελέτω τι μήτε φευγέτω τών έπ' άλλοις· εί δέ μή, δουλεύειν άνάγκη.

c. 13 1 έντός AC SE II ανόητος S Simp (XIX 5.8.9.10) II 2 δόξας S II καί] ή Nil II μηδέν] μή δέ Tt II δοκεΐν om. Nil II έπίστασθαι] ολως έπίστασθαι Simp ( X X X I 22) II δόξη Tt (sed spat. vac. iiniiis litt.) II 2-3 τις είναί τισιν] τισίν είναί τις Sa (praeter C S E J X : τισίν είναί τι S G ' P (vel S G ' V : ς erasum)) Par II 3 οτι] ώς S í F G ' P C H (non ita S Z J X ) : ός S Z G A C lit vid. Il 3-4 τήν προαίρεσιν τήν σεαυτοΰ] τήν σεαυτοΰ προαίρεσιν Nil II 4 τήν σεαυτοΰ] αύτοΰ S Z G A C ' * Η (τήν σε SZG'* S ') II τήν om. Tt II διαφυλάξαι Simp (XX 30) II τά έκτός] τοις έκτός άρέσκειν SZC (ex Par) II 5 ά λ λ ' άνάγκηάμελήσαι T S i C Par, et sic legisse videtur Simp (XX 36-37), ita fere et Diss IV 2,7 (άλλ' άνάγκη, καθόσον άν τοΰ έτέρου κοινωνής, άπολείπεσθαί σ' έν θατέρφ): άλλάάμελήσαι πάσα άνάγκη ACTtSiô Nil: άλλ' άνάγκη-άμελήσαι πάσα άνάγκη Vat II τοΰ έτέρου prias] θατέρου Τ Par: τόν έτέρου c. 14a [s. 1] 1-2 Έάν θέλης-πάντως] έάν-θέλης πάντοτε (sic) Par II 1 Έάν] έάν δέ Val II γυναίκα] γυναικά σου T t II 2 φίλους Τ S Nil Vat : φίλους σου ACTt SE: τά παιδία (absque σου) Par II πάντως Τ SA Nil, et legisse videtur Simp (XXI 14; bis) (cf. I V 1 , 6 7 έξ άπαντος): πάντοτε ACTt S E G ' * S 1 J 1 S ' X Par Vat : om. Sa (sed πάντοτε SEG'* s 'j' s 'x) Simp (XXI 12, sed vide supra) Il θέλεις έπί σοί] έπί σοί θέλεις ParΜ: θέλεις Para II θέλεις] εί θέλεις A C II 3 καί-είναι om. Tt (in margine add. καί τά άλλότρια σά είναι, μωρός εί, et ει ante θέλεις inseruit Tt 2 ) II ουτω-αμαρτανειν om. AC II 4 άλλ' in rasura SiC II 5 δύνασαι] ού δύνασαι TtSift II 6 άσκει ο] άσκεΐν SiC c. 14b [s. 2] hoc caput capiti praecedenti coniungunt AC Nil II 1 έκάστου] έ'καστός τίς Nil II 2 τήν om. S Simp ( X X I I 8) II 3 τι om. Nil II φευγέτω SiJ T S i C Vat : φευγέτω τι ACSiGH Nil: φθεγνέτω τι Tt

[1]

[2]

ch. 15 R e m e m b e r to behave in life as if you were a t t e n d i n g a b a n q u e t . S o m e t h i n g is being carried a r o u n d , a n d arrives at your place: reach out a n d take a modest share of it. It passes by: do not hold it back. It is not yet coming: do not stretch your desire towards it, but wait until it arrives at your place. In the same way towards your childr en, in the same way towards your wife, in the same way towards offices, in the same way towards wealth; a n d you will be worthy to share a b a n q u e t with the gods one clay. If, however, you d o not take these things even when they are put in f r o n t of you, but despise them, then you will not only share a b a n q u e t with the gods, but also rule with them. For by acting in this way Diogenes and Heraclitus and m e n like them were deservedly gods and deservedly called so. ch. 16 When you see s o m e o n e weeping in grief, either because his child is a b r o a d or because h e has lost his property, beware that you are not carried away by the impression that the m a n is in external ills, b u t you must immediately tell yourself, "It is n o t the event that distresses this m a n (for it does not distress others), but his opinion of the events." Do not, however, hesitate to sympathize with him in words and, if it so happens, to weep with him; but only beware that you do not weep inwardly.

c. 1 5 A C / Δ ( Ρ [ Π Ψ / Φ Ω ] ς [ Γ / Λ / Τ ( Ξ / Σ / Δ Θ ) ] ) / / S Z 0 ( S Î G / H J ) (ab 2 γέγογέ) ///Tt—'T.SîClab 2 γέγογέ) c. 16 AC/Sift(.SzG/HJ)Iab 3 άλλ'|//Τΐ—'T.SzC{ab 3 άλλ'Ι c. 15 resp. Simp. XXV 3-4.18-19; 1-6 Μέμνησο-συμπότης aff. Stob. III 5,20 (MATr llectiones codicum LBr ex Erich interpolatorum non citantur); III 262,8-263,5 H.); 1 Μέμνησο-περιφερόμενον aff. SA/α[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XXIII 1-2); 6 άξιος τών θεών imit. [Ant.] 66 (13 Ath.) c. 16 aff. Stob. IV 1,44,78 (SMA; IV 2,978,8-15 IT); 1-3 "Οταν-έκτός aff. SA/α [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXIV 1-3); 1 "Οταν-πένθει aff. Simp. XXVI 5; 2-3 πρόσεχεέκτός resp. Simp. XXVI 5-7 c. 15 1-6 Μέμνησο-συμπότης cf. II 4,8-10; fr. XVII; 9 cf. II 16,44 c. 16 cf. omnino III 3,15-19; III 24; 1-5 "Οταν-τούτων cf. I 27,5-6; 1 άποδημοΰντος τέκνου cf. III 24,8.22; 2 πρόσεχε-συναρπάση cf. II 18,24; 3-5 ώς-τούτων cf. I 11,31; I 25,17.28; I 28,23; III 13,8; 5-6 μέχρι-συνεπιστενάξαι cf. IV 12,17; 6-7 μή-στενάξης = I 18,19

c . 15 Μ έ μ ν η σ ο ο τ ι ώ ς έν σ υ μ π ο σ ί ω σ ε δ ε ι ά ν α σ τ ρ έ φ ε σ θ α ι . π ε ρ ι φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν ο ν γέγονέ τι κ α τ ά σ έ · έ κ τ ε ί ν α ς τήν χ ε ί ρ α κ ο σ μ ί ω ς μ ε τ ά λ α β ε , π α ρ έ ρ χ ε τ α ι · μή κάτεχε, ο ϋ π ω ή κ ε ι · μή έ π ί β α λ λ ε π ό ρ ρ ω τήν ό ρ ε ξ ι ν , ά λ λ ά περίμενε μέχρις άν γένηται κ α τ ά σέ. οϋτω πρός τέκνα, οΰτω πρός γ υ ν α ί κ α , οϋτω πρός άρχάς, οϋτω πρός πλοΰτον· καί εση ποτέ ά ξ ι ο ς τών θεών συμπότης, ά ν δέ καί π α ρ α τ ε θ έ ν τ ω ν σοι μή

λάβης

ά λ λ ' ύπερίδης, τότε ού μόνον συμπότης τών θεών έση, ά λ λ ά

καί

σ υ ν ά ρ χ ω ν . ο ϋ τ ω γ ά ρ ποιών Διογένης καί ' Η ρ ά κ λ ε ι τ ο ς καί οί όμοιοι ά ξ ί ω ς θείοί τε ή σ α ν καί έλέγοντο. c.

16 " Ο τ α ν κ λ α ί ο ν τ α ϊ δ η ς έν π έ ν θ ε ι ή ά π ο δ η μ ο ϋ ν τ ο ς τ έ κ ν ο υ ή

ά π ο λ ω λ ε κ ό τ α τά έαυτού, πρόσεχε μή σε ή φ α ν τ α σ ί α

συναρπάση

ώς έν κ α κ ο ΐ ς όντος α ύ τ ο ΰ τοις έκτός, ά λ λ ' ε ύ θ ύ ς έ σ τ ω π ρ ό χ ε ι ρ ο ν ό τ ι « τ ο ύ τ ο ν θ λ ί β ε ι ο ύ τό σ υ μ β ε β η κ ό ς ( ά λ λ ο ν γ ά ρ ο ύ θ λ ί β ε ι ) , τό δ ό γ μ α τό περί τούτων.» μ έ χ ρ ι μ έ ν τ ο ι λ ό γ ο υ μή ό κ ν ε ι

άλλά

συμπερι-

φ έ ρ ε σ θ α ι α ύ τ ώ , κ ά ν οϋτω τ ύ χ η , σ υ ν ε π ι σ τ ε ν ά ξ α ι · πρόσεχε μέντοι μή καί έσωθεν στενάξης.

c. 15 1 Μέμνησο οτι om. Stob. Par II οτι ώς] ϊ>πως ci. Schweighäuser II ώς om. çTt Sa (habet .Sx; add. SG'* S ') Stob. Il σε] σε οϋτω Stob.: om. Par II άνατρέφεσθαι SA II 2 γέγονέ τι] εί γέγονε Si C: τι γέγονε(ν) Stob. Nil II κοσμίως τήν χείρα Tt II κοσμίως] μετρίως Stob. II κατάλαβε .SiC: μεταλάμβανε Simp (XXIII 16): έ φ α ψ α ι Stob. II 3 κατάτρεχε Par II ήκει] έλήλυθε Stob. II έπίβαλε ΓΘΦ Vat : έπέβαλε SiC II 4 άλλά-σέ] ά λ λ ' έκδέχου κατά σέ γενέσθαι αύτό Stob. II 4-5 οϋτω prius—πλούτον] οϋτω πρός πλοΰτον, οϋτω πρός άρχάς, οϋτω πρός γάμον Stob. II 4-5 οϋτω πρός γυναίκα om. TSiC, nec legisse videtur Simp (XXIII 8) (habent Nil Vat\ om. Par suo more) II 5 οϋτω (bis) om. Nil II 5-6 άξιός ποτε Nil II 5 ποτέ om. Stob. II 6 συμπότης τών θεών Stob. II 6-9 άνέλέγοντο om. Stob. II 6 άν] οταν M/II καί om. SiC [2] Il προσενεχθέντων Nil II σοι om. SiC [3] II λάβης] μεταλάβης dubitanter ci. Meibom II 7 άλλ'] ά λ λ ά καί SiGH (non ita SiJ) Il περιίδης Nil II τότε om. SiC Par II συμπότης μόνον Simp (XXIII 32) Il τών θεών εση] εση θεοΰ Nil II εση om. Si C II 8 Διογένης καί Ηράκλειτος] 'Ηράκλειτος τε καί Διογένης Simp (XXIII 39) II καί οί ομοιοι om. Simp (I.e.) II 9 άξίως] άξιοχρέωςΤ: om. SiC II θεοί Τ c. 16 1 ϊ δ η ς Τ S a Simp (XXIV 8, XXVI 5) Stob. Par: είδής SA: ϊ δ η ς τ ι ν ά ACTt SEG ' *s' Nil Vat 11 ή άποδημοΰντος τέκνου] ή ώς άποθανόντος αύτώ τέκνου ή ώς άποδημοΰντος Simp (XXIV 8-9) 112 άπολωλεκότοςTt .Sa (praeter SE) Stob. ParM: άπολελωκότας ParY: άπολελοκότας ParV II τά om. 5ΒΙΙαύτοΰ S(aÙT0ÛSGJ: έαυτοΰ SE) Il πρόσεχε om. Simp (XXIV 9) II ή φ α ν τ α σ ί α σ ε Par II συναρπάση ή φαντασία Simp (XXIV 10) II 3 όντα SDFGH (deest SE; ος SG'* s l ) II αύτοΰ] αύτόν SG a c 1 *: τ ο ΰ ά ν θρώπου Stob. II τοις έκτός om. Stob. Par (probantibus Meibom, Heyne et Kronenberg (1910),166) II τοις] τοΰ Τ II εύθύς] εύθύςδιαίρει παράσεαυτώ καίλέγε ACTtSiô Vat : εύθύς διαίρειν (sic) SiF II έστωπρόχειρον] τό χείρον (πρόχειρον Hense) έστω Stob.: om. Vat II 4 τ ά συμβεβηκότα Stob. 115 τό δόγμα τό περί τούτων] τό περί τούτου δόγμα Tt: τ ά δόγματα Stob. II τό περί τούτων om. TSiC Stob. 11 το ΰτων NilParVat : τούτον AC: τούτου Tt.S'iö (desuntTSiC Stob.) II 6 αύτοίς Stob. II τύχοι Tt SiC II συνεπιστενάξαι] συνεπιστέναξον SiC: έπιστενάξαιTt" 0 ' Stob.: καί συνεπιστενάξαι SiGH II πρόσεχε μέντοι] προσέχων μέντοι Nil : λίαν δέπροσέχων Stob. II μέντοι om. ACSiJ II 7 έξωθεν Nil II ante στενάξης add. ου (sic) supra et infra lineam Tt '

ch. 17 R e m e m b e r that you are an actor in a play the character of which is d e t e r m i n e d by the playwright: a short play, if he wants it to be short; a long play, if he wants it to be long; if he wants you to play a beggar's role, r e m e m b e r to play this role properly too; and in the same way if he wants you to play a cripple, an official, a private person. For this is yours to do: to play well the role that is assigned to you; but picking it out is the task of someone else. ch. 18 Whenever a crow croaks unfavourably, do not let yourself be carried away by the impression, but immediately draw a distinction in your mind a n d say, "None of these signs pertains to me, b u t they pertain to my body or my property or my reputation or my children or my wife. T o me, however, all portents are favourable, if I wish them to be so; for whichever of these things may h a p p e n , it is u n d e r my control to benefit from them." ch. 19a [1] You can be invincible, if you never enter any contest in which victory is not u n d e r your control. ch. 19b [2] See to it that you are never carried away by your impression, in thinking that s o m e o n e is happy when you see him being preferred to you in honour, or in possession of great power, or c. 17 AC/δ (ρ[ΠΨ/Φ]ς[Γ/Λ/τ (Ξ/Σ/ΔΘ) ])//Siô( Sî'G/HJ) lab 2 αν priore) ///Tt—T(vix legibiIis)SîC[ab 2 αν priore[ c. 18 V C W w / / ô ( e [ I W / ^ b i s J ] ç [ r / A / t ( B / ï / A e ) ] ) / / / S i ê ( S i G / H I ) lab 2 άλλ')////Τΐ—T(vix legibi1is)SiCIab 2 άλλ') c. 19a Αϋ/δ(ρ[ΠΨ/ΦΩ]ς[Γ/Λ/τ(Ξ/Σ/ΔΘ)])//Τί—T(vix legibilis) c. 19b Αϋ/δ(ρ[ΠΨ/ΦΩ]ς[Γ/Λ/τ(Ξ/Σ/ΔΘ) ])//Sîô(SiG/HJ)[ab 3 έάν) /// Tt—T(vix legibilis)SéC)ab 3 έάν) c. 17 aff. Stob. II 8,27 (FP; II 159,11-16 W.); resp. Olymp., in Org. 17,2 (97,24-26 W.); fort. resp. Plot. 3,2,17,18-19 (I 294 H.-S.); Synes., Prov. I 13 (93,14-94,16 T.); 12 Μέμνησο-διδάσκαλος aff. SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XXV 1-2); cit. Procop., Ep. 159,21-22 (77 G.-L.) c. 18 1-2 Κόραξ-φαντασία aff. SA/α[BD(CEFGHJx)] (XXVI 1-2); 1-2 μή-φαντασ ί α usurp. [Ant.] 92 (17 Atb.); 4-5 έμοί-θέλω cit. Simp. XXVII 3; 5-6 έπ'αύτου usurp. Simp. XXXIX 26-27 c. 19a [s. 1] aff. SA/α[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (XXVII 1-2); cit. Simp. XXVIII 4-5; imit. [Ant.] 92 (17 Atb.) c. 19b [s. 2] resp. Simp. XXIX 3-4; 1-2 "Ορα-συναρπασθείς aff. SA/α [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXVIII 1-3); imit. [Ant.] 9 1 (17 Atb.); 2 ( μ ή ) ύ π ό τής φαντασίας συναρπασθείς cit. Simp. VI 12 c. 17 cf. I 29,41; III 24,96-99; IV 7,13-14; fr. XI c. 18 1 Κόραξ-κεκράγη cf. III 1,37; 3-4 τω σωματίω—γυναικί cf. IV 7,5; 34 τ ω σωματίω—τέκνοις cf. IV 7,35; 3 τώ σωματίω μου ή τώ κτησειδίω μου sim. I 1,10; II 13,11; III 18,3; III 22,106; IV 7,18; cf. I 25,23; I 29,' 10; IV 6,34; κτησειδίω cf. III 23,32; 5-6οτι-αύτοΰ cf. omnino III 20, praecipue III 20,9 c. 19a [s. 1] cf. III 6,5; 1-2 έάν-νικήσαι sim. III 22,102 c. 19b [s. 2] cf. IV 6,25-27; 1-2 "Ορα-συναρπασθείς cf. I 9,20; III 3,17; III 17,5; IV 7,21; 2 ύπό-συναρπασθείς cf. ad c. 16,2

5

5

c. 17 Μέμνησο οτι υποκριτής εί δ ρ ά μ α τ ο ς οϊου άν θέλη ό δ ι δ ά σ κ α λ ο ς , άν βραχύ, βραχέος· άν μακρόν, μακρού· άν πτωχόν ύ π ο κ ρ ί ν α σ θ α ί σε θέλη, ί ν α και τούτον εύφυώς ύ π ο κ ρ ί ν η - άν χωλόν, άν άρχοντα, άν ίδιώτην. σόν γάρ τούτ' έστι, τό δοθέν πρόσωπον ύποκρίνασθαί καλώς· έκλέξασθαι δέ αύτό άλλου. c. 18 Κόραξ όταν μή αϊσιον κεκράγη, μή σ υ ν α ρ π α ζ έ τ ω σε ή φ α ν τ α σ ί α , ά λ λ ' εύθύς διαίρει παρά σεαυτω καί λέγε· «τούτων ούδέν έμοί σημαίνεται, ά λ λ ' ή τω σωματίω μου ή τω κτησειδίω μου ή τω δ ο ξ α ρ ί φ μου ή τοις τέκνοις ή τή γυναικί. έμοί δέ π ά ν τ α α ί σ ι α σημαίνεται, έάν έγώ θέλω· ότι γάρ άν τούτων άποβαίνη, έπ' έμοί έστιν ώφεληθήναι άπ' αύτού.» c. 19a 'Ανίκητος είναι δύνασαι, έάν είς μηδένα άγώνα καταβαίνης όν ούκ έστιν έπί σοί νικησαι. c. 19b "Ορα μή ποτε ίδών τινα προτιμώμενον ή μέγα δυνάμενον ή ά λ λ ω ς εύδοκιμούντα μακαρίσης ύπό της φ α ν τ α σ ί α ς σ υ ν α ρ π α σ -

c. 17 (vix legibile in Τ) 1 οϊου] οίον ACÔ SE Stob.: ου Procop. II αν] δ' άν Nil (= δαν?) II θελήση Stoi.F II 2 διδάσκαλος] ποιητής Procop. Il 2-3 σε πτωχόν ύποκρίνασθαί Nil II 3 άποκρίνεσθαί Tt II σε om. Stob. II ί ν α καί τούτον] τούτον 'ίνα (om. καί) Stob. II εύφυώς] καλώς Stob. II 4 άρχοντα-ίδιώτην] ίδιώτην-κληρικόν f a r II τοΰτ' om. ρ Stob. II 5 ύποκρίνασθαί πρόσωπον AC0Si6 Vat II έκλέξασθαι δέ αύτό άλλου om. Tt II δέ om. SiC II αύτό] τό πρόσωπον Stob. II άλλους SzC c. 18 (vix legibile in Τ) 1 κράξη S (sed κεκράγη habet SE: κράζη SF) II 2 φαντασία] φωνή SB II διαίρει] διάκρινε SiC II λέγε ΔΘ T u v S i C Nil Par Vat : λέγε οτι ACWwôTtSiô II τούτον Si C II 2-3 ούδέν έμοί bSib TSiC Vat: ούδέν μοι Par: ούδέν έμή Tt: έμοί ούδέν ACWw Nil II 3 σ η μ α ί ν ε τ α ι T S i C Par Vat : έπισημαίνεται ACWwôTtSiô Nil II άλλ' ή] ά λ λ ά Sib II σώματι çSzJ Nil Par 11 3-4 ή τω κτησειδίω μου ή τω δοξαρίφ μου] ή τω δοξαρίω ή τή περιουσία Simp (XXVI 13-14) II 3 ή τω κτησειδίω μου om. TSiC Par II 3-4 ή τω δοξαρίω μου om. Vat II 3 ή tertiiim] καί Nil II 4 μου om. ACWwôTt II έμή Tt II αίσίω SiC II 5 έγώ om. T l l v SiC Parll άποβαίνη] άποβή vel άποβαίη ci. Koraes II 6 αύτών Tt SiC (lectio T incerta) c. 19a [s. 1] (vix legibile in Τ) 1 είς μηδένα] μή είς Simp (XXVII 15; cf. XXVIII 4) c. 19b [s. 2] (vix legibile in T) hoc caput capiti praececlenti coniungunt ACô II 1 μή ποτε] μηδέποτε Sa (praeter SE) Il τιμώμενον SD II μέγα δυνάμενον] μεγαλυνόμενον Nil II μέγα om. Par II 2 άπό Tt

[1] [2]

otherwise enjoying a good reputation. For if the essence of good is u n d e r o u r control, neither envy n o r jealousy has a place; a n d as for yourself, you do not want to be a praetor, a senator or a consul, but you want to be free. T h e r e is only o n e road that leads to f r e e d o m : despising the things that are not u n d e r our control. ch. 20 R e m e m b e r that it is not the man who abuses you or hits you t h a t insults you, b u t your o p i n i o n of these m e n , that they are insulting you. T h e r e f o r e , when s o m e o n e irritates you, realize that your conceptions irritate you. And so, try not to be carried away by your impressions in the first place; for once you gain time and delay, you will become master of yourself more easily. ch. 21 Death a n d exile and all the o t h e r things that seem to be d r e a d f u l must be before your eyes every day, but most of all death. And you will never have any abject t h o u g h t , n o r will you long for something excessively. ch. 22 If you long for philosophy, p r e p a r e yourself from the start that you will be laughed at, that many people will j e e r at you, that

c. 19b Α€/δ(ρ[ΠΨ/ΦΩ]ς[Γ/Λ/τ(Ξ/Σ/ΔΘ) ])//S2Ô(SzG/HJ)(ab 3 έάν} /// Tt—T(vix 1egibiIis)SzCIab 3 έάν) c. 20 AC/Sz6(SzG/HJ){ab 2 οταν|//Τΐ—T(vix legibilis)SiCfab 2 όταν) c. 21 A/CWw//Sz0(SzG/HJ)///Tt—T(vix legibilis) c. 22 AC/δ (ρ[ΠΨ/ΦΩ]ς[Γ/Λ/τ (Ε/Σ/ΔΘ) ] )//Si6( StG/HJ) {ab 2 ώς priore}— Τ (usque ad I. 5 vix legibilis) SiC(ab 2 ώς priore} 3 έάν-ή cit. Simp. XXVI 7-8, LX 24-25; 5-6 μία-ήμΐν aff. Eng., Theod. 87,7-8 L.; imit. [Ant.] 58 (12 Atb.) c. 20 1-2 Μέμνησο-ϋβριζόντων aff. SA/α [BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXIX 1-2); 3-4 ύπό τής φαντασίας μή συναρπασθήναι cit. Simp. VI 12 c. 21 aff. Byz. 185 (196 W.); Georg. 481 (172 O.); Mel., Loc. comm. I 14 (col. 813A); imit. [Ant.] 91 (17 Ath.); resp. Olymp., in Grg. 48,4 (252,31-253,2 W.); 1-2 Θάνατος-ήμέραν καί τά έξής (= Simp XXIX 38-41) ad instar lemmatis praebet SA: in textu Simpliciano habet Sa[BD(CEFGHJx) ]; 1-2 Θάνατος-ήμέραν usurp. [Ant.] 74 (14 Ath.) c. 22 resp. Simp. XXXI 3-6; 1-2 Ε ί - κ α τ α γ ε λ α σ θ η σ ό μ ε ν ο ς aff. SA/a[BD (CEFGHJx)] (XXX 1-2) 3 έάν-ή cf. IV 10,8; 3-4 φθόνος, ζηλοτυπία cf. III 22,61; 4-5 στρατηγός, ύπατος sim. IV 1,149; 5-6 μία-ήμΐν sim. IV 4,39; IV 6,9; cf. IV 1,131 c. 20 cf. omnino fr. XVI; 1 Μέμνησο-ΰβρίζει sim. III 22,100; 1-2 τό-ύβριζόντων cf. I 25,28; 34 ύπό-συναρπασθήναι cf. ad c. 16,2; 4-5 αν-σεαυτοΰ cf. II 18,12-13 c. 21 1 Θάνατος-φαινόμενα sim. I 11,33; Θάνατος καί φυγή sim. I 4,24; II 16,19; III 22,21-22; 2 πρό οφθαλμών έστω sim. IV 10,31; 3 οΰδέν-ένθυμηθήση sim. I 3,1.4 c. 22 1-2 Εί-πολλών cf. I 22,18; 1 παρασκευάζου αύτόθεν = II 2,10

θ ε ί ς . έ ά ν γ ά ρ έν τ ο ι ς έ φ ' ή μ ΐ ν ή ο υ σ ί α τ ο ΰ ά γ α θ ο ΰ ή , ο ΰ τ ε φ θ ό ν ο ς οϋτε ζ η λ ο τ υ π ί α χ ώ ρ α ν εχει· σύ τε α ύ τ ό ς ού στρατηγός, ού π ρ ύ τ α 5

νις ή ύπατος είναι θελήσεις, άλλ'

έλεύθερος· μία δέ οδός

πρός

τοΰτο, κ α τ α φ ρ ό ν η σ ι ς τών ούκ έφ' ή μ ΐ ν . c.

20 Μέμνησο δτι ούχ ό λοιδορών ή τύπτων ύβρίζει, ά λ λ ά

τό

δ ό γ μ α τό περί τούτων ώς ύ β ρ ι ζ ό ν τ ω ν . δ τ α ν ούν έρεθίση σέ τις, ϊσθι ό τ ι ή σ ή σ ε ύ π ό λ η ψ ι ς ή ρ έ θ ι σ ε . τ ο ι γ α ρ ο ΰ ν έν π ρ ώ τ ο ι ς π ε ι ρ ώ ύ π ό τ η ς φ α ν τ α σ ί α ς μή σ υ ν α ρ π α σ θ ή ν α ι · ά ν γ ά ρ ά π α ξ χ ρ ό ν ο υ καί 5

διατριβής

τύχης, ράον κρατήσεις σεαυτοΰ. c. 21 Θ ά ν α τ ο ς καί φυγή καί π ά ν τ α τά ά λ λ α τά δ ε ι ν ά φ α ι ν ό μ ε ν α πρό

οφθαλμών

έστω

σοι

καθ'

ήμέραν,

μάλιστα

δέ

πάντων

ό

θ ά ν α τ ο ς · καί ούδέν ούδέποτε ταπεινόν έ ν θ υ μ η θ ή σ η ούτε ά γ α ν έπιθυμήσεις τινός. c.

22 Εί

φιλοσοφίας

καταγελασθησόμενος,

έπιθυμεΐς, ώς

παρασκευάζου

καταμωκησομένων

σου

αύτόθεν

ώς

πολλών,

ώς

3 έν τοις] σοι τοις Sib (praeter SiE; σοι τοις ciel. SiG ' *PC; τών SiG ' *S'; έν S i j ' mK) II ή τοΰ άγαθοΰ Vat II άγαθοΰ] άπαθοΰς ACôTtSiô II ή] εύ Tt: ενθα SiC II 4 εξει ACô II τε] δέ AC II ού πρύτανις om. TSiC II ού alterum] ή Nil Vat II 5 θέλεις SiC Nil II οδός] οδός έστι [Ant.] c. 20 (vix legibile in Τ) 1 τύπτων AC T u v S Par Vat : ό τύπτων Tt Nil II 2 τούτου Sa (praeter SE; τούτον S G a c ' , ut vid.) Il τι Nil II 3 ύπόληψις ήρέθισέν σε Par II ήρέθισε TtSi6 SiC Par Vat : ήρέθικε AC T u v Nil II πειρά Tt II 4 ά π α ξ om. Simp (XXIX 26) II χρόνου] χρόνου τινός Simp (I.e.) II διατριβής] δια[4] SiC II 5 τύχης] κατέχης SiC II κρατήσεις] κράτησης Tt: [2]ρατήσεις SiC c. 21 (vix legibile in Τ) 1 καί prius] δέ καί Simp (XXIX 38-39) Il φυγή] φθορά Byz. Georg. Mel. II τά ά λ λ α τά δεινά φαινόμενα ASiô Τ Simp (XXIX 39-40) Vat2Pc: ά λ λ α τά δεινά φαινόμενα Nil: τά ά λ λ α δεινά φαινόμενα Vaί^'2: τά ά λ λ α άπερ δεινά φαίνονται Tt: τά δεινά φαινόμενα CWw SiC: τά φαινόμενα δεινά Par: τά ά λ λ α δεινά Byz. Mel.: τά δεινά Georg. II 2 πρό οφθαλμών] πρό τών οφθαλμών [Ant.]: om. Georg. II έστω] έστί [Ant.] 74: γενέσθω [Ant.] 91 II 2-3 μάλιστα-θάνατος om. Byz. Georg. Mel. Par II 2 μ ά λ ι σ τ α δέ πάντων] καί πάντων δέ μ ά λ ι σ τ α Nil II μάλλον SiC (lectio Τ incerta) II 3 ούδέποτε-οϋτε om. Georg. II ούδέποτε ACWwTt TSiC [Ant.] Mel. Par: ούδέποτε οϋτε Sib Byz. Nil Vat II ταπεινόν ένθυμηθήση] ένθυμηθήση Mel.: ένθυμηθήση κακόν Byz. (praeter cocld. Leid, et Mon.) II ένθυμήση WwSiH: ένθυμηθήσεται SiC II οϋτε] ούδέ Par II άγαν] άγαν τών δοκούντων λαμπρών Tt II 4 τινός om. Byz. Georg. Mel. c. 22 (usque ad 1. 5 vix legibile in T) 2 σου om. θ SJx Nil II ώς alterum] καί Nil

they will say, "Look at o u r f r i e n d , s u d d e n l y t u r n e d i n t o a philosopher" a n d "Where did h e get that high brow?" You must not put on a high brow, but stick to the rules that appear best to you, as if put into that place by god. R e m e m b e r , that if you abide by the same principles, those who first laughed at you, will admire you later; but if you are defeated by them, you will be laughed at twice. ch. 23 If it ever h a p p e n s to you that you turn to externals with the aim of pleasing someone, realize that you have lost your plan of life. Be therefore content in every situation to be a philosopher; but if you want to a p p e a r a p h i l o s o p h e r as well, make yourself a p p e a r so to yourself, a n d that will be quite e n o u g h . ch. 24 1 These considerations should not oppress you: "I will live my whole life without being valued and a nobody anywhere." For if lack of value is a bad thing (as it is), you cannot be in a bad situation because of s o m e o n e else, any more than in a disgraceful situation. It is not your business, is it, to obtain a public office or to be taken to a b a n q u e t . Certainly not. How, t h e n , is this still lack of value?

c. 22 AC/δ (ρ[ΠΨ/ΦΩ]ς[Γ/Λ/τ(Ξ/Σ/ΔΘ) ])//Szô(SzG/HJ)lab 2 ώς priore)— T(usque ad 1. 5 vix 1egibi1is)SiC(ab 2 ώς priore) c. 23 AC/ δ(ρ[ΠΨ/Φ]ς[Γ/Α/τ(Ξ/Σ/ΔΘ)])//.Si6(SiG/HJ)|ab 2 ά ρ κ ο ΰ } — TSz'Ciab 2 άρκοΰ) c. 24 Α ϋ / δ ( ρ [ Π Ψ / Φ Ω | ς [ Γ / Λ / τ ( Ξ / Σ / Δ Θ ) ] ) / / . $ ζ δ ( 5 ^ ) ^ 2 εί; 18-19 ά λ λ ' έσται = Simp XXXII 132)///Tt| 2 10-11 τίς-αύτός; 3 15-18 όράτε-άξιοΰτε)—TSiC|'2-7 εί-άξίω) 3-4 άιρνω-όφρύς aff. Simp. LXVIII 14-15; 5-6 ύπό-χώραν fort. resp. Pletli., Virt. A 2 (3,5-6 et 3,17-18 T.); 6-8 έάν-καταγέλωτα aff. Simp. XXXI 32-35 c. 23 1-2 'Εάν ("Αν Simplicius)-ενστασιν aff. SA/α [ BD ( CEFGHJx) ] (XXXI 1-2) c. 24 s. 1 1-2 Ουτοι-ούδαμοΰ aff. Eug., T)ieoá 87,6-7 L.; SA/a\BD(CEFGHJx) ] (XXXII 1-2) 3 άφνω-έπανελήλυθε cf. I 18,10; II 21,13; III 16,11; 3-4 πόθεν-όφρύς sim. II 8,24; 46 τών-χώραν cf. III 24,95; 4-5 βέλτιστων φαινομένων sim. III 23,21 (Pl., Cri. 46b); 5-6 ώς-χώραν cf. III 21,18; 5 ύπό-τεταγμένος sim. I 9,16.24 (Pl., Ap. 28e); 6-7 οίθαυμάσονται cf. II 22,8 c. 23 cf. III 12,16; III 24,118; 2-3 άρκοΰ-φιλόσοφος sim. IV 8,23; cf. IV 8,17.35 c. 24 s. 1 1 Ουτοί-θλιβέτωσαν cf. IV 2,4; 3 ού-άλλον cf. I 9,34; I 28,23; IV 12,8; 4 μή-έργον = II 6,8

έρούντων οτι «άφνω φιλόσοφος ή μ ΐ ν έ π α ν ε λ ή λ υ θ ε » καί «πόθεν ή μ ΐ ν α ύ τ η ή όφρύς;» σ ύ δέ όφρύν μέν μή έχε, τών δέ β έ λ τ ι σ τ ω ν 5

φ α ι ν ο μ έ ν ω ν ούτως έχου, ώς ύπό τού θεού τεταγμένος εις

σοι

ταύτην

τ ή ν χ ώ ρ α ν . μ έ μ ν η σ ο δε ο τ ι , έ ά ν μ έ ν έ μ μ ε ί ν η ς τ ο ι ς α ύ τ ο ΐ ς , ο ί κ α τ α γελώντές σου πρότερον

ούτοί σε ύστερον

θαυμάσονται·

έάν

δέ

ήττηθής αύτών, διπλούν προσλήψη καταγέλωτα. c. 23 Έ ά ν ποτέ σοι γ έ ν η τ α ι έξω σ τ ρ α φ ή ν α ι πρός τό

βούλεσθαι

ά ρ έ σ α ι τ ι ν ί , ϊ σ θ ι ό τ ι ά π ώ λ ε σ α ς τ ή ν έ ν σ τ α σ ι ν . ά ρ κ ο ύ ο ύ ν έν π α ν τ ί τ ω ε ί ν α ι φ ι λ ό σ ο φ ο ς · εί δ έ κ α ί δ ο κ ε ΐ ν β ο ύ λ ε ι , σ α υ τ ώ φ α ί ν ο υ κ α ί ί κ α ν ό ν έστι. c. 2 4 Ουτοί σ ε οί δ ι α λ ο γ ι σ μ ο ί μή θ λ ι β έ τ ω σ α ν · « ά τ ι μ ο ς έγώ δ ι α β ι ώ σ ο μ α ι κ α ί ο ύ δ ε ί ς ο ύ δ α μ ο ύ . » εί γ ά ρ ή ά τ ι μ ί α έ σ τ ί κ α κ ό ν έστίν), ού δ ύ ν α σ α ι

έν κ α κ ώ ε ί ν α ι

δι'

άλλον,

ού μάλλον

α ί σ χ ρ ώ . μή τι ούν σόν έ σ τ ι ν έργον τό ά ρ χ ή ς τ υ χ ε ΐ ν ή 5

(ώσπερ ή

έν

παραληφ-

θ ή ν α ι έφ' έ σ τ ί α σ ι ν ; ο ύ δ α μ ώ ς . π ώ ς ούν έτι τ ο ύ τ ' έστιν ά τ ι μ ί α ; π ώ ς δέ

3 φιλόσοφος] σοφός Simp (LXVIII 14) 114 έχε TSzC Nil Par Vat : σχής ACbSià II 5 άπό SzC II τοΰ om. SiG SzC Simp (XXXI 3) Par II τεταγμένων SimpA (XXXI 4); Simpa legit τεταγμένον (quam lectionem veram puto; Simp. orat. obi. citat [δει]) II εις om. δ II 6 χώραν] τάξιν δ II δέ οτι] τε διότι Μ/ΙΙ μέν om. SzC Simp (XXXI 32; sed babet Simp XXXI 4) II έμμένης Nil II 6-7 οί-θαυμάσονται] αυτοί σε θαυμάσονται οί πρότερον καταγελώντες Simp (XXXI 5) II 7 σου om. Simp (XXXI 5.33) II πρότερον] τό πρότερον SzGJ: om. Simp (XXXI 33; sed habet Simp XXXI 5) Par II ουτοί] αυτοί SzC Simp (XXXI 5; sed ο υ τ ο ί habet Simp XXXI 33) II θαυμάσουσιν A 1 P c CSzô (θαυμάσονται SzG'**'): θαυμάζουσιν A a c II 8 διπλούν] διπλούν τότε Simp (XXX 54) II λήψη SzC c. 2 3 1 εξω] πρός τό έξω Simp ( X X X I 7 ) II πρός τό] έπί τώ Simp ( X X X I 7 ) : πρό του M/M II βούλεσθαι] βουληθήναι δ: βουλεύσασθαι AC SE Vatac·* (ut vid.): om. Simp ( X X X I 7 ) II 2 άπώλεσας τήν ένστασιν] τήν ένστασιν άπώλεσας S G ' * S 1 S C : τήν έντευξιν (έντεξιν SD) άπώλεσας SBDFGHJx II 2-3 τό (sic) είναι έν παντί Par II 2 έν om. Vaí ac2 II τφ ACöSiö Diss Vat : τό TSzC Nil Par II 3 καί prius om. Nil Par II βούλει TSzC Par, et legisse videtur Simp ( X X X I 2 6 - 2 7 ) : βούλει τώ είναι ACbSib Vat (unde βούλει τω είναι ci. Upton): βούλει τό είναι Nil II 3 - 4 ίκανόν έστι Simp ( X X X I 1 5 . 2 8 ) Nil: ίκανόν έστι τοΰτο Τ Par: ίκανόν έστι τοΰτο γέ σοι SzC: ικανός έση A C Ô S Z Ô Vat : ίκανόν έσται σοι ci. Koraes c. 24 s. 1 1 λογισμοί ΦΩ Τ Par II έγώ om. S (praeter SE) Simp (XXXII 18) Nil II διαβιώσομαι δ Τ Eng. Nil Par Ργ Vat : βιώσομαι AC SAE SzwzpAß (XXXII 18; βιώσομεν SimpD): έσομαι Sa SimpB: διαβήσομαι P a r MV II 2 ούδείς] ούδέν ς Eng. II ούδαμού] ούδαμή Eug.: ούδαμοΰ έσομαι Vat II εί γάρ ή] ή γάρ SzC II 2-3 ώσπερ έστίν Sib (praeter SzH) TSzC Nil Vat, et legit Simp (XXXII 19-20 ή άτιμία κακόν; 24-25 ή άτιμία, κακόν ούσα; 27 ή άτιμία, φησί, κακόν έστιν): om. ACÔSzH II 3 ού alterum om. Τ II 4 έστίν ούν σόν SzGH (ούν σόν έστιν SzG'*P c ): ούν έστι σόν SzJ II έργον έστί(ν) δ Par II τό] τό ή Nil II τυχεΐν άρχής Simp (XXXII 40) II άρχής] τής άρχής Τ II παρακληθήναι ci. Koraes II 5 έφ' έστίασιν] εις σ υ μ β ο υ λ ή ν ή εις έ σ τ ί α σ ι ν Simp (XXXII 40) II έφ'] εις Simp (I.e.) Nil II έτι om. SiC Vat II τούτοις Nil

1

And how will you be a nobody anywhere, you who only have to be in t h e things that are u n d e r your control, in which you have the opportunity to be of the greatest value? 2 But your friends will lack help? What do you mean, "lack help"? They will not have money from you, n o r will you make them Roman citizens. But who told you that these things are a m o n g those u n d e r o u r control, and are not o t h e r people's business? And who is able to give a n o t h e r what h e does not have himself? 3 "Get money, then," someone says, "in o r d e r that we too get it." If I can get it while keeping myself self-respecting a n d faithful and high-minded, show me the way and I will get it. But if you want me to lose my own good, so that you get what is not good, see for yourselves how unfair and inconsiderate you are. And what is it that you want most: money or a faithful and self-respecting friend? T h e r e f o r e r a t h e r help me in this; a n d d o not want me to d o the things by which I will lose these very qualities. 4 "But my country", s o m e o n e says, "will lack the help I can give it." Again, what help d o you m e a n ? Your country will not have porticoes or baths by your efforts. So what? It does not have shoes m a d e by the blacksmith either, n o r weapons made by the cobbler: it is sufficient if each man fulfils his own task. If you m a d e s o m e o n e else a faithful a n d selfrespecting citizen, would that n o t be useful to the state? "Yes." Accordingly you would not be useless yourself to it either. 5 "What

c. 24 A C / Ô ( Q [ I W / O N ] ç [ R / A / T ( S / L / A 0 ) ] ) / / S i ô ( S i G J ) { a b 2 εί; 18-19 άλλ'έσται = Simp XXXII 132}///Tt{ 2 10-11 τίς-αύτός; s 15-18 όράτε-άξιοΰτε)—TSzC{ 1 2-7 εί-άξίψ) s. 4 18-19 άλλ'-εσται aff. Simp. XXXII 132 (novum paragraphum incipit SimpA, acl instar lemmatis praebet Simpa) 7 εξεστί-άξίω = III 25,3; s. 2 10-11 τίς-αύτός cf. III 21,10; s. 3 15-18 τί-άξιοΰτε cf. gnom. Stob. (D) 8; Mosch, gnom. (Ε) 3; 15 άνισοι, αγνώμονες I 11,24; 16 πιστόν καί αίδήμονα e.g. II 2,4; II 4,2; IV 1,161; IV 13,19.20 (et saepius); s. 4 22-23 εί-ώφέλεις cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 60; 24 ούκοΰν-αύτή cf. gnom. Stob. (C) 59

0

.5

Î0

καί ούδείς ούδαμοΰ εση, öv έν μόνοις είναι δει τοις έπί σοί, έν οίς έξεστί σοι είναι πλείστου άξίω; ά λ λ ά σοι οί φίλοι αβοήθητοι εσονται; τί λέγεις τό αβοήθητοι; ούχ έξουσι παρά σοΰ κερμάτιον, ούδέ πολίτας 'Ρωμαίων αύτούς ποιήσεις, τίς ούν σοι είπεν δτι ταΰτα τών έφ' ήμΐν έστιν, ούχί δέ αλλότρια έργα; τίς δέ δούναι δύναται έτέρω α μή έχει αύτός; «κτήσαι ούν» φησίν «ϊνα καί ημείς έχωμεν.» εί δ ύ ν α μ α ι κτήσασθαι τηρών έμαυτόν α ί δ ή μ ο ν α καί πιστόν καί μεγαλόφρονα, δείκνυε τήν όδόν καί κτήσομαι. εί δ ' έμέ άξιοΰτε τά ά γ α θ ά τά έμαυτοΰ άπολέσαι, ίνα ύμεΐς τά μή άγαθά περιποιήσησθε, όράτε ύμεΐς πώς άνισοι έστε καί αγνώμονες, τί δέ καί βούλεσθε μάλλον, άργύριον ή φίλον πιστόν καί αίδήμονα; είς τοΰτο ούν μοι μ ά λ λ ο ν σ υ λ λ α μ β ά ν ε τ ε , καί μή δ ι ' ών ά π ο β α λ ώ α ύ τ ά τ α ΰ τ α , έ κ ε ΐ ν ά με πράσσειν άξιοΰτε. « ά λ λ ' ή πατρίς, δσον έπ' έμοί,» φησίν «άβοήθητος έσται.» π ά λ ι ν , ποίαν καί ταύτην βοήθειαν; στοάς ούχ έξει διά σέ ούδέ β α λ α ν ε ΐ α . καί τί τοΰτο; ούδέ γάρ υποδήματα έχει δ ι ά τόν χ α λ κ έ α ούδέ όπλα διά τόν σκυτέα· ίκανόν δέ, άν έκαστος έκπληρώση τό έαυτοΰ έργον, εί δέ άλλον τινά αύτη κατεσκεύαζες πολίτην πιστόν καί α ί δ ή μ ο ν α , ούδέν άν αύτήν ώφέλεις; «ναί.» ούκοΰν ούδέ σύ αύτός άνωφελής άν εϊης αύτη. «τίνα ούν» φησίν

6 καί TSiC Simp (XXXII 75) Nil Par Vat : om. AC bSib II είναι S S i G ' V T S î C Par Vat, et ita legisse videtur Simp (XXXII 75-81): είναί τινα AC bSib Nil II τοις] τών NUM.: τόν M/P II 7 ε ί ν α ι πλείστου] πολλού είναι Par II πλείστου] πολλού Simp (XXXII 78.83) Par II άξιον SzC II s. 2 7 σοι om. Τ: μοι ci. Meibom (probantibus Upton et Schweighäuser), et ita legisse videtur Simp (XXXII 82-83: ά λ λ ά , κάν έγώ σιγών δύναμαι κτέ) II 8 κερμάτιον SiG ' *m£ Τ Nil: άργύριον AC bSib Vat (χρήματα Simp [XXXII 89.91] Par) II 9 ρωμαίων πολίτας δ II 10-11 ούχί-αύτός om. S i G a c l * II 10 δέ alterum om. Tt II δούναι δύναται έτέρω] δύναται δούναι έτέρω ÔTt Simp (XXXII 94) Par: δύναται έτέρω δούναι Simp (XXXII 136) Il s. 3 11 φησίν] φασίν οί φίλοι SiG Simp (XXXII 96) II 12 τηρών om. NilParM II 13-18 εί-άξιούτε om. SzG a c l * 11 15 ύμείς om. Δ θ Τ Vat II άνισοι έστε καί άγνώμονες] έστέ άγνώμονες Tt II άνισοί] άδικοι SiG* Nil II καί alterum om. SiG* Τ Par II βούλεσθαι Tt II 17 μάλλον συλλαμβάνετε] σπούδαζε μάλλον Peril συλλαμβάνεται A a c I (ut vid.): συλαμβάνετε Xt 1 Pc: συλαμβάνεται T f l C II άποβάλλω Nil II ταύτα αύτά Tt Τ II αύτά] αύτό δ II 18 έκεΐνά om. δ II άξιοΐτε Tt II s. 4 18- 5 27 άλλ' -άποτελεσθείς om. S i J a c ' II 18 φησίν οσον έπ' έμοί t Nil 11 19-·Γ,27 πάλιν-άποτελεσθείς om. S i G a c l * II 19 πάλιν, ποιαν και ταύτη ν J ποίαν ταύτην πάλιν Par II κ α ί om. bSiG* Par II 20 ούδέ prius Τ Nil, et ita legisse videtur Par : οϋτε ACôSiG*J Vat : καί Simp (XXXII 141) II ούδέ alterum] ού ΠΨ Vat II 20-21 διά τόν χαλκέα έχει Simp (XXXII 141) II 21 χαλκέα-σκυτέα] σκυτέα-χαλκέα ACçSiJ (21 ούδέ-σκυτέα om. ρ, σκυτέα pro χαλκέα praebens) M/ II 22 κατεσκεύαζες αύτη Simp (XXXII 148) II κατασκευάζεις SiG* Τ II 23 πιστόν καί αίδήμονα πολίτην Simp (XXXII 148) II ά ν om. SiG* Τ Λ/ϊ/ΙΙ ώφελεΐς T u v II 24 ούκούν-αύτή] ούκοΰν ούδείς έαυτόν άν ώφέλησεν ή αύτήν Nil Vat II s. 5 24-25 φησιν έξω χώραν δ Simp (XXXII 154) Nil: φασιν χώραν έχεις Par : έξω φησί χώραν ACSiG*J Τ Vat

2

3

4

5

place then", s o m e o n e says, "shall I have in the state?" T h e o n e you can have while r e m a i n i n g the faithful a n d self-respecting m a n you are. For if you lose these qualities while wishing to help the state, what use will you be to it if you t u r n o u t to be shameless a n d unfaithful? ch. 25 1 If s o m e o n e has been h o n o u r e d above you at a b a n q u e t or in a salutation or in being asked for advice, you should be happy that he has got these things, if they are good; if, on the o t h e r h a n d , they are bad, do not be angry that you did not get them. R e m e m b e r that you cannot lay a claim to the same, if you are not doing the same with a view to getting things that are not u n d e r o u r control. 2 For in what way can he who does not frequently go to s o m e o n e ' s d o o r get the same as the o n e who goes? How can he who does not escort get the same as the o n e who escorts? How can he who does not praise get the same as the o n e who praises? T h e r e f o r e you will be unjust a n d insatiable, if, refusing to pay the price for which these things are b o u g h t , you wish to get them for free. 3 But for what price d o you buy a h e a d of lettuce? An obol, maybe. If, t h e n , s o m e o n e pays an obol a n d gets a head of lettuce, but you, not paying an obol, d o not get it, do not think that you have less than the o n e who got it: for he may have the lettuce, you have the obol which you did n o t give. 4 And exactly the same holds g o o d for life. You have n o t b e e n invited to s o m e o n e ' s banquet? Of course not: you did not pay the host the price for which he sells the banquet; he sells it for praise, h e sells it for attention. Pay the price for which it is sold, if it benefits you; but if you do not want to pay the o n e and yet receive the other,

c. 24 AC/ô(e[IW/«MÎJç[r/A/t(E/E/Ae)])//Siô(SiGJ)|ab 2 εί; 18-19 ά λ λ ' εσται = Simp XXXII 132|///Tt| a 10-ll τίς-αύτός; 3 15-18 όράτε-άξιοΰτε|—TSiCl'2-7 εί-άξίω) c. 25 ΑΟ/δ(ρ[ΠΨ/Φίί]ς[Γ/Λ/τ(Ξ/Σ/ΔΘ) ] )//Siô(SiG*J) (ab 1 ή altero}— TSiClab 1 ή a1tero( c. 25 s. 1 1-2 Εί-συμβουλίαν resp. Simp. XXXII 39-40; 1 Εί ('Εάν Simplicius) — προσαγορεύσει aff. SA/a[BD(CEFGHJx) ] (XXXIII 1) c. 25 s. 1-2 1-9 Εί-λαμβάνειν cf. omnino III 17,2-3; IV 6,25-27; s. 1 4-5 μέμνησοάξιοΰσθαι cf. IV 2,2-4; s. 2 5-7 πώς-έπαινοΰντι cf. III 24,49; IV 6,36; IV 10,19-20; 6 ότινός cf. III 24,44; 9 προΐκα-λαμβάνειν = IV 10,24; s. 3 9-10 άλλά-τύχη sim. II 10,9; III 24,48; s. 4 13-15 ού-πωλεΐ alterum cf. I 25,15; III 17,5; III 24,49; 16-17 είάβέλτερος cf. IV 10,23-24

5

5

0

5

«έξω χώραν έν τή πόλει;» ήν αν δύνη φυλάττων άμα τόν πιστόν καί αίδήμονα. εί δέ έκείνην ώφελείν βουλόμενος ά π ο β α λ ε ΐ ς ταύτα, τί όφελος άν αύτή γένοιο άναιδής καί άπιστος άποτελεσθείς; c. 25 Εί προετιμήθη σού τις έν έστιάσει ή έν προσαγορεύσει ή έν τω π α ρ α λ η φ θ ή ν α ι είς σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί α ν , εί μέν ά γ α θ ά τ α ύ τ ά έστι, χαίρειν σε δει ότι έτυχεν αύτών έκεΐνος· εί δε κακά, μή άχθου ότι σύ ούκ έτυχες, μέμνησο δέ ότι ού δ ύ ν α σ α ι μή ταύτά ποιών πρός τό τυγχάνειν τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν τών ϊσων άξιούσθαι. πώς γάρ ϊσον έχειν δύναται ό μή φοιτών έπί θύρας τινός τω φοιτώντι, ό μή παραπέμπων τω παραπέμποντι, ό μή έπαινών τω έπαινούντι; άδικος ούν έση καί άπληστος, εί μή προϊέμενος τ α ΰ τ α ά ν θ ' ών έ κ ε ΐ ν α π ι π ρ ά σ κ ε τ α ι π ρ ο ί κ α α ύ τ ά β ο υ λ ή σ η λ α μ β ά ν ε ι ν , ά λ λ ά πόσου π ι π ρ ά σ κ ο ν τ α ι θρίδακες; όβολοΰ, άν ούτω τύχη. άν ούν τις προέμενος τόν όβολόν λ ά β η θ ρ ί δ α κ α ς , σύ δέ μή προέμενος μή λάβης, μή οϊου έλαττον έχειν τοΰ λαβόντος· ώς γάρ έκεΐνος έχει θρίδακας, ούτω σύ τόν όβολόν όν ούκ έδωκας. τόν αύτόν τρόπον καί ένταΰθα. ού παρεκλήθης έφ' έστίασίν τίνος; ού γάρ έδωκας τω καλοΰντι όσου πωλεί τό δεΐπνον· έπαίνου δέ αύτό πωλεί, θεραπείας πωλεί, δός τό διάφορον, ε'ί σοι λυσιτελεΐ, όσου π ω λ ε ί τ α ι · εί δέ κ ά κ ε ΐ ν α θέλεις μή

25 άμα om. Simp (XXXII 157) II 26 αίδήμονα] αίδήμονα, ταύτην έχε Simp (XXXII 158) II αποβάλλεις Si G* Nil Vat II 27 όφελος] τό όφελος Nil Party II γένοιτο S i J a c l Nil II άποτελεΐσθαι ACSiJ c. 25 s. 1 1 εί προετιμήθη T Par Val : έάν προτιμηθή S (έάν προετιμήθη SE): προετιμήθη AC6 Nil II τίς σου S (praeter SEJx) Nil II είς έστίασιν Par II έν έστιάσεσι και προσαγορευσεσι Simp (XXXIII 6) II 1 - 4 1 9 ή alterum—εισόδου om. SiGaC>* II 1-2 έν τφ] έντός Si C II 2 είς συμβουλίαν ACôSiJ Τ: έν συμβουλίω SiC: έν συμβουλία Vat : είς σ υ μ β ο υ λ ή ν Simp (XXXIII 7; cf. XXXII 40): είς συμβούλιον Nil Par: εις έστίασιν SiG* II ταύτά έστι om. Simp (XXXIII 20) II 3 άχθου] δυσχέραινε, ά λ λ ά καί χαίρε πάλιν Simp (XXXIII 48-49) Il 4 σ ύ om. Τ II ούκ έτυχες TSiC Vat : μή έτυχες Nil: αύτών ούκ έτυχες ACôSiô: μή έτυχες αύτών Simp (XXXIII 49) II οτι] διότι σύ Nil II μή ταύτά] μόνον ταύτα SiC II s. 2 5-6 δύναται έχειν Nil II 5 έχειν om. ρ Par II 6 τω om. SiC [2] II 7 ούν om. Τ II 8 άπιστος Vat II εί μή] ειμί γάρ SiC II προέμενος ACSiJ Nil Par \\ 9 αύτά] τά α ύ τ ά SiC II s. 3 10-11 λάβη θρίδακας προϊέμενος (sic) τόν όβολόν SiC II 11-12 έλαττον έχειν] έχειν έλαττον A t Vat : έχειν ήττον SiG II 13 ον OIT). A C r A I W S i J II ού δέδωκας SiG* f a r II s. 4 13 τόν αύτόν τρόπον SiG* TSiC Par Vat : τόν αύτόν δή τρόπον ACSiJ: τόν αύτόν ούν τρόπον δ (ούν s.l. θ 1 ) : οϋτω Nil 1114 πωλεί SiG* Simp (XXXIII 65) Nil ΡαιΜ: πωλείται ACôSiJ TSiC Para Vat II 15 έπαίνω SiC II δέ om. Par II πωλεί αύτό Par II αύτός SiC II θεραπείας πωλεί] θεραπείας κολακείας Par: κολακείας SiG*: om. Δ θ SiC Nil II δός SiG* TSiC Nil Vat : δός ούν ACÔSiJ II διάφορον SiG* TSiC Nil: διαφέρον ACÔSzJ Vat II 16 λυσιτελές Nil II 16-18 εί alterum—δείπνου post 18-19 έχεις alterum—εισόδου citât Simp (XXXIII 69-74) II 16 εί-θέλεις] έάν-θέλης SiG* II κάκεΐνα] καί ταύτα Si G* SimpX (XXXIII 72) Par. ταΰτα Simpa

1

2

3

4

you are insatiable and stupid. 5 Do you have nothing, then, instead of the banquet? Well, you have not had to praise the man you did not want to praise; you have not had to put u p with his doorkeepers. ch. 26 T h e will of nature can be learnt from the things in which we d o n o t differ f r o m each other. For instance, when s o m e o n e else's slave breaks a cup, o u r immediate reaction is, "It is just o n e of those things that h a p p e n . " Realize, t h e n , that w h e n your own c u p is broken, you must react in the same way as when s o m e o n e else's c u p was broken. Transfer this to m o r e important things as well. S o m e o n e else's child or wife has died? T h e r e is nobody who would not say, "That's life." But when s o m e o n e ' s own child dies, he immediately goes, "Alas!" and "Poor me!" But we should r e m e m b e r how we feel when we hear such things about others. ch. 27 Just as there is no target set u p for misses, so there is no nature of evil in the universe either. ch. 28 If somebody entrusted your body to the first person who met you, you would be angry; are you not ashamed, then, that you entrust your mind to any person who meets you, so that, if he abuses you, your mind is upset and confused?

c. 25 AC/ô(e[nV/0n]ç[r/A/t(S/E/Ae)])//Siô(SiG*J){ab 1 ή altero}— TSiC[ab 1 ή altero} c. 26 AC/ô(Q[n τ φ scripsi: αύτώ(ι) MP II βέβλαπται] βλάπτεται Ρ II όσπερ Schweighäuser II 3 8 συμπεπλεγμένος P a c l ut vid.

1 2 3 4

5

5

10

5

5

c. 62 Πάν πράγμα δύο εχει λαβάς, τήν μέν άφόρητον, τήν δέ φορητήν. έάν ό αδελφός σε άδική, έντεΰθεν αύτό μή λάμβανε ότι άδικεΐ (αύτη γάρ ή λαβή έστιν αύτοϋ ού φορητή), ά λ λ ά έκεΐθεν μάλλον ότι άδελφός, ότι ό σύντροφος, καί λήψη αύτό καθ' ό φορητόν έστιν. c. 63 Ούτοι οί λόγοι άσύντακτοι- «έγώ σου πλουσιώτερος, έγώ άρα σου κρείττων» · «έγώ σου λογιώτερος, έγώ σου άρα κρείττων». έκεΐνοι δέ μάλλον συνακτικοί- «έγώ σου πλουσιώτερος, ή έμή άρα κτήσις κρείττων τής σης», σύ δέ γε ούτε κτήσις εί οϋτε λέξις. c. 64 Λούεται τις ταχέως- μή εϊπης ότι «κακώς», ά λ λ ' ότι «ταχέως». πίνει τις πολύν οίνον • μή εϊπης ότι «κακώς», ά λ λ ' ότι «πολύ», πριν ή γάρ τοΰ γνώναι τό πράγμα, πόθεν οίσθα εί κακώς; οϋτω ού συμβήσεταί σοι άλλων μέν φαντασίας καταληπτικάς λαμβάνειν, άλλοις δέ συγκατατίθεσθαι. [65] μηδαμοΰ σεαυτόν ε'ίπης φιλόσοφον, μηδέ λάλει τό πολύ έν ίδιώταις περί τών θεωρημάτων. οίον έν συμποσίω μή λέγε πώς δει έσθίειν, άλλ' έσθιε ώς δει. μέμνησο γάρ ότι οϋτως άφηρήκεισαν οί φιλόσοφοι πανταχόθεν τό έπιδεικτικόν ώστε ήρχοντο πρός αύτούς βουλόμενοι ύπ' αύτών φιλόσοφοι συσταθήναι, κάκεΐνοι άπήγαγον αύτούς· οϋτω ήνείχοντο παρορώμενοι. [66a] ώστε κάν περί θεωρήματος τίνος έμπέση λόγος έν ίδιώταις, σιώπα τό πολύ· μέγας γάρ ό κίνδυνος εύθύς έμέσαι ά ούκ έπεψας. c. 66b Καί όταν ε'ίπη σοί τις ότι ούδέν οίσθα καί σύ μή δηχθής, τότε ϊσθι ότι άρχη τοΰ έργου, έπεί καί τά πρόβατα ού χόρτον φέροντα τοις ποιμέσιν έπιδεικνύει πόσον έφαγεν, ά λ λ ά τήν νομήν έσω πέψαντα έρια έξω φέρει καί γάλα· καί σύ τοίνυν μή τά θεωρήματα τοις ίδιώταις έπιδείκνυε, άλλά τά άπ' αύτών πεφθέντα έργα. c. 67 "Οταν εύτελώς ήρμοσμένος ή(ς) τά κατά σώμα, μή καλλωπίζου έπί τούτω· μηδ' άν ϋδωρ πίνης, έκ πάσης άφορμής λέγε ότι ύδωρ πίνεις, κάν άσκησαί ποτε πρός πόνον θελήσης, σαυτφ καί μή τοις έξω. μή τούς άνδριάντας περιλάμβανε· ά λ λ ά διψών ποτε σφοδρώς έπίσπασαι ψυχρού ύδατος καί έκπτυσον καί μηδενί εϊπης. 62 2 έάν Μ: έάν δέ Ρ: έάν ούν HORVW: έάν σε ci. Schweighāuser N (omittens σε ante άδική) II άδική] άδικεΐ P a c l II μή] μ ex ν P a c l (i.e. primo αύτόν scripsit) II 3 αύτη edd.: αύτή MP II 4 ό σύντροφος MP: σύντροφος Schweighäuser ex R II 63 1 άσύνακτοι Schweighäuser ex Ench II 4 post σης add. έγώ σου λογιώτερος· ή έμή άρα λέξις κρείσσων τής σής Schweighäuser ex H(0)R om. cett. Il οϋτε alterum] |[..]|τε P a c I II 64 3 ή om. P a c l II 65 8 άφηρήκεισαν] άφηρήκησαν P a c I II 10 φιλόσοφοι MP: φιλοσόφοις Schweighäuser ex Ench II οϋτως Ρ II 66a ' 13 έπεμψας Ρ II 66b2 4 έρια Schweighäuser ex Ench: έρίω MP II ^5 πεφθέντων S c h w e i g h ä u s e r ^ ex Ench II 67 1 ής Schweighäuser ex Ench: ή Μ: ή Ρ II 3 πίνεις Wotke ex Ench: πίνης MP: πίνω Schweighäuser ex H

1

2

3

5

5

10

15

[68] ίδιώτου στάσις καί χαρακτήρ· ούδεμίαν ποτέ έξ έαυτοΰ προσδοκά ώφέλειαν ή βλάβην, ά λ λ ' άπό τών έξω. φιλοσόφου στάσις καί χαρακτήρ· πάσαν ώφέλειαν καί βλάβην έξ έαυτοΰ προσδοκά. c. 69 Σημείον προκόπτοντος· ούδένα ψέγει προχείρως, ούδένα έπαινεΐ, ούδένα μέμφεται, ούδενί έγκαλεΐ. κάν τις αύτόν έπαινή, καταγελά τοΰ έπαινοΰντος αύτόν παρ' έαυτώ· κάν ψέγη, ούκ άπολογεΐται. περίεισι δέ καθάπερ οί άρρωστοι, εύλαβούμενοί τι κινήσαι τών καθισταμένων, πρίν πήξιν λαβείν. ... c. 70 ... ότι δ' άν έρή τις περί σου, μή έπιστρέφου· τοΰτο γάρ ούκέτι σόν έστιν. [71a] εις ποίον έτι χρόνον ά ν α β ά λ λ η τό τών βέλτιστων άξιοΰν έαυτόν, καί έν ούδενί παραβαίνειν τόν έροΰντα λόγον; παρείληφας τά θεωρήματα- οίς έδει συμβάλλειν συμβέβληκας. ποίον έτι διδάσκαλον προσδοκάς, ίνα εις έκεΐνον ύπερθή τήν έπανόρθωσιν τήν σεαυτοΰ; ούκέτι εί μειράκιον, ά λ λ ά άνήρ ήδη τέλειος, έάν ούν άμελήσης καί ραθυμήσης και άεί προθέσεις έκ προθέσεως ποιή καί ήμέρας ά λ λ α ς έπ' ά λ λ α ι ς όρίζης μεθ' άς προσέξεις σεαυτω, λήσεις σεαυτόν ού προκόψας, ά λ λ ' ιδιώτης διατελέσεις καί ζών καί άποθνήσκων. ήδη ούν σεαυτόν έκβιοΰν έθιζε ώς τέλειον, ώς προκόπτοντα- καί πάν τό βέλτιστον φαινόμενον έστω σοι νόμος άπαράβατος, κάν έπίπονόν τι ή. εϊ τι ένδοξον ή άδοξον προσάγηταί σε, μέμνησο ότι νΰν ό άγών, καί ότι ήδη πάρεστι τά 'Ολύμπια καί ούκ έστιν άναβάλλεσθαι ούκέτι, καί ότι παρά μίαν ήτταν καί ένδοσιν καί άπόλλυται προκοπή καί σώζεται. c. 71b Καί Παΰλος οϋτω διετέλεσεν έπί πάντων προάγων έαυτόν μηδενί άλλω προσέχειν ή τώ λόγω- σύ δέ καί εί μήπω Παΰλος εί, ώς Παΰλος είναι βουλόμενος οφείλεις βιοΰν. [72] άποκτεΐναι μέν τίς με δύναται, βλάψαι δέ ου.

6 8 6 αύτοΰ Ρ II 8 α ύ τ ο ΰ Ρ ^ 1 II 69 '2 post ούδενί έγκαλεΐ lacunam statuit Schweighäuser II 2 2 αύτόν] αύτοΰ P a c l ut vid. II έπαινή] έ π α ι ν ε ΐ Ρ ^ 1 ut vid. II 3 post λαβείν lacunam statuit Schweigαύτόν MP: αύτός Schweighäuser ex Ench II häuser (quae amplectitur etiam capita 48^, 49, 50 (init.) Encheiridii) II 71a *3 παραβαίνει Ρ II έροΰντα MP: διαιρούντα Schweighäuser ex R: fort, αίρούντα II 37 άμελήσης] άμελήση Schweighäuser II 8 όρίζης Schweighäuser ex Ench: ορίζεις MP II ™ 1 2 ή- εΐ τι MP'P C : ει- ή τι P a c : ή ήδύ ή Schweighäuser: fj, είτε τι ήδύ ή Schweighäuser^ II ^13 σε MP: σοι Schweighäuser ex Ench II 15 ένδοσιν] έντασιν ci. Schweighäuser

1 2 3

1 2

3

4 5

6

5

{c. 73 Παρήγγειλε γαρ 6 κύριος μή φοβεΐσθαι, λέγων· «μή φοβηθήτε άπό τών τήν δέ ψυχήν μή δυναμένων άποκτεΐναιδυνάμενον καί ψυχήν καί σώμα άπολέσαι είς τούς αιώνας · άμήν.}

δυναμένους βλάψαι μή άποκτεινόντων τό σώμα, φοβήθητε δέ μάλλον τόν έν γεέννη.» αύτώ ή δόξα

73 habent P 2m RRW: om. cett. II 1 ante παρήγγειλε add. ώς γαρ μή δυναμένων βλάψαι W II παρήγγειλεν P 2m RW II γάρ om. P 2m RW II 1-2 μή priiis-φοβεΐσθαι om. P 2m K II 2 άποκτενόντων P 2m KW II 4-5 αύτω-άμήν om. P 2 m K

PART THREE THE PARAPHRASIS

CHRISTIANA

CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM

codices familiae primae (α): Ρ V A

Parisinus gr. 1053, s. X exeuntis vel s. XI ineuntis Venetus Marcianus gr. 127 (coll. 390), s. XIII Atheniensis 521, s. XIII (deficit post 56 f \10 πλάνης)

β V δ

fons communis codicum V et γ fons communis codicum A et δ fons communis multorum codicum, ex quo pendent duo stirpes: ε et ζ; ut de codicibus ex εξ pendentibus certior fias, vide catalogum codicum (pp. 199-205) et stemma codicum (p. 212)

Cas

editio princeps M. Casauboni, anno 1659 in lucem emissa

familia altera: M Florentinus Laurentianus 55,4, s. X Comm

Commentarius anonymus in Par, nondum editus (Comml·· lemma indicat)

studiosi in apparatu critico laudati: M. Casaubon, in editione principe anno 1659 in lucem emissa J. Gronovius, in editione A. Berkelii a. 1683 in lucem emissa C.G. Heyne, in editione tertia Encheindii a. 1783 in lucem emissa F. de Nicola, in opere nondum in lucem emisso J. Schweighäuser, Epicteteae Philosophiae Monumenta V, 10-94 Casaubon N = Casaubon in notis Casaubon mK = Casaubon in margine

370 X

ac

XPC X

ac1

XmK Xs' X" X1 [4] (1 0

T H E PARAPHRASIS

CHRISTIANA

X ante correctionem X post correctionem X ante correctionem, a prima manu correctus X in margine X supra lineam X infra lineam X in textu spatium vacuum quattuor litterarum litterae vel verba ita inclusa delenda sunt litterae vel verba ita inclusa addenda sunt litterae vel verba ita inclusa non iam leguntur

EPICTETI ENCHEIRIDII PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA A M. CASAUBONO PRIMUM EDITA ΥΠΟΘΗΚΑΙ ΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΥΠΟΜΝΗΣΙΝ ΕΑΥΤΩΝ ΓΕΓΡΑΦΑΣΙ ΣΠΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΩΝΟΜΑΣΑΝ ΕΓΧΕΙΡΙΔΙΟΝ

5

10

5

c. 1 Τών όντων τά μέν έφ' ήμΐν, τά δέ ούκ έφ' ήμΐν. έφ' ήμΐν μέν ύπόληψις, ορμή, όρεξις, έκκλισις, καί ένί λόγω όσα ήμέτερα έργα· ούκ έφ' ήμΐν δέ τό σώμα, ή κτήσις, δόξαι, άρχαί, καί ένί λόγω όσα ούχ ήμέτερα έργα. καί τά μέν έφ' ήμΐν είσι φύσει έλεύθερα, άκώλυτα, άπαραπόδιστα· τά δέ ούκ έφ' ήμΐν άσθενή, δούλα, κωλυτά, αλλότρια, μέμνησο ούν ότι, έάν τά φύσει δούλα έλεύθερα οίηθής καί τά ά λ λ ό τ ρ ι α 'ίδια, έμποδισθήση, λυπηθήση, ταραχθήση, μέμψη καί θεόν καί άνθρώπους· έάν δέ τά έπί σοί μόνα οίηθής σά είναι, τά δέ άλλότρια άλλότρια, ούδείς σε άναγκάσει ούδέποτε, ούδείς σε κωλύσει, ούδένα μέμψη, ούκ εγκαλέσεις τινί, άκων πράξεις ούδέν, έχθρόν ούχ έξεις, βλάψαι γάρ σε ούδείς δύναται. c. 2 Τηλικούτων ούν έφιέμενος μέμνησο ότι ού δει μετρίως κεκινημένον άπτεσθαί αύτών, άλλά τά μέν άφιέναι παντελώς, τά δέ ύπερθέσθαι πρός τό παρόν, και προηγουμένως έαυτοΰ έπιμελεΐσθαι. έάν δέ ταΰτα θέλης και άρχειν καί πλουτειν, εικός μέν μηδέ τούτων σέ τυγχάνειν· πάντως γε μήν έκείνων άποτεύξη δι' ών μόνον έλευθερία καί ειλικρινής εύλάβεια περιγίνεται. c. 3 Εύθύς ούν παντί λογισμώ φαντασίαν δεικνύντι τραχεΐαν μελέτα έπιλέγειν ότι «φαντασία εί, καί ού πάντως τό φαινόμενον»· έπειτα δοκίμαζε τοις κανόσι τούτοις, πότερον περί τών έφ' ήμΐν

titulus ante ύποθήκαι add. τέχνη ανθρώπων διορθωτική (-θοτ- Ρ ) Ρ C a s II ύπόμνησιν] ύπόθεσιν α II έαυτοίς α (έαυτών habet Cas) II έγχειρίδια V I I I 11 τά μέν MP Cas CowimM^P^: τά μέν έστιν β Commcettλ II τό σώμα om. M II κτίσις α II δόξα α II άρχαί] ά ρ ξ α ι Ρ ν II καί prius om. M Cas II fi9 ούδείς M Comvb altero loco: ούδέν α Comité· priore loco II 10 ούδένα μέμψη] ού μέμψη ούδένα Comm II έγκαλέσηΡ Cas II 7 11 γάρ om. Comm II 2 2 κεκινημένον ν δ Cas: κεκινημένων ΜΡΑ II post πλουτειν habet διά τό καί τών προτέρων έφίεσθαι τών έφ' ήμΐν άγαθών Comm II μέν om. M II γε μήν om. Comm II 3 ' 1 ευθέως M II έπιδεικνύντι M II 2 έπιλέγειν] έπιλέγην Ρ: έπιλογην νΑ ι ι ν ζ II 2 3 έπειτα] έπειτα δέ Μ: om. Comm. II τούτοις] οις έχεις Comm

1,2 3 4 5 6

7 1 2 3 4 1 2

5

5

5

5

10

έστιν ό λογισμός ή περί τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν. καί έάν τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν όφθή, πρόχειρον εύθύς λέγειν ότι «ούδέν πρός έμέ». μέμνησο ότι ορέξεως μέν έπαγγελία τυχεΐν ού όρέγη, έκκλίσεως δέ τό μή περιπεσεΐν έκείνω φ έκκλίνεις· καί ορέξεως μέν άποτυγχάνων όδυνηθήση, έκκλίσει δέ περιπίπτων γελασθήση. c. 4 Έάν μέν ούν μόνα έκκλίνης τά παρά φύσιν τών έπί σοί, ούδενί ών έκκλίνεις περιπεσή· νόσον δ' αν έ κ κ λ ΐ ν α ι θέλης ή θάνατον ή πενίαν, όδυνηρώς διάξεις. άρον ούν τήν έκκλισιν άπό πάντων τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν καί μετάθες έπί τά παρά φύσιν τών έφ' ήμΐν. τήν όρεξιν δέ παντελώς έπί τοΰ παρόντος άνελε- άν τε γάρ όρέγη τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν τίνος, άποτυγχάνειν άνάγκη· τών τε έφ' ήμΐν όσων όρέγεσθαι καλόν, ούδέν ούπω σοι πάρεστιν. μόνον τό όρμάν καί άφορμάν χρώ, κούφως καί μεθ' ύπεξαιρέσεως καί άνειμένως. c. 5 Έφ' έκάστω τών ψυχαγωγούντων ή χρείαν παρεχόντων ή στεργομένων μέμνησο λέγειν έν σεαυτω όποιον τί έστιν, άπό τών σμικροτέρων άρξάμενος. άν ποτήριον στέργης, ότι ποτήριον στέργεις· κατεαγέντος γάρ αύτοΰ ού ταραχθήση. άν χύτραν, ότι φύσιν έχουσαν τοΰ κλάσθαι. έάν άδελφόν ή φίλον, ότι άνθρωπον θνητόν άγαπάς· άποθανόντος γάρ αύτοΰ ού ταραχθήση. c. 6 "Οταν άπτεσθαί τίνος έργου μέλλης, ύπομίμνησκε σεαυτόν όποιον τί έστι τό έργον, έάν εις έστίασιν άπίης, πρόβαλλε σεαυτφ τά γινόμενα έν ταΐς έστιάσεσι, τούς προτιμοτέρους σου, τούς παρρησίας πλέον σου μετέχοντας, τούς κελεύοντας, τούς πολύ πίνοντας καί λοιδοροΰντάς σου τήν έγκράτειαν, τούς άτάκτως συνδειπνοΰντας. ούτω γάρ άσφαλέστερον άψη τού έργου, μάλιστα έάν εύθύς έπιλέγης· «άπελθεΐν είς τήν έστίασιν θέλω (καί) τήν έμαυτοΰ προαίρεσιν κατά φύσιν έχουσαν φυλάττειν.» καί ώσαύτως έφ' έκάστου έργου, ούτω γάρ, έάν τι πρός ό προέθου έργον γένηται έμπόδιον, πρόχειρον έσται σοι λέγειν- «ού τοΰτο ήθελον μόνον, ά λ λ ά καί τήν έμαυτοΰ προαίρεσιν κατά φύσιν έχουσαν φυλάξαι· ού φυλάξω δέ, έάν άγανακτώ πρός τά γινόμενα.»

3

4 τών] μέν Ρ II 4 5 μέμνησο] μέμνησο ούν ν δ II 7 φ ΜΡΑ: ο V Cas: ού δ II 4 ' 1 μέν ούν] δέ α II 2 περιπεσή λ; περιπέση VA Cas: περιπεση Ρ ιιν : περιπέσης ε: περιπέσεις MU et fort. Q (vix legibile) Il αρον] αρον vel αρα M II 3 5 τήν] και τήν M II 7 οσων Ρ: οσον Μβ Cas II 4 7 τό ΜΡγ: τώ V Cas (etHIKQS Ν) II 5 J1 έκάστω] έκάστω δέ M II 2 λέγειν] έπιλέγειν Comm II έν om. ν ζ II % έχουσα Ρ Cas II 3 5 άδελφόν ή φίλον γ Cas: άδελφός ή φίλος MPV II 6 1 2 έστι τό MV Cas Comrrl· : έστιν Ργ II 3 4 πλέον] πλεΐον V: πλείονος M II κελεύοντας] κλοπεύοντας dubitanter ci. Casaubon: κολακεύοντας dubitanter ci. Schweighäuser II 4 7 (καί) supplevi II 8 φυλάττειν Μ: φυλάττων Ργ Cas: φυλαττον (sine accentu) V

3 4

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3

4

5

5

5

5

10

c. 7 Ταράσσει τούς άνθρώπους ού τά πράγματα, ά λ λ ά τά περ! αύτών δόγματα, οίον θάνατος ούδέν δεινόν, έπεί καί τοις άποστόλοις και τοις μάρτυσι δεινόν άν έφαίνετο. όταν ούν έμποδιζώμεθα ή ταρασσώμεθα ή λυπώμεθα, μηδέποτε άλλον αίτιασώμεθα, άλλ' ή έαυτούς, τουτέστι τά έαυτών δόγματα. c. 8 Άπαιδεύτου έργον άλλω έγκαλεΐν έφ' οίς πράσσει κακώς· ήργμένου παιδεύεσθαι τό έαυτώ· πεπαιδευμένου μήτε ά λ λ φ μήτε έαυτώ. c. 9 Έπί μηδενί έπαρθής άλλοτρίω προτερήματι. εί τό ίμάτιον έπαιρόμενον έλεγεν ότι «καλόν είμι», οίστόν άν ήν· σύ δέ όταν λέγης έπαιρόμενος ότι «ίμάτιον καλόν έχω», ϊσθι ότι έπί ίματίω έπαίρη. τί ούν έστι τό σόν, εί μή χρήσις φαντασιών; ώστε όταν χρήσιν φαντασιών κατά φύσιν έχης, τότε μόνον έπί σώ άγαθώ σεμνύνου. c. 10 "Ωσπερ έν πλοίψ τοΰ πλοίου καθορμισθέντος εί έξέλθοις ύδρεύσασθαι, όδοΰ μέν πάρεργον έστι κοχλίδας άναλέξασθαι ή ψηφίδας συνάξαι, τετάσθαι δέ δει πρός τό πλοΐον καί συνεχώς έπιστρέφεσθαι μή τι ό κυβερνήτης καλέση, κάν καλέση, πάντα έκεΐνα άφέντα δραμεΐν, ϊνα μή δεδεμένος βληθής ώς τά πρόβατα, ούτω καί έν τω βίω τούτω, έάν διδώνται άδελφοί ή φίλοι ή συγγενείς ή οϊκημα, ούδέν κωλύει· έάν δέ ό κυβερνήτης καλέση, τρέχε έπί τό πλοΐον άφείς έκείνους, μηδέ έπιστρεφόμενος· έάν δέ γέρων ης, μηδέποτε άπαλλαγης τοΰ πλοίου, μή ποτε καλούμενος έλλίπης, καί δεδεμένος βληθής· ό γάρ έκών μή έπόμενος άκων άνάγκη τοΰτο πείσεται. c. 11 Μή ζήτει τά γινόμενα γίνεσθαι ώς σύ θέλεις, άλλά μάλλον θέλε αύτά γίνεσθαι ώς γίνονται, καί άλύπως διάξεις. c. 12 Νόσος σώματος έστιν έμπόδιον, ψυχής δέ ού, έάν μή σύ θέλης. χώλωσις σκέλους έστιν έμπόδιον, ψυχής δέ ου. και τοΰτο έφ' έκάστω τών έμπιπτόντων έπίλεγε· εύρήσεις γάρ αύτό άλλου τινός έμπόδιον, σόν δέ ού.

7 * 3 αν om. PVCasll 3 3-4 ή ταρασσώμεθα ή λυπώμεθα om. PVô Cas II 4 μήποτε α II 8 2-3 τό-έαυτώ om. M II πεπαιδευμένου δέ VA II 9 εί] εί γαρ β II 2 έλεγεν έπαιρόμενον β II σεμνύνη PVô Cas: σεμνύνει A II 10 1 1 έν πλω ci. Schweighäuser N II εί δ: αν Cas: om. MPVA II 2 έστι Μα : έστι ci. Schweighäuser II 3 ψηφίδας] ψιμάδας Cas: ψεκάδας Casaubon m K II σ υ ν ά ψ α ι M Il *3 δει] δει τήν διάνοιαν Cas II 4 κυβερνήτης] κυβερνήτης σέ Schweighäuser ex M, ut falso opinatur II *4 et 3 4 καλέση] καλέσοι M II 4 6 έάν δίδωνται M: έάν δέδονται PV Cas: έάν δεδώνται ζ: έάν δέδενται χ : δέδονται Αε 11 fi9 έλλείπης Ρ II 7 1 0 άκων om. α Comm ^ 11 11 2 άλυπος Μ II 1 2 * 3 αυτο om. α

1 2 3

1,2

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2

5

5

10

5

5

c. 13 Έφ' έκάστω τών εμπιπτόντων πειρασμών ζήτει τίνα δύναμιν έχεις πρός τήν χρήσιν αύτοΰ· φυσικάς γάρ δυνάμεις ήμΐν ό θεός έχαρίσατο νικητικάς τών ύπό τοΰ έχθροΰ προβαλλομένων, έάν γυναικός πρόσωπον πειράση σε, εύρήσεις δύναμιν τήν έγκράτειαν· έάν πόνος προσφέρηται, εύρήσεις τήν καρτερίαν· έάν λοιδορία, εύρήσεις άνεξικακίαν. καί οϋτως έθιζόμενόν σε ού συναρπάσουσιν αί φαντασίαι. c. 14 Έπί μηδενός εϊπης ότι «άπώλεσα», άλλ' δτι «άποδέδωκα». ό άδελφός άπέθανεν; άπεδόθη. κτήμα άφηρέθη; ούκοΰν καί τοΰτο άπεδόθη. άλλ' άγανακτεΐς ότι κακός ό άφελόμενος. τί δέ σοι μέλει διά τίνος σε ό δούς άπήτησεν; οϋτω παιδευθείς ό Ίώβ έλεγεν· «ό κύριος έδωκεν, ό κύριος άφείλατο.» «άδικον» φησίν «άπομάχεσθαι τώ λαβείν βουλομένω ό δέδωκεν.» καί τό πρέπον έννοών «ώς τω κυρίω» φησίν «έδοξεν, οϋτως καί έγένετο.» εί γάρ άληθώς όρίζη κύριον είναι τόν τοΰτο κελεύσαντα, φέρε τοΰ δεσπότου πράως τό βούλημα· ούτος γάρ νόμος δούλω πρός δεσπότην άγαθόν. μέχρι μέντοι ούπω άποδέδονται, οϋτως αύτών φρόντιζε, ώς άλλοτρίων, ώς τοΰ πανδοχείου οί παριόντες. c. 15 Εί προκόψαι θέλεις, άφες τούς τοιούτους λογισμούς· «έάν άμελήσω τών έμαυτοΰ, ούχ έξω διατροφάς»· «έάν μή κτήσωμαι παΐδα, ούχ έξω τόν ύπηρετούμενον.» κρείττον γάρ έστι λιμώ άποθανεΐν ά λ υ π ο ν καί άφοβον ή ζην έν άφθόνοις τ α ρ α σ σ ό μ ε ν ο ν · κρεΐσσον δέ καί έαυτώ δουλεύειν ή άσχολεΐσθαι περί τά τοΰ παιδός άμαρτήματα, άμελοΰντα τών έαυτοΰ. c. 16 Ά λ λ ά κτήσασθαι θέλεις καί οίος εί(ναι) μακροθυμείν. άρξαι άπό τών μικροτέρων. έκχεΐται τό έλαιον, κλέπτεται τό οίνάριον, οί άρτοι ά π ό λ λ υ ν τ α ι . έπίλεγε σεαυτω· «τοσούτου πωλείται άπάθεια· τοσούτου άταραξία πιπράσκεται· προίκα δέ ούδέν περιγίνεται.» δταν δέ καλής τόν παΐδα, ένθυμοΰ ότι δύναται μή ύπακούσαι, ή ύπακούσας μηδέν ποιήσαι ών σύ θέλεις· ά λ λ ά μην μή οϋτως έσται αύτώ καλώς, ι'να έπ' έκείνω ή τό σέ ταράσ-

14 4-5 ,4-7

ό-άφείλατο et ώς-έγένετο LXX Jb. 1,21

13 ' 1-2 τίνα δύναμιν έχεις] τήν δύναμιν εί εχεις α: τήν δύναμιν ήν έχεις Cas II 2 3 υποβαλλομένων Μ II »4 πειράση σε] πειράσης M II βλοιδορίας Ρ: λοιδορίαν A II 14 1 1 άπέδωκα β II 4 4 ό Ίώβ] ίώβ Ρ Cas II -'6 ö β Cas: ώ MP II 6 7 όρίζη Vô Cas: ορίζει ΡΑ: ορίζεις M II 7 9 δούλου α II 10 ώς alterum] καί ώς α II 15 '2 τών] τόν M II κτήσωμαι VÔ: κτήσομαι M Cas: κτίσομαιΡ: κτίσωμαι A II 3 υπηρετούντα β II ^5 κρείσσων M II 16 ' 1 εΐ(ναι) scripsi: ει Μα II μακροθυμείν om. M II 2 2-3 τό οίνάριον] ό οίνος MA II 4 7 έσται] έστιν Schweighāuser N

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 1 2 3 4

10

5

5

5

σεσθαι. ά λ λ ' έπιστρέψαι προαιρή, ϊνα δή βελτίων γένηται. πρώτον μέν περίβλεψαι, μή τήν σεαυτοΰ δοκόν ού κατανοείς- εί δέ καί τούτου απήλλαξαν, οϋτω πρός τήν έπιστροφήν τοΰ παιδός έρχου, ώς ιατρός πρός τό τραύμα, ού γάρ χολά ό ιατρός, ότι τραύμα ή πάθος τις έσχεν, ά λ λ ά θεραπεΰσαι τό γεγονός σκοπεί, καί γοΰν τις σοφός άμαρτήσαντι τώ παιδί «έδερον άν σε» είπεν «εί μή έχόλεσα». c. 17 Εί προκόψαι θέλεις, ΰπόμεινον παρά τών έκτός άνους δόξαι καί ήλίθιος. μηδέν παρ' αύτοίς βούλου δοκεΐν έπίστασθαικάν δόξης τισίν είναί τι, άπίστει σεαυτω. ϊσθι γάρ ότι ού ράδιον καί τήν προαίρεσιν τήν σήν κατά φύσιν φυλάξαι καί τοις έκτός άρέσκειν · άλλά άνάγκη θατέρου έπιμελούμενον τοΰ έτερου άμελήσαι. c. 18 Έάν τούς άγαπώντάς σε καί τούς άδελφούς καί τά παιδία θέλης πάντοτε ζήν καί εύ πράττειν, τά μή έπί σοι έπί σοί θέλεις είναι, καί άνάγκη μή οϋτως γινομένων λυπεΐσθαι καί αίτιάσθαι τήν τού παντός διοίκησιν. έάν δέ καί τόν παΐδα θέλης μή άμαρτήσαι, ήλίθιόν τι ένθυμή- θέλεις γάρ τήν κακίαν μή είναι κακίαν, ά λ λ ' άλλο τι. c. 19 Έάν θέλης όρεγόμενος μή άποτυγχάνειν, τούτων έφίου καί ταύτα θέλε ά δύνασαι και ά έπί σοί. c. 20 Κύριος έκάστου έστίν ό τών ύπ' έκείνου θελομένων ή μή θελομένων έχων τήν έξουσίαν εις τό περιποιήσαι ή άφελέσθαι. όστις ούν έλεύθερος είναι βούλεται, μήτε θελέτω μήτε φευγέτω τά έπ' άλλω· εί δέ μή, δουλεύειν άνάγκη. c. 21 Ώ ς έν συμποσίω δει άναστρέφεσθαι έν τω βίψ. γέγονέ τι κατά σέ- έκτείνας τήν χείρα κοσμίως μετάλαβε, παρέρχεται- μή κατάτρεχε, οϋπω ήκει- μή έπίβαλλε πόρρω τήν ορεξιν, ά λ λ ά περίμεινον άχρις ού έλθη κατά σέ. οϋτω πρός φίλους, οϋτω πρός τιμήν, οϋτω πρός άρχάς, οϋτω πρός τάς χρείας- καί έση ποτέ

16 5 ,9 Εν. Matt. 7,3 16^,13 hoc dictum attribuitiir Socrati, Archytae, Platoni, anonymo: vide D.L. Ill 39; Antonius Melissa, Loc. comm. II 53 (PG 136, col. 1133D); Phot., Ep. I 1027-1028 Laourdas-Westerink; Plu., Mar. 10d; —, — 551ab; Sen., De Ira I 15,3 s 8 δή om. MA II Βελτίω Μ: βέλτιον V Il ^"711 πρός-ίατρός om. M II 7 12 τις prius] τι Ρ II σκοπείς M II "13 τω παιδί om. M II ειπον Ρ II έχόλεσα α: έχόλεσας Μ: έχόλωσα Cas: έχόλησα ci. De Nicola II 17 11 τών Μα: τοις ci. Heyne II 18 '2 έπί σοί alterum om. α II 20 2 περιποιήσασθαι α II 21 11 δει Μα : σε δει Schweighäuser ex M, ut falso opinatur II μετάβαλε M II 3 οΰπω] οΰτος (sic, ut vid.) M II ήκει om. M II •''3 έπίβαλε M II 4 άχρις] έως β II 4 4 πρός φίλους Μ: πρός φίλους έσο V*Pcy: πρός φίλους έσω Ρ: πρός φίλους έστω Cas et ita V ac (ut vid.)

5 6 7 8 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 2 3 4

5

5

5

5

άριστος συμπότης (τής) Χρίστου βασιλείας, εί δέ καί παρατεθέντων σοι μή λάβης, οΰ μόνον συμπότης ά λ λ ά καί συγκληρονόμος Χριστοΰ άναδειχθήση. c. 22 "Οταν κλαίοντα ϊδης έπί πενθεί ή άποδημοΰντος τέκνου ή άπολωλεκότος χρήματα, πρόσεχε μή ή φαντασία σε συναρπάση καί νομίσης έν κακοίς αύτόν είναι, έστω δέ πρόχειρον έπιλέγειν σεαυτω ότι «ού τό γεγονός αύτώ φύσει κακόν, καί ού διά τούτο ούτος θλίβεται· ιδού γάρ άλλους ού θλίβει· ά λ λ ά τό δόγμα αύτοΰ τό περί τούτων, ώς κακών όντων, τούτο αύτόν άνιά.» μή όκνήσης μέντοι καί παραμυθήσασθαι καί κατά τό δυνατόν βοηθήσαι. c. 23 Τήν τάξιν φυλάττειν σε χρή είς ήν σε έστησεν ό θεός. άν έν μικροίς, μικρόν· έάν έν προβεβηκόσιν, έάν πτωχόν ήβουλήθη σε είναι, ϊ ν α τοΰτο γενναίως ένέγκης· άν χωλόν, άν ίδιώτην, άν κληρικόν. σόν γάρ τοΰτο έστιν, τό δοθέν σοι παρά θεοΰ καλώς μετελθεΐν · δούναι δέ αύτό τοΰ θεοΰ. c. 24 "Οναρ τεταραγμένον έάν σοι έπιστή, διάκρινε παρά σεαυτώ καί λέγε· «ούδέν μοι κακόν ούδαμόθεν σημαίνεται, άλλ' ή τω σώματι μου, ή τή δοκούση δόξη, ή τοις έκτός· έμοί δέ πάντα αίσια σημαίνεται, έάν θέλω. ότι γάρ άν συμβή, έπ' έμοί έστι διά τής ύπομονής καί εύχαριστίας ώφεληθήναι ύπ' αύτοΰ.» c. 25 'Ανίκητος είναι δύνασαι, έάν μηδενός άρξη ού έπί σοί τό νικησαι ούκ έστιν. c. 26 "Ορα μή ποτε ίδών τινα προτιμώμενον ή δυνάμενον ή νομιζόμενον εύδοκιμείν μακαρίσης μέν έκεΐνον συναρπασθείς, ταλανίσης δέ σεαυτόν. έάν τε γάρ διά τά έφ' ήμΐν άγαθά ταύτα αύτώ συμβαίνη, άφθόνως δύνασαι τών ϊσων τυχεΐν. εί δέ παρά φύσιν τρεπομένης τής προαιρέσεως, τί πρός σέ, τόν κατά φύσιν βουλόμενον τήν σήν προαίρεσιν φυλάξαι; ούτε γάρ άρχων ή πλούσιος σπεύδεις γενέσθαι, άλλ' έλεύθερος, καί μόνω θεώ άνα21 4 ,6 συμπότης τής Χριστοΰ βασιλείας Ευ. Luc. 22,30 21 ,7-8 συγκληρονόμος Χριστοΰ Ep. Rom. 8,17 6 (τής) add. Schweighäuser N II r>7 λάβοις δ II μόνος Ρ II 22 ' 1 ϊδης Μα : ϊδης τινά Cas II 2 άπολωλεκότος Μ: άπολελωκότας Ρ: άπολελοκότας V: άπολωλεκότα γ Cas II 3 καλών α (non ita νομίσης β Cas: νομίσεις Μ: νομήσεις Ρ II αύτόν έν κακοίς α II Cas) II 23 1 1 έκτησεν M II 2 2 σε om. PVÔ Cas II 3 4 θεώ M II 5 αύτώ PV ac2 II 24 1 1 τεταγμένον Ρ II 2 2 καλόν P a c l ut vid. Il 4 θέλω] έγώ θέλω Schweighāuser N II οτι γάρ άν Cas: ει τι γάρ έάν Μ α II ^ 5 εύχαριστίας] εύχρηστίας Schweighäuser^ II ώφεληθήναι Μα: εύοδωθήναι PacYCas: εύοδοθήναι PI)CV II ύπ'] έξ MA II 25 1 1 Ανίκητος] άόργητος α II δυνήση α II άρξης ΜΑε II 2 νικάν α II 26 '2 μακαρίσης β Cas : μακαρίσεις MP II 3 ταλανίσης γ: ταλανήσης Ρ: ταλανίσεις MV : ταλάνης Cas II αρχον M^PC II 7 γίνεσθαι Cas II μόνον Ργ Cas

5

1 2 3 4 1,2

3 1 2 3

1 2 3 4

5

5

5

κεισθαι· μία δε όδός προς τοΰτο, καταφρόνησις πάντων τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν. c. 27 Γίνωσκε οτι ούχ 6 λοιδορών ή τύπτων ύβρίζει, ά λ λ ά τό δόγμα τό περί τούτων ώς ύβριζόντων· άμέλει έαυτοίς ταΰτα λέγοντες ούκ άλγοΰμεν. όταν ούν λέγοντος περί σου τινός έρεθισθής, ϊσθι ότι ή σή ύπόληψις ήρέθισέν σε, και πειρώ μή συναρπασθήναι. άν γάρ ά π α ξ χρόνου καί διατριβής τύχης, ράον κρατήσεις σεαυτοΰ. c. 28 Θάνατος καί δίωξις καί πάντα τά φαινόμενα δεινά πρό οφθαλμών έστω σοι καθ' ήμέραν, καί ούδέν ούδέποτε άνάξιόν σου ένθυμηθήση, ούδέ άγαν έπιθυμήσεις τινός. c. 29 Εί τής έναρέτου πολιτείας έπιθυμείς, π α ρ α σ κ ε υ ά ζ ο υ αύτόθεν ώς καταγελασθησόμενος, ώς καταμωκησομένων σου πολλών, ώς έρούντων ότι «άφνω άναχωρητής ήμΐν έπανελήλυθεν» καί «πόθεν ήμΐν αύτη ή όφρύς;» σύ δέ όφρύν μέν μή έχε, τών δέ βέλτιστων σοι φαινομένων ούτως έχου, ώς ύπό θεοΰ τεταγμένος εις ταύτην τήν χώραν έν ή έστηκας. μέμνησο δέ ότι, έάν μέν έμμείνης τοις αύτοίς, οί καταγελώντες ύστερον θ α υ μ ά σ ο ν τ α ι · έάν δέ ήττηθής αύτών, διπλούν προσλήψη καταγέλωτα. c. 30 Έάν ποτε συγκαταθή λογισμώ πείθοντί σε άρέσαι τινί, ϊσθι ότι άπώλεσας τήν ένστασιν. άρκού ούν τό είναι έν παντί τών τω θεώ μόνψ άνακειμένων· εί δέ δοκεΐν βούλει, σεαυτω φαίνου καί ίκανόν έστι τοΰτο. c. 31 Ούτοί σε οί λογισμοί μή θλιβέτωσαν· «άτιμος έγώ διαβιώσομαι, καί ούδείς ούδαμού.» έπίλεγε δέ μάλλον σεαυτω - «μή τι ούν έμόν έργον έστί τιμηθήναι, ή πρό άλλων επί χειροτονίαν έλθεΐν, ή πρώτον παραληφθήναι εις τά συνέδρια; πώς ούν έτι τοΰτο λογίζομαι άτιμίαν; πώς δέ καί ούδεις ούδαμού; έν μόνοις δει με είναι τοις έπ' έμοί, έν οίς έξεστί μοι πολλού είναι άξίω.» εί δέ ύποβάλλει ότι καλόν τοις φίλοις βοηθήσαι, έπίπληξον αύτώ λέγων- «τί λέγεις τό βοηθήσαι; ίνα έχωσι παρ' έμοΰ χρήματα; ή ϊ ν α λαμπρούς αύτούς

s 8 ή οδός Ρ II 27 '2 εαυτούς M II ταΰτα] ταύτα Schweighätiser N II σή οπι. α II καί πειρώ μή] καί ού τό Ρ Cas: καί οϋτω V: καί πειρώ μή οϋτω Α: ού τό δ II % χρόνου] έκ χρόνου α (non ita Cas): χρόνος Casaubon N II διατριβής] συναρπαγής α: om. Cas II τύχης] τοΰτο ήν α: εις τοΰτο ήν Cas II κρατήσεις] έκράτησας VA : άν έκράτησας δ II 29 3 7 καταγελώντες] πρότερον καταγελώντες Cas II 8 καταγέλωτα] τόν καταγέλωτα α II 30 *2 τό MVADO: τοΰ Ρ: τώ ζΝ Cas II 31 1 1 άτιμως (sine accentu) Ρ II διαβήσομαι MV II *3 πρός α II 4 τά om. Ρ II ^4 έτι om. β II •''6 ύποβάλλει] τις ύποβάλλη vel λογισμός ύποβάλλη CasaubonmK II 7 αύτώ Ρ Cas: αύτόν Μ: σαυτόν VHJKO: σαυτώ xUSDN (desunt AI, 7-8 έπίπληξον-βοηθήσαι omittentes) II τό om. M

5 1 2 3

1

2 3

1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6

10

15

20

25

30

35

ποιήσω παρά τοις πολλοίς; τίς ούν μοι είπεν οτι ταΰτα τών έφ' ήμΐν έστιν, ούχί δέ αλλότρια; τίς δέ δύναται δούναι έτέρω ά μή έχει αύτός;» ά λ λ ' έρεί σοι ό λογισμός· «κτήσαι, ϊνα αύτοΐς μεταδώς.» λέγε δέ τούτω σύ· «εί δύναμαι κτήσασθαι τηρών έμαυτόν αίδήμονα καί πιστόν καί έλεύθερον, δείξον τήν όδόν. εί δέ παραινείς μοι τά έμαυτοΰ άγαθά άπολέσαι, ϊνα άλλοις τά μή άγαθά περιποιήσω, δρα πώς άτακτος εί καί άσύμφορος.» τί δέ βούλονται οί γνήσιοι φίλοι- άργύριον ή φίλον πιστόν καί αίδήμονα; είς τοΰτο ούν σπούδαζε μάλλον, όπως αύτοίς χρήσιμος ής. τούς γάρ μή τούτοις χαίροντας καί ταΰτα έκείνων προτιμώντας ούδαμώς είς φίλους τακτέον. ά λ λ ' ένοχλοΰσί σοι οί λογισμοί λέγοντες ότι «τούτον εί στέρξομεν τόν βίον, ούδεμία ήμών έν τή πόλει μνήμη ούδέ όνομα

7

ούδέ τιμή- λέληθε δέ τούς πολλούς ότι καί πολίτης ειμί.» ποίαν ταύτην πάλιν τιμήν λέγουσιν; ού χειροτονήσουσί (σε) πρεσβύτην, ούδέ άρχοντα αίρήσονται. καί τί τοΰτο; ούδέ γάρ είς τοΰτο έταξας σεαυτόν, ούδέ τοΰτο έπηγγείλω- ούδέ γάρ άρχων εί, ούδέ τών τά κοινά πρασσόντων. εί δέ τίνες μή τούτων όντες είς αύτά μάλλον ώθοΰσιν έαυτούς, τί πρός σέ, τόν άνακεΐσθαι θεώ θέλοντα καί είς τοΰτο όντα; ίκανόν γάρ έκάστω, εί τής έαυτοΰ τάξεως άξιος φανείη. εί γάρ τήν ένάρετον πολιτείαν μεταδιώκεις, τούτων ούδέν σοι προσήκει έπιζητεΐν, ά λ λ ά μάλλον δι' ών ό έπηγγείλω πληρώσεις. «άλλ' ούκ έχει ή πατρίς» φησίν «άνδρα όστις μετά φρονήσεως αύτής ήγούμενος λαμπροτέραν άποφήνη.» τέως μέν ούν ούτος ό λογισμός δείκνυσιν ώς είς ό έπηγγείλω άνάρμοστος εί· εί γάρ είς άλλο εί χρήσιμος, είς τό παρόν ού χρήσιμος, εί δέ δτι ούκ έχει ήγούμενον φρόνιμον, χρή σέ άνάγκη πληρώσαι τήν χρείαν, λείψει αύτή καί χαλκεύς καί τέκτων καί γραμματεύς, εί δέ ότιοΰν δύνασαι ποιήσαι, πώς ού σκοπείς ότι καί θυρωρός δύνασαι είναι

13

7 1 0 δέ alterum om. Ρ II α μή έχει] αν μή έχη M II 8 1 2 τούτω Ρ: τοΰτο MVA Cas: αύτώ δ II εί MA Cas: τί α II τηρών] τηρών: om. M II ειδήμονα MV (ut saepius) II »1314 εί-άγαθά alterum] καί M II 1 2 j g ένοχλοΰσί σοι] ένοχλοΰσιν α II οτι γ: τί PV Cas: om. M II εί] εί μή M II 20 στέρξωμεν MA II | 3 2 2 ταύτην πάλιν Μνε: πάλιν P a c (add. ταύτην P l m K , inserendum post πάλιν): ταύτην Α: πάλιν ταύτην Cas ζ II 22 (σε) supplevi II πρεσβευτήν Schweighäuser N II 14 23-24 έταξας σεαυτόν είς τοΰτο Μ 11 24 σεαυτόν Μ: έαυτόν PVÔ Cas: έαυτώ A II έπαγγέλλη Ρδ Cas: έπαγέλη V: έπαγγέλει A II ούδέ γάρ άρχων ει] ϊνα άρχων ής Casaubon m K II 1 S 25 όντων PV Cas II 26-27 είς τοΰτο] πρός τούτφ Schweighäuser^ II 1 6 27 έαυτοΰ] αύτοΰ M II 1 7 28 ούδενός M II 29 προσήκει MV Cas: προσήκε(ν) Ρδ: πρός ει A (nisi fallor) II ζητείν α II δι^ών δ Cas: δι' ών Μ: διώο Ρ: δι' ού V: διό Α: δει ο δ II '^30 ωησίν ή πατρίς M II 19 31 ούν om. all 33 είς τό παρόν ού χρήσιμος om. P a c (add. P ' m K ) II 2 ( , 34χρή σ £] χρήσαι Ρ II 2 1 3 5 ότιοΰν] οτι α: δτι ού Cas

8 9 10 11

12

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

40

5

10

15

20

καί σαρώτης; ά λ λ ά ταΰτα μέν ούχ ύποβάλλουσί σοι οί λογισμοί· τό δέ τοΰ ηγουμένου καί προϋχοντος πρόσωπον μόνον άρμόττειν σοι λέγοντες ούκ έώσιν έπεσθαι θεω καί εϊκειν εύχαριστοΰντα έν τη τάξει εις ήν κληθήναι ήξιώθημεν. «τίνα ούν» φασίν «χώραν έχεις έν τη πόλει;» ήν έχειν δύνη φυλάττων τό άνακεισθαι θεώ. εί δέ έν τη πόλει τιμάσθαι θέλων τών ούρανίων έκπέσεις, τί όφελος; οϋτω γάρ καί τή πόλει κακός πολίτης καί τοις άδελφοΐς έπαχθής έση. c. 32 Εί προετιμήθη σού τις εις έστίασιν ή έν προσαγορεύσει ή έν τω παραληφθήναι εις συμβούλιον, εί μέν άγαθά ταύτά έστι, χαίρειν χρή, ότι έτυχεν αύτών έκεΐνος- εί δέ κακά, γίνωσκε ότι ού δύνασαι μή τά αύτά ποιών πρός τό τυγχάνειν τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν τών ίσων τοις ποιοΰσιν άξιοΰσθαι. πώς γάρ ίσον δύναται ό μή φοιτών έπί θύρας τινός τω φοιτώντι, ό μή παραπέμπων τω παραπέμποντι, ό μή έπαινών τώ έπαινοΰντι; άδικος ούν ό λογισμός ό μή προέμενος μέν άνθ' ών έκεΐνα πιπράσκεται, προίκα δέ βουλόμενος αύτά λαβείν, εϊ τις τυχόν έχων όβολόν καί σού τό ϊσον έχοντος πρόοιτο αύτόν καί λάβοι θρίδακας, σύ δέ μή προέμενος μή λάβοις, μή οϊου έλαττον έχειν έκείνου· ώς γάρ έκεΐνος έχει θρίδακας, οϋτω καί σύ τόν όβολόν όν ού δέδωκας. τόν αύτόν τρόπον καί έν τούτοις, ού παρεκλήθης εις έστίασιν τίνος; ού γάρ έδωκας τω καλοΰντι όσου πωλεί τό δεΐπνον- έπαίνου πωλεί αύτό, θεραπείας, κολακείας, εί έκείνου έπιθυμών βούλει ταΰτα προέσθαι, δός και λήψη· εΐ δέ καί ταΰτα θέλεις μή προέσθαι καί τοΰ δείπνου τυχεΐν, άπληστος εί. εί δέ σκοπήσεις τί έξεις άντί τοΰ δείπνου, πολλά εύρήσεις· τό μή έπαινέσαι όν ού θέλεις· τό μή άνασχέσθαι αύτοΰ καί ών αύτός ήδεται· τό μή πάντα τά προσόντα αύτώ, κάν κακά ώσι, θαυμάσαι· τό μή συνθέσθαι ψέγοντι πολλάκις τούς αύτοΰ κρείττονας- τό άπηλλάχθαι τής τών ύπηρετούντων περιεργίας, και ών άποσκώπτουσιν εις τούς κεκλημένους. καί γάρ τό άνασχέσθαι δυσκατμέν om. Vô II ύποβάλλουσί σοι γ Cas: ύποβάλλουσί (-σίν Ρ ) σ ο υ Ρ ν : ύποβάλλουσιν M II 38 άρμόττει M II 39 σοι om. α II ε'ίκειν] ήκειν V: ήκειν ΡΑ II εύχαριστοΰντα] εύχαριστοΰντά σε MA II 39-40 εις τήν τάξιν α II 2341 τή πόλει] τή πόλει ταύτη M II έχειν δύνη φυλάττων] έχεις δύνη φυλάττειν V (sed φυλάττην V , l c l ): έχων δύνη φυλάττω Α: έχων δύνη φυλάττειν δ II τό] τώ M II *Μ2 έκπέσηςνΑ Cas: έκπεσης Ρ II όφελος] τό όφελος Ργ Cas II 43 τή om. M II 32 1 3 έτυχεν] τέτευχεν M II 23 post κακά laciinam statuit Casaubon II 4 τυγχάνειν] τυχεΐν M II "β θύραις Ρ II προπέμπων M II 4 8 προίκα et Ρ 1 : δωρεάν προίκα V; δωρεάν P 1m K litteris maiusculis (= glossema) II »9 in voce ε'ΐ novum caput incipit M II τό] τόν α (non ita Cas) Il 10 λάβοι Αζ: λάβει M: λάβη PVe Cas II λάβοις Schweighäuser: λάβης Μα II fill έχει om. M II θρίδακας] τάς θρίδακας α II 12 ούκ έδωκας ΡΑ Cas 11^13 καλοΰντι Schweighäuser^ πωλοϋντι Μα II όσου] ός ού Ρ II 14 πωλεί prius Μ: πωλείται œ πολεΐται V II έπαίνου] έκείνου α: έπαίνου έκεΐνος Cas II ^15 καί alterum om. M II 17 έξεις MA Cas: έξεΐν (sic) Ρ: έξήν V: έξήν έξειν δ II , 0 2 0 ψέγοντα M II '*22 άνέχεσθαι β

22

23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

25

5

5

όρθωτον, καί τό άνθυποκρουσαι ταραχώδες, καί πάντας διεγεΐρον είς έπίπληξιν κατά σου, ώς τήν άγάπην ταράξαντος καί τόν κεκληκότα ύβρίσαντος καί πολλών έκκόπτοντος τήν σπουδήν. c. 33a Τό βούλημα τής φύσεως καταμαθείν εστίν έξ ών ού διαφερόμεθα. οίον δταν ά λ λ ο υ παιδάριον κατεάξη ποτήριον, πρόχειρον εύθύς ότι «τών γεγονότων έστίν». ϊσθι ούν ότι, δτε καί τό σόν κατεάγη, τοιούτον έστιν οίον καί τό τού άλλου, ταΰτα μετατίθει καί έπί τά μείζονα, έάν παιδίον άλλου ή άδελφός ή φίλος τελευτήση, ούδείς έστιν όστις ούκ έρεΐ οτι «άνθρώπινον». μέμνησο δέ ότι καί έπί τοις σοίς άνθρώπινον συνέβη, καί δ πάντως καί τοις άπαιδεύτοις ποιήσει ό χρόνος, προεχέτω ή σύνεσις. c. 33b "Ωσπερ σκοπός πρός τό άποτυγχάνειν ού τίθεται, ούτως ούδέ κακού φύσις έν τω κόσμω γέγονεν. c. 33c Μή σε ταράξη λοιδορών τις ή κακηγορών· άτοπον γάρ ούτως σε εύχερή είναι, ϊνα, δταν θέλη τις ψεύδεσθαι, σύ ταράττη. c. 34 Τά καθήκοντα ταΐς σχέσεσι παραμετρεΐται. πατήρ έστι· δέον έπιμελείσθαι, παραχωρεΐν άπάντων, άνέχεσθαι λοιδοροΰντος, παίοντος. «άλλά κακός πατήρ έστι.» μή τι ούν πρός άγαθόν πατέρα φύσει φκειώθης, ά λ λ ά πρός πατέρα, ούδέ γάρ ό θεός θεσπίσας τιμάν σε τόν πατέρα προσεΐπεν «άγαθόν». αύτό δέ τοΰτο χρεωστεΐς, τόν πατέρα τιμήσαι, διακρίναι δέ οΰ, ά λ λ ' έν πάσιν ε'ίκειν, πλήν τοΰ θεώ έναντιοΰσθαι. θεός γάρ πρός πατέρα πολλή καί άσυγκρίτω τή διαφορά σεβαστέος. ό μέν γάρ έξ ούκ όντων δι' άγαθότητα παρήγαγεν, ό δέ όργανον γέγονέ τής θείας προστάξεως.

33a 5 ,7-8 cf. [Maximus Confessor], Loc. comm. 28 (PG 91, col. 880B), Antonius Melissa, Loc. comm. I 73 (PG 136, col. 989C) 34 4 ,4-5 LXX Ex. 20,12; LXX Deiit. 5,16; Ευ. Matt. 19,19 23 άνθυποκρουσαι scripsi: άνθυπακοΰσαι MPVô (άνθυμακοΰσαι Cas): ύπακοΰσαι A: άντιμαχήσαι Casaubon m K II διήγειρεν PVô: διεγείρων Α: διεγείρει Cas II 33a 2 2 οίον οταν άλλου παιδάριον κατεάξη] οίον άλλου παιδάριον κατεάξη Ρ: οίον άλλου παιδάριον κατέαξε Cas: οίον άλλου παιδάριον άν κατεάξη β II ποτήριον] τό ποτήριον Cas II 34 κατεάξη Μ: κατεαγεΐ ΡΑ II τό om. M II 4 5 άδελφοΰ ή φίλου M II 5 7 δέ] ούν α II 7-8 τοις άπαιδεύτοις] έπί τοις άπαιδεύτοις M II 8 προεχέτω Μ: προσεχέτω α: παρεχέτω (vel παρεχέσθω) Schweighäuser^ II 33b novum caput incipit M (sed capids numerus deest): capiti praececlenti coniungit α II ( l l σκοπός] 6 κοπός PV: 6 σκοπός Cas II 2 τω om. β II 33c novum caput incipit M: capiti praececlenti coniungit α II 7 1 τις λοιδορών β II κατηγορών β Cas II 2 οϋτως σε εύχερή] σε εύχερή οϋτως γ: εύχερή οϋτως V II σε om. PV Cas II 34 34 οίκιωθής Ρ : οίκιωθείς Ρ 1 Pc: οίκειωθής V Cas: οίκειώθεις A II 5 7 ήκειν ΡΑ: ήκειν V II6 7 πατέρα Cas: πατέρας Μα

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 1,2 3 4 5 6 7

5

5

10

15

c. 35 Ό αδελφός άδικεΐ; τήρει τοιγαροΰν τήν τάξιν τήν σεαυτοΰ πρός αύτόν, μηδέ σκόπει τί έκεΐνος ποιήσει, άλλά τί σοί ποιήσαντι κατά φύσιν έξει ή προαίρεσις. σέ γάρ άλλος ού βλάψει, έάν μή σύ θέλης· τότε δέ έση βεβλαμμένος, όταν ύπολάβης βλάπτεσθαι. οϋτω πρός φίλον, οϋτω πρός γείτονα τήν έπιβάλλουσαν σχέσιν τήρει. c. 36 Τής πρός θεόν εύσεβείας ϊσθι ότι τό κυριώτατον έκεΐνό έστιν, όρθάς ύπολήψεις περί αύτοΰ έχειν ώς όντος καί διοικούντος τά όλα καλώς και δικαίως, καί πείθεσθαι αύτώ και εϊκειν καί άκολουθείν έκόντα εις οϊαν σε βούλεται τάξιν είναι, οϋτω γάρ ούτε μέμψη ποτέ τόν θεόν ούτε έγκαλέσεις ώς άμελούμενος. άλλως δέ τοΰτο ούχ οίόν τε κατορθοΰν, έάν μή άρης άπό τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν και έπί τοις έφ' ήμΐν μόνοις θής τό είναί τι άγαθόν ή κακόν, έάν γάρ ύπολάβης τι τών ούκ έφ' ήμΐν άγαθόν ή κακόν, πάσα άνάγκη, όταν άποτυγχάνης ών όρέγη καί περιπίπτης οίς έκκλίνεις, μέμφεσθαί σε καί δ υ σ φ η μ ε ΐ ν τήν διοίκησιν. ά μ ή χ α ν ο ν δέ βλάπτεσθαι, εί μή τόν τό βλάπτον άγαθόν όριζόμενον, φεύγοντά τε τό ώφελοΰν ώς έπίπονον, καί προστρέχοντα τώ προσάντει ώς ήδεΐ. ένθεν πατήρ ύπό υιού λοιδορεΐται, όταν τών δοκούντων άγαθών τώ παιδί μή μεταδώ· ένθεν ό γεωργός αιτιάται τόν θεόν, ένθεν ό ναύτης, ένθεν οί τούς άδελφούς ή τέκνα άπολλύντες οϊονται άδικεΐσθαι. c. 37 Προσφοράς προσφέρειν καί δεομένοις έπαρκεΐν έκάστω προσήκει, καθαρώς και μή έπισεσυρμένως ή άμελώς μηδέ γλίσχρως μηδέ ύπέρ δύναμιν. c. 38 Προσευχόμενοι μή περί χρημάτων ή τών άλλων τών έκτός αίτώμεθα· μάλλον δέ τό θέλημα αύτοΰ αίτώμεθα πάντοτε, ότι καί προγινώσκει ών χρήζομεν καί κήδεται πάντων.

37,1 προσφοράς προσφέρειν cf. e.g. Εν. Matt. 5,23; Ep. Eph. 5,2; Just., Dial. 27,5; δεομένοις έπαρκεΐν cf. e.g. Εν. Matt. 26,9-11; Flav. los., Ant. I 247 38' ,1-2 Ev. Matt. 6,7; 6,25; 6,31 38*,2 Ev. Matt. 6,10 38*,2-3 Ev. Matt. 6,8; 6,32 35 ' l ό om. M II 2 ποιήσει] ποιήσαι Cas: έποίησε vel ποιεί σοι Casaubon nl K: ποιεί σε Schweighāuser N II *3 άλλως Ρ II 4 βλάπτεσθαι om. M II 36 ' 2 διοικούντα M II *3 ήκειν Ρ: ήκειν Cas II 4 σε om. M II 4 6 ούχ οίόν τε τοΰτο M II 7 έπί] έν Schweighäuser N II ^9 ων om. M II περιπίπτεις M II fi12 προσάντει] προσαυτίκα α: πρός αύτήκα A II 7 1 4 μή om. Ρ II 8 1 6 ήδικήσθαι Vô II 37 1 έκάστφ om. M II 38 *2 μόιλλον-πάντοτε] εΐδότες M II αίτώμεθα Ρ Cas: εύχώμεθα Υδ: εύχόμεθα A (deficit M) II καί om. β

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

6

7 8

1 2

5

5

5

c. 39 Σιωπή τό πολύ έστω σοι, δι' ολίγων δέ λαλείσθω τά αναγκαία, εί δέ καί τοσαύτη χρεία γένοιτο ώστε λαλείν, δρα μή περί τίνος κοσμικού, ή βρωμάτων ή δόξης· μάλιστα δέ πάντων ού λαλήσεις περί άνθρώπων, ψέγων ή συγκρίνων τινάς. εί δέ άλλοι τών τοιούτων λόγων άρξονται καί οίος εί, μετάγαγε τόν λόγον έπί τό προσήκον • εί δέ άδυνατεΐς τούτο ποιεΐν, σιώπα. c. 40 Γέλως μή πολύς έστω μηδέ έπί πολλοίς μηδέ άνειμένος. c. 41 Εστιάσεις τάς έν οίκίαις κοσμικών άποκρούου- εί δέ ποτε γένηται καιρός, έντετάσθω σοι ή προσοχή μή ποτε ύποσυρής είς ίδιωτισμόν. ϊσθι γάρ ότι, έάν ό έταΐρος μεμολυσμένος ή, καί τόν συνανατριβόμενον αύτώ μολύνεσθαι άνάγκη. c. 42 Τά περί τό σώμα μέχρι τής χρείας ψιλής παραλάμβανε· τό δέ πρός δόξαν ή τρυφήν όλον περίγραφε. c. 43 Έγκράτειαν τών σωματικών είς δύναμιν άσκητέον, καί παντί σθένει τά είς αύτήν συντελούντα μεταδιώκειν οφείλεις, μή μέντοι έπαχθής γίνου τοις άλλοις μηδέ έλεγκτικός, μηδέ πολλαχού ότι αύτός άκρως σωφρονείς παράφερε. c. 44 Έ ά ν τίς σε λοιδορών κακώς λέγη, μή πειρώ τοις άπαγγέλλουσί σοι άπολογείσθαι, ή μόνον ότι «οίόμενος έκεινος έργον ποιεΐν κακώς με λέγει», και «ούκ έχω έ ξ ο υ σ ί α ν ά λ λ ο ν κωλύειν ού προέθετο π ο ι ε ΐ ν έργου, ούπω έμαυτόν δυνηθείς κωλύσαι παθών», καί ότι « εί μή ήμην άξιος τοΰ τά τοιαύτα άκοΰσαι, ούκ άν ήκουον», μ ά λ ι σ τ α έάν αίσθηθής ότι τών λεχθέντων περί σου έπραξάς τι. c. 45 Έν ταΐς άγοραΐς ή έν τοις δημοσίοις τόποις έπί πολύ παριέναι ούκ άναγκαΐον. εί δέ ποτε καιρός καλέσοι, μηδενί άλλω φαίνου σπουδάζων, εί μή σεαυτω· τουτέστι θέλε γίνεσθαι μόνα τά γινόμενα, οία άν ώσιν. βοής δέ καί τοΰ έπιγελάν τινι ή πολύ συγκινεΐσθαι ή άγανακτεΐν περί τών γινομένων παντελώς άπέχου. καί μετά άπαλλαγην μή πολλά περί τών γεγενημένων διαλέγου μηδέ ά είδες φιλονείκει έξηγεΐσθαι, μάλιστα όσα μή λυσιτελεΐ πρός τήν σήν πολιτείαν. εί γάρ περί τούτων πολλάκις ε'ίποις, έμφαίνεις ότι έθαύμασας τήν θέαν ών έφυγες.

39 22 γένηται β II 4 5 άρξωνται MA II ει] εις V: ής Ρ Cas (et IJKQ, εις Ζ) II 5 6 ποιήσαι Ρ II 40 1 μή] μή σοι α : μή σου A II πολύ Ρ II 41 % έταιρος] έτερος M II 42 2 2 ολον scripsi: όρων PVÔ: δρω Μ: όράν Α: δλως Cas II 42 22 - 43 ' 1 περίγραφε. Έγκράτειαν M Cas: περίγραφε έγκράτειαν. PV: περίγραφε έγκρατεία. Αε: έγκρατεία περίγραφε, ζ II 44 '3 έργον] fort, (αύτοΰ) έργον II με om. M II 2 4-5 κωλΰσαι παθών δυνηθείς β II 3 6 αίσθηθης: ε supra αί M1 II 45 4 7 μάλιστα] μάλιστα δέ Μ

1 2 3 4 5 1,2 3 1,2 1 2

1 2 3

1 2 3 4 5

5

10

5

5

c. 46 Είς οικίας τινών μή εική μηδέ ραδίως πάριθι- παριών δέ τό σεμνόν καί ευσταθές καί άνεπαχθές φύλαττε. c. 47 "Οταν φοιτάν άνάγκη πρός τινα τών λαμπρών τοΰ κόσμου, λόγισαι ότι ούχ εύρήσεις αύτόν ένδον, ότι ού μηνυθήση, καί ότι άκούσεις· «τί θέλει ό περιττός ούτος;», ότι άποσκώψουσιν εϊς σε οί παίδες· ότι έρεί σοι έκεΐνος ότι ύπερβαίνει σε ό αιτείς, καί μηδέποτε εϊπης έν σεαυτω ότι ταΰτα σοί ού ποιήσουσιν, ή ότι αίδεσθήσονται τό έπάγγελμα. έάν γάρ ούτω συντύχης καί τύχη ταΰτα γενέσθαι, άταράχως ύποδέξη τά γινόμενα άτε μεμελετηκώς αύτά· έάν δέ μηδέν τούτων συμβή, εύχαριστήσεις τω θεώ λέγων· «έγώ μέν μεμελέτηκα ά ήμην άξιος ύποστήναι, ή δέ τοΰ θεοΰ φιλανθρωπία προέστη μου καί ούδέν τούτων εϊασεν γενέσθαι.» c. 48 Έν ταΐς όμιλίαις άπέστω τό σεαυτοΰ έργων τινών ή άρετών έπί πολύ καί άμέτρως μεμνήσθαι. ού γάρ ώσπερ σοί ήδύ έστι τά σά λέγειν, οϋτω καί τοις άλλοις τούτων άκοΰσαι. έπισφαλές δέ καί τό είς εύτραπελολογίαν έμπεσείν · πάντως γάρ τήν πρός σε αίδώ τών πλησίον έκλύει, καί παρασκευάζει γελοιολογεΐν • έξ ών καί άκαιρολογία τίκτεται, όταν ούν αϊσθη τι τοιούτον, έάν μέν οίος ης, και έπίπληξον- εί δέ μή δύνη, τω άποσιωπάν καί έρυθριάν δήλος γίνου δυσχεραίνων τοις τοιούτοις. c. 49 "Οταν φαντασία ήδονής έκπειράση σε, μνήσθητι άμφοτέρων τών χρόνων, καθ' όν τε συγκαταθήση τή δοκούση ήδονή, καί καθ' όν πράξας ύστερον μετανοήσεις καί αύτός σεαυτω λοιδορήση • τούτοις τε άντίθες, όπως περιγενόμενος χαίρεις, καί ότι άμεινον σ υ ν ε ι δ έ ν α ι έαυτώ νικήσαντι καί καθαρώς εύχομένω. μή σε ήττήση τό προσηνές αύτής καί έπαγωγόν· βέλτιον γάρ τούτου και ήδύτερον τό συνειδέναι έαυτώ ταύτην νενικηκότι τήν νίκην. c. 50 "Οταν ποιής τι διαγνούς ότι σου συμβάλλεται τή πολιτεία, οί δέ άλλοι άλλως περί αύτοΰ ύπολαμβάνουσιν, όρα μή φύγης αύτό διά τήν τών άλλων ύπόληψιν. εί μέν γάρ ούκ όρθώς ποιείς, 46 11 μή εική] μηαίκη Ρ: μή ηϊει V: μή ο'ικει Αζ: μή ήκε Cas II παρών M II 47 1 2 οτι alterum] καί οτι M II 3 άκούση PVô: ακούσει A II *4 εϊς om. M II δ] δέ M II 4 7 γενόμενα M II 5 8 δέ] τε ΡΑ Cas II εύχαριστήσης M II 9 μέν om. α II 48 11 τό] τώ νώ Μ II έργον VA II *2 μεμνήσθαι έπί πολύ καί άμέτρως β II 3 4 εύτραπελίαν γ: εύτραπέλειαν V II τών] τοΰ α II 5 γελοιολογεΐν] γε δοσολογεΐν Ρ: γε δισσολογεΐν V: γελοία λέγειν Α: γε (δέ Ο ) βωμολοχεΐν ε: δωσολογεΐν_[: δοσοποιεΐν U : δισσολογεΐν χ: δωρολογεΐν Cas: μωρολογεΐν C a s a u b o n I I 6 άκαιρολογία] λακερολογίαGronovius: αισχρολογία Casaubon"1!? II 4 6 ούν om. α II 7 τώ ν δ Cas: τό ΜΡΑ II 49 '2 συγκατάθη M II 4 έαυτώ Α: έαυτόν ν δ II λοιδορήση ζ Cas: λοιδωρήση A (nisi fallor): λοιδώρησαι Μ: λοιδορησαι Ρ: λοιδορήσεις Ve II - 4 τε] γε β II χαίρης M II 5 έαυτώ συνειδέναι M II καί alterum om. Ρ II ^7 τούτου] τοΰτο β: om. ε II 50 '1 σου om. M II 2 έαυτοΰ Μ

1,2 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3

4

1

2 3

1 2

5

5

5

10

αύτό τό έργον φεύγε- εν δε όρθώς, τί φοβή τούς έπιπλήξοντας ούκ όρθώς; c. 51 "Οταν συνεσθίης τινί, μή τί παραβάλλει εκείνος έδώδιμον λογίζου, ά λ λ ά τί πονήσας άνεπαχθής αύτώ γενήση καί μάλλον αίδήμων. c. 52 Έάν ύπέρ δύναμιν άναλάβης έπάγγελμα, καί έν αύτώ άσχημονήσεις καί ού έδύνασο έκπληρούν έκπέσεις. c. 53 Καθάπερ έν τώ περιπατείν προσέχεις μή έπιβής ήλω ή στρέψης τόν πόδα, οϋτω πρόσεχε μή βλάψης τόν σεαυτοΰ νοΰν. καί οϋτως έφ' έκάστω έργω παραφυλάττων άσφαλέστερον άψη έκάστου. c. 54 Μέτρον κτήσεως έκάστω τό σώμα, ώς ό ποΰς τω ύποδήματι. έάν μέν έπί τοΰτο στης, φυλάξεις τό μέτρον· έάν δέ ύπερβής, άνάγκη κατά κρημνού φέρεσθαι. καθάπερ δέ έπί τοΰ ύποδήματος ό τήν χρείαν ύπερβαίνων ποιεί κεντητόν, είτα φοινικούν, είτα διάχρυσον, πολλοί δέ καί λιθοκόλλητον, οϋτω και έπί πασών τών ορέξεων · τοΰ γάρ άπαξ ύπέρ τό μέτρον όρος ούδείς. c. 55 Άφυϊας σημεΐον ένδιατρίβειν τοις περί τό σώμα, οίον έπί πολύ γυμνάζεσθαι, έπί πολύ έσθίειν ή πίνειν ή καθεύδειν· ά λ λ ά ταΰτα μέν έν παρέργω ποιητέον, περί δέ τόν νοΰν ή πάσα έστω έπιστροφή. c. 56 "Οταν τις κακώς δοκή σοι ποιεΐν ή κακώς λέγειν, ένθυμοΰ ότι οίόμενος λυσιτελεΐν αύτώ τοΰτο ποιεί, εί καί σοί ού λυσιτελεΐ. καί τίς άναγκάσει τινά τό έαυτοΰ συμφέρον άφέντα τό άλλου ποιεΐν; ώστε ούκ ήν έπί σοί τό κωλΰσαι αύτόν. τών δέ ούκ έφ' ήμΐν μηδέ όρέγεσθαι παρηγγέλμεθα. άλλως τε, εί μέν ψεύδεται, αύτός βέβλαπται καί έξηπάτηται, τό ψεύδος άληθές νομίσας. ώσπερ ούν, εί μακρόν σε έλεγεν κονδόν όντα ή τό έμπαλιν, ούκ άν ήγανάκτεις ή έχαιρες, διά τό μή τοις έκείνου ρήμασιν έπεσθαι ήμών τό σώμα, μάλλον δέ καί έγέλας άν ώς παράβλωπα τόν τοιούτον, οϋτως άόργητος διάμενε, έλέει δε αύτόν τής πλάνης· εί δέ άληθή λέγει,

έπιπλήξαντας ΜΑ 11511 παραβάλη Ve Cas: παραβαλη Ρ: παραβάλεις (sic) Α: παραβαλεΐ ζ: παραβαλη λ II έδώδιμον έκεΐνος ν δ : έδόδοιμον εκείνο A II 2 γενήση] φανήση Μ: φανήσει A II 52 2 άσχημονήσεις Ρ V dC (iit vicl.)e Cas: άσχημονήσης Μν'ΐ^Αζ II έκπέσειςΡδ Cas: έκπέσηςΑν: έκπλήςΜ II 53 '2 έαυτοΰ M II 54 22 τούτο MP Cas: τούτω V: τούτου ζ: τούτοις Αχ II % δέ om. M II 56 12 εί καί σοί ού λυσιτελεΐ scripsi: εί δέ σοί ού λυσιτελεΐ MP: εί δέ σοι ού λυσιτελεΐ Cas: αν δέ σοι ού λυσιτελή V: αν (έάν Ζ) δέ σοί ού λυσιτελεΐ ASZ: αν δέ σοί ού λυσιτελή Κε: αν δέ σοι ού λυσιτελεΐ U: άν δέ σύ ού λυσιτελή J: έάν καί σοί μή λυσιτελή Q II ^4 ούκ alterum] μή M II μικρόν M Cas II ^9 έγέλασας M Cas II 10 post vocem πλάνης deficit A

1 2 1 2 3

4 1,2 3

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

15

20

5

5

διόρθωσαι, ϊ ν α μή έχη τι λέγειν, οϋτω πρός πάντας τούς λοιδοροϋντας γίνου, έπιφθεγγόμενος, ώς πολλάκις εϊρηται, δτι «έκείνω μέν έδοξε ταύτα λέγειν, έγώ δέ ού κατεστάθην είς τό κωλϋσαι τόν βουλόμενον λέγειν ά θέλει.» έάν δέ άδελφός άδική ή γείτων, μή λογίζου δτι «παρ' ού ήκιστα έχρήν ήδίκημαι, ώς ένόμισεν», ή ότι «τούτον ούκ έχρήν τοΰτο ποιεΐν, άλλά καί ύπεραγανακτεΐν έμοΰ.» οϋτω γάρ θρέψεις τήν όργήν, καί έξιν έν σεαυτώ ποιήσεις δυσφόρητον- μάλλον δέ ότι «άδελφός, καί χρεωστώ αύτοΰ άνέχεσθαι»· ότι «γείτων, κάγώ αύτοΰ οφείλω φέρειν τήν άγνοιαν» · καί ότι «ή νομιζομένη άδικία περί τά έκτός· τής γάρ προαιρέσεώς μου ούδείς κύριος» · καί οϋτω ράον έξεις. c. 57 Ούτοι οί λόγοι άσύντακτοι- «έγώ σου πλουσιώτερος, έγώ σου άρα κρείττων» · «έγώ σου λογτώτερος, (έγώ σου άρα κρείττων)». ούτοι δέ μάλλον άληθεΐς καί συνεκτικοί- «ή έμή κτήσις τής σης κρείττων», καί «ή έμή λέξις τής σης κρείττων». σύ δέ ούδέ κτήσις ούδέ λέξις. γίνωσκε ούν ότι ούκ έπί σεαυτώ έπαίρη, άλλ' έπ' άλλω. c. 58 Τοΰ σκώπτειν είργε σ ε α υ τ ό ν καί μάλιστα μέν σιώπα τά άλλότρια, σεαυτω δέ μόνω πρόσεχε, εί δέ λαλείς, λάλει άληθή καί ά βλέπεις, καί μή ά στοχάζη. [59] οίον έπιέν τις πολύν οίνον· μή ε'ίπης ότι «κακώς», άλλ' ότι «έπιεν». έλούσατό τις· μή εϊπης ότι «κακώς», ά λ λ ' ότι «έλούσατο». έφαγέν τις πρωϊ· μή εϊπης ότι «κακώς», άλλ' ότι «έφαγεν». εικός γάρ σέ μέν στοχάζεσθαι κακώς, έκεΐνον δέ καλώς αύτό πεποιηκέναι, ή νόσου βιασαμένης ή άδελφών άναγκασάντων ή άλλων εύλογων αιτιών, αϊ σοί μέν ού γινώσκονται, έκείνω δέ κατά νοΰν έχώρησαν. c. 60 Μηδαμοΰ σεαυτόν ήσυχαστήν εϊπης, μηδέ λ ά λ ε ι έν ίδιώταις περί δογμάτων, έν έστιάσει μή λέγε πώς δει έσθίειν, άλλ' έσθιε ώς δει, τύπος γενόμενος άλλοις, τοΰτο καί ό άπόστολος παραινεί λέγων • «τύπος γίνου τοις πιστοΐς».

60 3 ,4

lEp.Timoth.

4,12

s 1 2 ώς] ö β II εκείνο Ρ II 9 1 6 τούτον] τούτω Ργ Cas: om. V II 57 '2 κρείττον M II 2-3 έγώ σου αρα κρείττων alterum adcl. Schweighäuser: om. Μα (lacunam indicaverat Casaubon) II (bis) κρείττον M II κρείττων prius] κρείττων σύ δ έ Ρ II s 4 σύ Ρ Casaubon m K: σοί Mß: σού Cas II 5 κτήσις] κτήσίς έστι(ν) œ κτήσις ει Casaubon"1!* II 58 '2 μόνον M II [59] 4 4 post έλούσατό τις lacunam susp. Schweighäuser II πρωι] πρωί έτερος α II fi7 πεποιηκέναι] περιπεποιηκέναι PV2PC Cas: περιποιηκέναι V ac II 60 2 2 in voce έν novum caput incipit M II ^3 και] γαρ Cas

8

9

10 11 12

1 2 3

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3

5

5

10

5

c. 61 To πολύ περί δογμάτων έν ίδιώταις μή λάλει. έάν δέ έμπίπτη λόγος, τό έπιδεικτικόν έκκοπτε καί σιώπα· μέγας γάρ κίνδυνος δογματίσαι περί ών ή όντως κατάληψις δυσχερής, τοις πολλοίς δέ καί άγνωστος, και όταν εϊπη σοί τις ότι ουδέν οίδας καί μή δηχθής έπί τούτω, τότε γνώθι ότι ήρξω τοΰ έργου. c. 62 Εύτελώς φορών μή καλλωπίζου έπί τούτω· μηδέ έάν ύδροποτής, περιέρχου ζητών άφορμήν τοΰ λέγειν ότι ύδροποτεΐς. άσκει δέ σεαυτω μόνω καί μή τοις έξω, ϊνα καί ή ώφέλεια σοΰ μόνου γένηται. c. 63 Μή κατάξηρον έπιδείκνυε τό στόμα, μηδέ άσθμαινε συνεχώς, τεκμήρια τοις πέλας τής σής άσκήσεως παρέχων, καί άναγκάζων έρωτάν πόθεν ούτως άσθμαίνεις καί ξηρός εί. c. 64 Άπαιδεύτου χαρακτήρ μηδέποτε ώφέλειαν ή βλάβην προσδοκάν άφ' έαυτοΰ, ά λ λ ά άπό τών έξω· θεοφιλούς δέ άνδρός χαρακτήρ πάσαν ώφέλειαν καί βλάβην έξ έαυτοΰ προσδοκάν. c. 65 Σημεία προκόπτοντος· ούδένα ψέγει, ούδένα μέμφεται, ούδενί έγκαλεΐ, ούδέν περί έαυτοΰ λέγει ώς όντος τι ή είδότος τι. όταν έμποδισθή ή κωλυθή, έαυτώ έγκαλεΐ. κάν τις αύτόν έπαινή, καταγελά τοΰ έπαινοΰντος παρ' έαυτώ ώς πλανηθέντος, καί ταλανίζει έαυτόν ώς άπατήσαντα τούς έκτός καί είς ψευδολογίαν έμβάλλοντα· κάν ψέγη τις, ούκ άπολογεΐται. περιέρχεται δέ ώσπερ οί άρρωστοι, εύλαβούμενός τι κινήσαι. πάσαν ορεξιν ήρεν άφ' έαυτοΰ· όρμή άνειμένη πρός πάντα χρήται. άν ήλίθιος ή άμαθής δοκή, ού πεφρόντικεν. ένί δέ λόγω, ώς έχθρόν έαυτόν παραφυλάττει. c. 66 Μή όρέγου έξηγεΐσθαι τάς γραφάς, μάλιστα μή άκριβώς περί αύτών παρειληφώς, άλλά άρκοΰ τό ποιείν τά άπ' αύτών, καί παραχώρει τό λέγειν τοις είδόσιν. εί δέ τοΰ μέν ποιείν καταφρονήσεις, έπί δέ τώ έξηγεΐσθαι μόνω σχολάσεις, ούδέν έτερον ή γ ρ α μ μ α τ ι κ ό ς άντί ή σ υ χ α σ τ ο ΰ γέγονας, έν τούτω μόνον διαλλάττων, ότι τάς γραφάς άντί 'Ομήρου έξηγή. [ 6 7 ] ένθυμοΰ δέ όποία αισχύνη, όταν τις άναγινώσκων τό εύαγγέλιον καί έξηγούμενος αύτό καλώς, άσύμφωνα παράσχη τούτω τά έαυτοΰ έργα. 61 έμπίπτη δ: εμπίπτει MPV Cas II 62 ^3 καί alterum om. M II 63 1 στόμα] σώμα M II 3 ει] ής M II 64 22 Θεοφίλου Ρ Cas II δέ om. Ρ Cas II 3 έξ] άφ' M II 65 11 ούδένα μέμφεται ούδένα ψέγει M II τι prius] τίνος Schweighäuser ex M (ut falso opinatur) Il *3 έπαινέση α II 5 ψευδολογίας PVDN Cas II 6 έμβαλώντα P a c , έμβαλόντα P' Pc II «6 παρερχεται M II 66*2 τό] τοΰ PV: τώ δ Cas II 3 τό λέγειν Μ· τοΰ λέγειν ε: τόν λόγον Ρζ Cas: τών λόγων VK II % μέν om. Ρ II 4 τό έξηγεΐσθαι μόνον α II 4 5 μόνω M II [67] 6 in voce ένθυμοΰ novum caput incipit α II 7 δέ om. α

1,2 3 4 1,2 3

1 2 1 2 3

4 5 6

1 2 3 4

5

10

5

c. 68 "Οσα όρθώς προτίθεσαι, τούτοις ώς νόμοις έμμενε, ώς παρανομών, εν αύτών άφείς. τί δέ λέγουσιν οί πολλοί περί σου, μή φροντίσης- ού γαρ έπί σοί έστι κωλύσαι αύτούς ψέγοντας τά καλά ή τά φαύλα έπαινούντας. c. 69 Εις ποίον έτι χρόνον ά ν α β ά λ λ η άρέσαι θεώ; ποίαν ήλικίαν προσδοκάς; ούκέτι εί μειράκιον, άλλ' άνήρ ήδη τέλειος, έάν καί νΰν άμελήσης καί άεί προθεσμίας έκ προθεσμιών διδώς σεαυτω καί ημέρας έξ ήμερών όρίζη έν αίς μέλλεις άρέσαι θεώ, λήσεις σεαυτόν ού προκύπτοντα, ά λ λ ά καί κλεπτόμενον έως ού και τό τέλος φθάση. άξίωσον ούν σεαυτόν ήδη ώς τέλειον πονήσαι έν τή άσκήσει και προσοχή, ότι ένταΰθά έστιν ό άγών καί ήδη πάρεστιν καί ούκ έπιδέχεται ά ν α β ο λ ή ν · σκόπει δέ ότι ένδοσις μία{ς} άρετής ή έπίτασις στέφανοι τόν άγωνίστην ή άστεφάνωτον παρέ{ρ}χεται. ούτως ό μακάριος Παΰλος άγωνισάμενος έλεγεν· «τόν καλόν άγώνα ήγώνισμαι, καί λοιπόν άπόκειταί μοι ό τής δικαιοσύνης στέφανος.» σύ δέ, εί καί μή εί Παΰλος, ά λ λ ' οϋτως άγωνίζου, ώς όμοιος αύτώ είναι βουλόμενος. c. 70 Έπί πάση περιστάσει καί παντί πειρασμώ έπαγομένφ ήμΐν πρόχειρον έχωμεν τό λέγειν· «άγε ήμάς, ώ σώτερ, σύ καί τό άγιόν σου πνεύμα, όπου σοί καί όπως φίλον, ώς έψόμεθά γε άοκνοι· εί γάρ μή θέλομεν κακοί γενόμενοι, ούδέν ήττον έψόμεθα. όστις δέ έκών εύπειθώς έπεται θεώ, σοφός παρ' ήμΐν καί θεώ δέ προσφιλής· ό γάρ τώ θεώ φίλον, τοΰτο ήμΐν γενέσθαι εύχόμεθα.» c. 71 Βιοΰντας γάρ οϋτως ήμάς βλαβήναι ύπό τίνος άδύνατόν. κάν γάρ, ώς νομίσουσι, συσκευάσωνταί τίνες, κάν ύπερβώσιν ύβρεις καί διώξεις καί είς φόνους χωρήσωσι, φονεΰσαι μέν δύναν-

69' ,1 άρέσαι θεώ cf. e.g. Ep. Rom. 8,8 69 fi , 10-12 2 Ep. Timoth. 4,7 71 *,2-3 cf. Ευ. Matt. 10,21-23 68 1 1 προτίθεται Μ: προστίθεσαι V II 2 έν αύτών άφείς] έν αύτώ ο άφής Ρ: έαυτώ ό άφείς V: έαυτώ ο άφής Cas: έαυτώ ο άν άφής ε: έν αύτώ ό άν άφής ζ II 69 ' 1 θεώ] τώ θεώ M II *2 ήδη om. M II 3 3 προθεσμίας Μ: προθεσμίαν β Cas: προθεσμία Ρ II 3-4 διδώς σεαυτω] δίδωσεαυτώ Ρ: δίδωσεαυτόν V II 4 ήμέρας ΙΚΟ (desunt JSZ): ήμέραν Μα II 5 λήσεις] δήσεις PV: δείξεις ζ: λήση ε II 6 φθάσει M II 4 7 προσοχή] πρός ö χρή Μ: προσευχή Schweighäuser 1 ^ II "9 μία Casaubon" 1 «: μιας Μ α II 10 παρέχεται Heyne: παρέρχεται Μα II 7 1 2 ει] ώς Μ: ή V II 70 >2 έχωμεν P'P C Cas: έχομεν MPacß II *3 φίλον] φίλον σοί Ρδ Cas II 3 4 θέλωμεν MP Cas II 4 5 δέ om. α II 6 εύχόμεθα] αίτούμεθα M II 71 1 1 βιούντος M, rubro addito ων s.l. a prima manu (ut vid.) II νομίσουσι Ρδ: νομίσωσι Μ: νομίζουσι V Cas II 3 χωρήσωσι δ: χωρήσουσι MPV Cas

1 2

1,2 3

4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

1 2

ται, βλάψαι δέ ουδαμώς, ώς γάρ μή δυναμένων βλάψαι παρήγγειλεν ό κύριος λέγων· «μή φοβεΐσθε άπό τών άποκτεννόντων τό σώμα, τήν δέ ψυχήν μή δυναμένων άποκτεΐναι.»

71 3 ,5-6 Εν. Matt. 10,28a

5 κύριος λέγων] κύριος μή φοβεΐσθαι (φοβεΐσθε V) λέγων α II φοβηθήτε α II άποκτενόντων Ρβ: άποκτεινόντων Cas II subscriptio ε'ίη τό όνομα κυρίου εύλογημένον άπό τοΰ νΰν καί έως τοΰ αιώνος τών αιώνων άμήν Μ

PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA LECTIONES VARIANTES MINORES

titulus σπουδαίοι] σπουδαίοι τίνες Αε II 1 5 7 ταραχθήση λυπηθήση ε II 8 θεώ και άνθρώποις V II 8 θεούς Cas II fi8 έπί σοί] σ ά V II 2 2 3 ΰποθέσθαι V II έπιμελεΐσθαι έαυτοΰ A (add. signa transp. A 1 ) Il έαυτώ Cas II Λ 4 δέ om. A a c l II ταΰτα] καί ταΰτα δ II εικός] καί εικός A II 5 μόνον MPVA: μόνων δ edd. II 3 1 1 δεικνύοντι V II 2 ει] ήν V: έστί ε II ού om. A ut vid. II ή μ ΐ ν ] ήμών V II 3 5 4 δτι o m . A II 6 τό τυχεΐν VA II 7 παραπεσεΐν V II έκεΐνο VA (sed A 2 P C , incertum quid ante fuerit) II 4 1 1 μόνων ε II τα] τών γ II 2-3 νόσου-θανάτουπενίας δ II τε om. Cas II 6 τινος-ήμίν om. A II αποτυγχάνει V II τε o m . Cas II 7 καλών A II 4 7 μόνον δέ A II 8 άνιεμένως Cas II 5 1 1 έκάστου V II 2 τί om. A II τών o m . A II 2 3 - 4 δτι ποτήριον στέργεις o m . A II 4 γ ά ρ o m . A a c l II 5 έ χ ο υ σ α ν ] έχει A II τοΰ] τό A II κλάσθαι] κλάσαι V: κλάσθαι θλασθήσεται (sic) A II 6 '1 σεαυτώ A II 2 2 ά π ή ς ν II 3 4 κελεύοντας] κλαίοντας V II 5 πεινώντας V II 4 7 θέλω είς έστίασιν A II τήν prius om. γ II έστίαν V II 8 κατά φύσιν έχουσαν φυλάττειν] ώς έχουσαν φυλάξω A II καί ώσαύτως] ώσαύτως καί All Γ,9 έργον] έργου A l l 10 ού om. A ut vid. II 12 ού om. A ut vid. Il 7 a 2 ό θάνατος γ II 2-3 τοις άποστόλοις και om. Cas II 4 αίτιώμεθα Cas II ή alterum om. Cas II 8 1 τώ ά λ λ ω Α: τό ά λ λ ω ε II 2 τώι έαυτοΰ V II μήτε prius] τό μήτε Αε II 9 '1 μηδέν V II 2 1 εί γάρ γ II 3 λέγη Cas II έπαιρόμενος om. ε II καλόν ίμάτιον A II 3 4 ώστε] έσται A (nisi fallor) II 5 σών άγαθών Cas II σώ] τώ A II 10 2 3 δει om. A II 4 έπιστρέψασθαι Cas II μή τι] μήτοι V Cas: μήποτε δ II Μ κάν καλέση] καί τότε Cas II 5 7-8 άφείς έκείνους τρέχε έπί τό πλοΐον ε II 7-8 τρέχε-άφείς] τρέχων-άφής Cas II 8 μηδέ] μή Α (δέ A l s l ) II 6 1 0 βληθήση γ II 7 11 τοΰτο] αύτώ τοΰτο V II πείσεσθαι V i l l i 1 γενόμενα VII ώς σύ θέλεις γίνεσθαι Cas II γίνεσθαι om. A II 2 θέλε om. A II 12 2 4 σοΰ γ II 13 2 2 φυσικώς A II 2-3 ό θεός ή μ ΐ ν δ II 3 νικητικώς Α: νικητάς Cas II s 4 πρόσωπον γυναικός ε II 6 τήν άνεξικακίαν VÔ 14 1 1 μηδενί γ II 2 2 άδελφός om. V II κτήμα] κτήμά σου δ: κτήματά σου A II άφηρέθης V II s 3 κακώς VA II μέλλει γ ( n o n ita D N ) II 4 σε] σοι A l i o δούς άπήτησεν] όδοΰ άπήντησεν V II 4 5 άφείλετο γ II Γ,6 έννοεΐν A II 7 έδοξε(ν) φησί(ν) ΑΚε II 6 8 είναι] εί V II τοΰ δεσπότου] τοΰδε Cas II 9 οΰτως V: οϋτως Cas 11 7 1 0 αύτόν V II άλλοτρίωι VII 15 1 3 ούκ έχω A II 3 5 καί] καί τό ε II 6 εαυτού] καθ' έαυτόν ε II 16 2 2 έκχυται Cas II 3 άπολοΰνται A II τοσούτον V A II 4 τοσούτον VAUV II 5 ούδέν] ούδέν ούδενί ε II 4 7 μήν om. δ II 5 8 ϊ ν α ] ϊ ν α μέν V II γίνηται Cas II fi9 καί om. Cas 1110 τοΰτο V: τούτον (sic) Casauboni c o d e x , τούτων Casaubon in textu II άπήλλαξεν V II τοΰ παιδός om. Cas II μετέρχου Cas II 11 τό τραΰμα] τραύματα A II 7 1 2 έσχεν] έχει Cas II 8 1 3 έδαιρον δ: έδαρον Casaubon II σε] σε ω παΐ Αε II 17 '2 δόξα V II μηδέν] καί μηδέν γ II βούλει Cas II 2 3 ειναί τι] έν αύτήι V a c 2 II άπίστει σεαυτω] άπίστησαι αύτώι V II δτι o m . V II ού ράδιον post φύσιν (1. 4) transp. V II 3 5 θάτερον Cas II 18 2 3 μή] μέν V a c 2 II 3 5 ένθυμή] έπιζητεΐς Α: έπιθυμεΐς Cas II μή είναι κακίαν om. Α II 19 1 τοΰτον V a c 2 II 20 1 ύπ'] έπ' A II 4 ά λ λ ο ν V II 21 1 1 δει] οϋτω δει Cas II 2 2 σ ο ΰ V a c 2 II 3 4 κατά] ό κατά (nisi fallor) Α II 5 7-8 χριστού άναδειχθήση ά λ λ ά καί συγκληρονόμος ε II 8 Χριστοΰ] χριστοΰ βασιλείας V: om. Cas II 22

' 2 supra χρήματα aliquid erasum in V II 3 κακία A II ού το] οϋτω V a c * II αύτό δ Cas II ού alterum om. Cas II 5 οϋτως V Cas II ά λ λ ο ς A 1 Pc: άλλως A a c II 2 3 2 2 προβεβηκόσιν] προβεβηκόσι τοιούτον γ II 4 κληρικόν] δέ κληρικόν A II Η τό] τώ A II θεού] τώ θεώ A II 2 4 1 1 παρά o m . A II *2 σημαίνεται] συμβήσεται A II ά λ λ ' ή] ά λ λ ά Cas II 26 1 1 δυνάμενον] μέγα δυνάμενον Cas II 2 4 συμβή V'pcy: συμβήναι V J c l II εί] ή V a c 2 II 3 5 τρεπομένη V d c 2 II τί] τήι vel τής V a c 2 Μ τον] τών V 2 P C II 6 φυλάξαι τήν σήν προαίρεσιν δ II 4 6 ούτε] ούδέ δ II 5 8 πάντων post ήμΐν (1. 9) transp. V II 27 '2 τό om. Cas II 2 3 ούν om. V II 4 ή o m . Cas II 28 3 έπιθυμήσεις] ενθυμήσεις Cas II 29 1 1 έναρέτου] έναρέτης έναρέτου V a c : έν άρετή έναρέτου V ^ II 2 αύτόθεν om. Cas II 3 έπανήλθε A: έπανελήλυθας Cas II 2 5 σου V II έχον V II s 6 δέ om. Cas II 7 θαυμάζονται V II 30 ' l συγκαταθης Cas II 2 3 μόνων A 11 σεαυτω] μόνον σεαυτω A II 4 έσται Cas 11 31 1 1 βιώσομαι ε II 2 καί] ώς A II 2 3 τό τιμηθήναι ε II άλλον V Cas II έπί] έστίν A II 4 παραλειφθήναι V II 4 5 έν] όν έν Cas II 6 έν οίς om. A II άξιος V: άξιον γ II 5 7 κ α λ ό ν ] καλόν τό Αε II 7-8 έπίπληξον-βοηθήσαι om. A II 7 1 0 δούναι δύναται Cas II 8 11 σοι] σε V II 12 σύ] οϋ A II 9 1 3 δέ om. V II 14 μή o m . A II 15 άσύμφωνος δ II 1 2 19 τούτον εί] τουτονί Cas II τούτο V II 1 3 22 λέγουσι τιμήν ε II 1 5 2 6 θέλοντα] μέλλοντα A II 1 6 2 7 φανείη άξιος Cas II φανή V II Ι 7 2 9 ύπηγγείλω Cas II πληρώσας Α: πληρώσαι δ II 1 9 31 οΰτως V Cas II 33 ά λ λ α V II εί χρήσιμος] χρήσιμος ής Cas II 2 ( , 34 φρόνιμον] χρήσιμον V II λείψει] λείψει δέ Cas II 35 α ύ τ ο ί ς A II καί prius o m . Cas II 37 οί o m . A II 2 2 3 9 - 4 0 ένήξιώθημεν] είς ήν έκλήθημεν τάξιν ε II 40 ήξιώθης Cas II 2 3 4 0 φασίν χώραν έχεις] φής χώραν έχειν γ II 2 4 4 2 έκπέσης (sic) τών ούρανίων ε II 32 1 1 Εί om. Cas II προαγορεύσει V II 2 4 ποιών] πράσσων ε II πρός τό om. ε II τών alterum] καί τών ε II 3 5 ϊσον δύναται] δ ύ ν α σ α ι ίσον έχειν A II 4 7 ούν] τοιγαρούν γ II προελόμενος A II 8 έ κ ε ΐ ν α άνθ' ών A (add. signa transp. A 1 ) II 8-9 α ύ τ ά λ α β ε ί ν ] ά ν τ ι λ α β ε ΐ ν V II s 9 εϊ] ή A II 10 αύτοϋ Cas II μή alterum om. A II 11 έλαττα A II 7 1 3 όσον A II 14 αύτώ A II κολακείας] καί κολακείας γ II Η 15 έ κ ε ί ν ο υ ] έκεΐ V II βούλει] μή βούλει Casaubon" 1 « (15-16 δός-προέσθαι omittens) II 16 μή o m . A II 9 1 7 άντί] άπό Cas II 18 ά ν έ χ ε σ θ α ι Vô II 1 ( , 19 θαυμάζειν V II 1 >21 öv V II | 2 2 2 καί γάρ] καί γάρ καί D N ( n o n ita Ο) II 24 ώς] πρός V II 25 κόπτοντος Cas II 33a 1 1 βούλευμα A II 2 3 εύθύς] εύθύς λέγειν δ II ότι o m . V II 4 5 έάν] οίον έάν V II άλλων V II άδελφόν V a c I (nisi fallor) II φίλος] ά λ λ ο ς Cas II 6 όστις] ός Αε II 5 8 πείσει γ II 34 3 4 πατέρα prius om. Cas II πατέρα alterum] τόν πατέρα A II 4 5 σε om. A a c l II άγαθόν] τόν άγαθόν Αε II ·Γ,6 τόν] τό τόν Α ε II έν πάσιν] ό ειπών (nisi fallor) A II 7 θεοΰ A II 7 9 γεγονώς A II 35 1 1 τοιγαρούν om. Cas II 2 μηδέ] καί μή γ II 3 5 ύ π ο β ά λ λ ο υ σ α ν Cas 36 1 1 τής πρός θεόν εύσεβείας capiti praecedenti coniungit V II ότι om. A II 2 έχειν περί αύτοΰ ε II 3 5 ώς om. ε II 4 5 δέ] τε δέ A II 6 άπό om. Cas II 5 8 άγαθών ή κακών V A l s l II 9 οίς] ών δ II 6 1 2 προσέχοντα Cas II ήδύ VA'P C II Η 14 ένθεν prius] ένθεν γάρ A II 15 άπολοΰντες A II 37 2 καθαρώς δ έ ζ II ή] μήτε ε II μηδέ] μήτε ε II 3 μηδέ] και γ II 38 1 1 μή] δέ μή A II 2 2 αύτοΰ] τοΰ θεοΰ AJx II πάντοτε] πάντοτε γίνεσθαι A II 3 πάντων] πάντοτε Cas II 39 4 5 λόγων om. Cas II 40 έπί o m . A II μηδέ alterum om. A II 41 1 1 άπόκρουε Cas II 2 1 τότε V II 2 ή προσοχή προσοχή] ό νοΰς είς προσοχήν καί είς προσευχήν ε II 3 3 ό om. Cas II 4 παρατριβόμενον A II αύτφ o m . V II συμμολύνεσθαι ε II 42 ' l τής χρείας ψιλής] τής ψιλής χρείας V : χρείας τής γυμνής A II χρείας ψιλής π α ρ α λ ά μ βανε] ψιλής π α ρ α λ ά μ β α ν ε χρείας ε II '"21 π α ρ α λ ά μ β α ν ε · τό] παραλαμβανέτω V II 4 3 1 1 τών] τά τών A II 2 4 άκρως om. ζ II 44 ' 2 οίόμενος] ώμοιωμένος V II 2 3 άλλων A II τ ά o m . γ II 6 αϊσθη γ II 6-7 έπραξάς τι τών λεχθέντων

(ρηθέντων IJK) περί σου ζ II 7 λεγομένων A II 45 2 2 μηδέν ά λ λ ο A II 3 φαίνου σπουδάζων] φαίνεσθαι σπούδαζε ε II 3-4 τουτέστιώσιν] τουτέστι μόνω τώ πράγματι πρόσεχε δι' δ (διό D O ) έκεΐσε πάρει, κ ά κ ε ΐ ν ο δι' ολίγου- καί ταχέως περάνας, άταράχως υπόστρεφε (ΰπόστρεψον Ο ) , κατορθούται δέ σοι τοΰτο, έάν μή ώς θέλεις (θέλης Ο ) φιλονεικής τά πράγματα γίνεσθαι, ά λ λ ά μάλλον ώς γίνονται θέλης (θέλεις Ο) ε II 3 μόνα om. ζ II 3 4 πολύ om. A II 5 ή άγανακτεΐν περί τών γινομένων om. ε II γενομένων V II 4 6 γινομένων A II 7 όσα] δταν ε II 46 1 1 οίκίαν τινός ε II μή] μή έπιβής ε II πάριθι ραδίως ε II 2 2 φύλαξαι Cas II 47 1 1 φοιτών A II 2 3 δτι alterum] καί δτι V II 4 δτι alterum o m . A II αίτείν V II 4 7 ύπόδεξαι A II 5 8 λέγων om. V II 9 μελέτηκα Cas II 48 1 1 τινών έργων Cas II 2 2 σοί] σύ Α II 3 3 και om. Cas II 6 άκαιρολογίαι τίκτονται A II 4 7 τω] τώ γε ξ: τό γε A II σιωπάν ν δ : σιωπών A II έρυθριών A II γενοΰ A II 4 9 '1 ήδονής] τίς V II 2 δοκούση o m . A a c l II 4 έαυτώ Α: έαυτόν V ô II 2 4 τούτοις] πρός τούτοις ε II δπως] καί δπως ε: om. A II 3 6 καί o m . V a c 2 || 7 τούτου om. ε 50 1 1 δτι σου] όσου V II 2 4-5 ούκ όρθώς έπιπλήξοντας ε II 51 1 μή τί] [,]τι V II 2 καί om. Cas II 52 1 1 έν] δι' A II έαυτώ (sic) V (ε fort, p.c.) II 53 1 1 μή] ϊ ν α μή A II 2 περιστρέψης V II 2 3 έκαστον έργον A II 54 '1 έκαστης A II 3 4 κεντητόν ποιεί A (add. signa transp. A 1 ) II 5 διάχρυσα V II ούτω] ού Cas II καί έπί πασών om. Cas II 4 6 όρος] δρος δέ A (nisi fallor) II 55 1 1 ένδιατρίβ[..| yac2 μ 2 ] 0 ^ 0 V o m Cas Il 2 έπί] ή έπί A II s 3 έσται A II 4 ύποστροφή V II 56 1 1 δταν] ούκ άν A II δοκή (δοκεΐ J) σοι κακώς ζ II 2 δτι om. Cas II 3 4 αύτήν V II 5 μηδέ] μή V: ούδ' A II 4 6 ψευδές ξ ( n o n ita S) II αληθώς A II 5 7 κοντόν γ II fi9 δέ om. A II άν om. ε II 10 διέμενε V: διέμενεςV^P 0 II 8 1 4 βουλευόμενον V II 9 1 4 δέ om. ε II 15 ήκιστα] ήκει πα Cas II ένόμισα V II 16 τούτον om. V II 1 0 17 έν o m . Cas II 1 1 1 8 δέ] δέ λέγε δ II άδελφός] άδελφός ή ε II άνέχεσθαι] [..|έχεσθαι V d c 2 II 57 2 3 συνεκτικοί] εύσύντακτοι κ: άσύντακτοι Κ (desunt J U ) II 4 καί-κρείττων alterum om. Cas II 3 4-5 ούδέ-ούδέ] οΰτε-ούτε ζ II 6 ά λ λ ο V a c | / 2 nisi fallor II 58 1 1 μέν] δέ V II 2 3 ά στοχάζη] άποστοχάζει V II [ 5 9 ] 3 3 οίον om. Cas II 4 4-5 έπιεν-δτι om. Cas II fi7 έκεΐνον δέ καλώς αύτό πεποιηκέναι] έκεινον δέ δτι καλώς αύτώ περιπεποιηκέναι Cas; 'ίσως δτι κάλον: (sic) vel δτι κάλ. (sic) α. πεπ. Casaubon m K II έκείνους ε II αύτώι V II 8 ού o m . V II 9 έκείνοις ε II 60 '1 μηδαμώς έαυτόν V II 2 2 μή] μή δέ V II 3 άλλοις γινόμενος V II γινόμενος β II 3 3 ό om. Cas II 61 3 3 όντος Cas II δέ om. Cas II 4 άγνωστος] παντάπασιν άγνωστος ε II 4 4 καί alterum (i.e. post οίδας) o m . V II 5 τότε δέ V II 62 s 3 ή om. V II 64 2 3 προσδοκά V II 65 1 1 ψέγει] λέγει V II 2 2 ή om. Cas II 4 6 ψέγη] λέγη V II 7 εύλαβούμενοι V II fi8 άνιεμένη Cas II 9 παραφυλάττει] παραφυλάττει καί έπίβουλον ε II 66 2 2 ποιεΐν om. Cas (add. post αύτών Casaubon m K) II [67] 4 8 post αύτό aliquid erasum in V II τούτω o m . Cas II 6 8 1 1 έπίμενε Cas II 2 3 έπί σοί om. V II ψέγοντας] λέγοντας V II 69 2 2 ά λ λ ' ά ν ή ρ ήδη τέλειος] ή τέλειος ά λ λ ' ά ν ή ρ ν II 3 3 προθεσμιών] προθεσμίας ε II διδώς] έπιζητών ε II 4 σεαυτώ] εαυτόν (sine spiritu) V II ορίζεις Cas II 5 καί om. ε II 4 7 προσοχής V II ήδη] ή Cas II 8 άναμονήν ε II 5 9 έπίστασις V d c 2 (ut vid.) II Γ>11 τόν άγώνα τόν καλόν ε} II καί om. ζ II 7 0 2 2 πανάγιόν e j 11 3 δπου σοί] δπου σύ Cas; όπόσε Casaubon m K II σοί] σύ δ Cas: σι (nisi fallor) V, add. aliquid s.l. V 2 II 4 4 δέ om. Q U II 5-6 θεώ prius—γάρ om. V II 5 θεώ prius] τώ θεώ ε II θεώ δέ om. Cas 1171 1 1 ήμάς οϋτως V II 2 2 συσκευάζονται (sic) Cas: παρασκευάσωνταί ξ II s 4 δυναμένωι V a c 2 II 6 άποκτεΐναι o m . Cas II post άποκτεΐναι add. φοβήθητε δέ μ ά λ λ ο ν τόν δυνάμενον καί ψυχήν καί σώμα άπολέσαι έν γεέννη ζ (= Ευ. Matt. 10,28b)

PARAPHRASIS CHRISTIANA LECTIONES VARIANTES AD REM ORTHOGRAPHICAM PERTINENTES

1 έ κ κ λ η σ ι ς Ρ : έγκησις V JC (nisi fallor): έγκλισις V*PC II 5 6 ο ί η θ ε ί ς Α II 7 έμποδισθήσει A II λυπηθήσει A II ταραχθήσει A II 8 μέμψει A II fi8 οίηθείς A II 10 μέμψει A II 11 πράξης A II ούχ έξεις] ούκέξεις Ρ II 2 1 1 τηλικούτσυν Ρ II 3 4 θέλεις Ρ II άρχην (sic) V II 4 5 άποτέξη V II 6 ειλικρινείς V II ε ύ λ α β ί α Cas II 3 23 έπιτα Ρ II 3 5 ώφθή Ρ II 4 6 όρέγει VA II 6-8 έκκλίσεως-έκκλίσει evanuit in A, iterum scripsit A* Il 6 έκκλήσεως Ρ: έγκλήσεως V: έκκλισία A* II 7 έγκλίνεις VA* II 8 όδυνηθείση M II έγκλήσει V: έκκλίση A II 4 1 1 έκκλίνεις Ρ: έγκλίνης V II 2 έκκλίνης A Cas: έγκλ ν ε ι ς ν Ρ ε (rasura) II δέ M II έάν M II έγκλίναι V II θέλεις ΡΑ II 3 όιάξης A II έκκλησιν Ρ: έγκλησιν V II 3 6 όρέγει ΡΑ II 7 πάρεστι β II 4 8 ύφεξαιρέσεως M II άνημένως V II 5 ' 3 μικροτέρων A Cas II έάν M II στέργεις Ρ II 4 έάν M II 3 5 άν γ II 6 1 1 μ έ λ λ ε ι ς Ρ II 2 3 έστιάσεσιν Ρ II 3 3 προτιμωτέρους M Cas II 4 7 έπιλέγεις ΡΑ (η P l s l ) II 5 1 0 έθελον Cas II 7 3 3 έμποδιζόμεθα Cas II 4 λυπούμεθα A II 5 τουτέστιν Ρ II 8 2 είργμένου V II 9 2 2 οίστόν] 6 ιστών A II 3 λέγεις ΡΑ II ϊσθη Ρ II 4 έπαίρει A II 3 5 έχεις ΡΑ Cas 1110 1 1 έξέλθης V II 2 ίδρεύσασθαι PV II έστιν Ρ Cas II κοχλήδας Ρ II 3 5 βληθείς Α 11 4 6 ούτως PVA Cas II 5 7 κυβερνίτης M II 8 άφής V Cas II μηδ' Ρ Cas II 6 9 ά π α λ λ α γ ε ί ς A II 7 1 0 έπώμενος Ρ II 11 πήσεται Μ 12 1 1 δ' α II άν M II 2 θέλεις ΡΑ II 2 2 χώλοσις Μ: χόλωσις V II δ' α II 4 δ' Cas II 13 22 ύ μ ΐ ν V II 3 έχαρήσατο Ρ II 3 4 πειράσει ΡΑ Cas II 5 προσφέρειται Ρ II 6 άνεξηκακίαν Ρ II 14 1 1 ά λ λ ά Cas II 22 άπεδώθη Ρ II 3 3 ά λ λ ά M II άγανακτής Ρ II 4 5 έδοκεν A l l 5 6 δέδωκέ β Cas II 7 έδοξε A II ούτω γ Cas II fi8 τόν] τού A a c l II 7 1 0 [ J ρ ά ν τ ι ζ ε V a c l II 11 πανδοκίου Ρ: πανδοχίου A II 15 ' 2 et 3 ούχ εξω] ούκέξω Ρ: ούκ έξω Cas II 2 κτήσομαι Cas II 2 3 έστιν Ρ II 4 τ α ρ α σ σόμενον: ν ο ν in ras. Ρ II 3 6 άμαρτίματα Ρ II 16 ' 2 σμικροτέρων Ρ Cas II 2 3 άπόλυνται Ρ II 3 5 περιγίγνεται Ρ II 4 5 κ α λ ε ί ς ΡΑ Cas II 6 θ έ λ η ς Cas II 7 ταράττεσθαι Ρ Cas ζ Ο : ταράσεσθαι (sic) A l l s 8 προαιρεί Α: π ρ ο α ι ρ [ . ] P a c l : προαιρεΐς Cas II 7 1 2 έσχε V II γεγονώς Ρ II 17 1 1 ύπόμενον Cas II ά ν ν ο υ ς V II 2 ήλήθιος A II 2 3 δόξεις PA II 'ίσθη P a c l II 3 5 ά λ λ ' β Cas II θαττέρου V II 18 1 2 θέλης] θέλεις ΡΑ II θέλεις] θέλης Cas II 2 3 οϋτω γ Cas II 3 4 θέλεις ΡΑ II 5 ήλήθιόν V*PCA II ά λ λ ά M II 6 ά λ λ ' ότι P a c l II άλό V II 19 1 θέλεις ΡΑ II 2 δ ύ ν α σ ε V dC 2 II 20 1 θελουμένων A l l 1-2 μή θελομένων] μή θελουμένων (sic) τών έπ' έκείνω A a c l II 2 έχον Ρ II 3 έ λ ε ύ θ ε ρ ί . . ] P a c l II 21 3 4 περίμενον Cas II έλθη] έλθοι A (nisi fallor) II 8 ά ν α δ ε ι χ θ ή σ ε ι Α. II 2 2 1 1 κ λ έ ο ν τ α Ρ II ϊδης] [ , ] δ η ς P a c l II 2 συναρπάσει Ρ II γεγονώς ΡΑ II 4 6 όκνήσεις Ρ: ώκνήσης Α: ac 1 acI όμνήσης V 2 II 23 1 φυλάττην V II έάν prius] άν Αε II προβεβηκώσιν Ρ II έβουλήθη δ: ήβουλήθει (sic) A II 3 χολόν A II Η έστί V II δωθέν Ρ II 24 1 1 έπιστεΐ A II διάκριναι A 11 *2 ούδαμώθεν Ρ II 4 έθέλω Cas II 3 5 εύχαριστείας Ρ II 2 6 '1 πρωτιμώμενον V a c 2 || 2 μακαρίτης V a c l II σ υ ν α ρ π α σ θ ή ς Ρ II 2 4 συμβαίνει Ρ Cas II 3 5 τί] τη V a c l ut vid. II 6 βουλούμενον A 2 7 ' 2 τούτου P a c l II 2 3 αίρεθισθής V: έρεθισθείς Α: έριθισθης Cas II 4 ήρέθησέν Ρ: ήρέθισέ β Cas II 3 6 εαυτού Vô II 28 3 ούδέ] ούδει V: ούδ' γ II

έπιθυμήσης P l s l A II 29 ' 2 καταμωκωσομένων Ρ: καταμ[.]κ:[[.]]σομένων V a c 2 : καταμωκισομένων M II 3 έρρούντων Ρ II έπανελήλυθε V t II 3 8 ηττηθείς A II προσλήψει A II 30 2 4 έ σ τ ί . ] P a c l II 31 2 3 έστίν Ρ II 5 6 ύ π ο β ά λ λ η Ρ'Ρ 3 ,40 33 1 4 ,41 33 1 5 ,45 33 1 6 ,47 34,7 sqq. 34,9 36.1 36,7 39.2 41.3 44,1-3 45,3 46',2 48b 2 ,3 49,2 49,9 49,12 50,2 51',2 51 ',3 5l',6 51 2 ,13-14 51 3 ,15-16 53',2 532,6-7

120 120 121

121 122 122 122-123 123 123-124 124 124-125 125-126 126 126 127 127 127-128 128-129 129-131 131-132 132 132 132-133 133 133-134 132 134-135 135-136 136 136-137 137-138 138 138-139 139 132 139-140 140-141 141 141 141-143 143 143-145 145 145-146 146

2. [Nili] Encheiridion 12a,2-3 15,1-2

188 189

18,2 20,6 22,7 23,1 24,4 30,3 31a 4 6 31c 12 ,6-10 31c'2,6-7 31c 1 3 8-9 31c 14 ,9-10 332,5 33 4 ,8-9 35b ,12-13 38a',5 38a 3 ,9 38b 4 ,1 39,1 40,7 53a,6 55a,7 61',4-5 612,7 63,1 66b 3 ,5 71a 1 ,3 71a 2 ,6 7 la 4 " 5 ,12

189 189 190 190 190 190 190-191 191 191 191-192 192 192 192 192 192 193 193 193 193 193-194 194 194 194 194 194 194-195 195 195

3. Paraphrasis Christiana 3 2 ,3 3 4 .6-7 4 4 ,7 6 4 .7-8 9 3 ,6 ΙΟ',Ι 10 7 ,10 16 1 .1 16 8 ,13 17',1 22',2 22 2 ,4 24 3 .4 24 3 .5 26', 1 30 2 .2 31 9 .15 31 '2,19 3 1 1 3 22.24 31 ' 5 ,26-27 3122,39

241 241 241 241-242 242 242 243 243-244 244 244 244-245 245 245 245 245 245-246 246-247 247 247-248 248 248

31 2 4 ,42 32 2 ,3 32 7 ,13 32'%23 33a 6 ,8 35',2 42 a ,2 44 1 .3 45 2 .2 47 2 ,3-4 491.4 51,2 56*,2 56 9 ,15 57',2-3 572.3 57 3 .4

248 248 248-249 249 249 249-250 250 250 250 250-251 251 251 251 252 252 252 252

63.1 64^,3 662,2 67>,7 693,3.4 70 4 ,6 71',2 71 3 ,5

253 253 245-246 253 253 253-254 254 254

4. Encheiridion Vaticani gr. 2231 10,10-11 18,3-5 31 4 ,24 63,5

263 262 263 262-263

INDEX CODICUM

Atheniensis Benaki Museum 45 (T.A. 16) Ench Mm: pp. 3, 34-36 Atheniensis Byzantine Museum, Kolyva 58 Nil C: pp. 151, 182-183 Atheniensis National Library 373 Ench T: pp. 3, 19, 51-53 Atheniensis National Library 521 Par Κ. pp. 199, 217, 219-221 Athous 1820 (Philotheou 56) Par R pp. 199, 221-222, 225-227 Athous 4263 (Iviron 143) MZL: pp. 151, 182-183 Bern, Bürgerbibliothek, Bernensis 97 Par B: pp. 199-200, 215-216 Bern, Biirgerbibliothek, Bernensis 150 Par C: pp. 200, 215-216 Bern, Bürgerbibliothek, Bernensis 691 EnchX: pp. 3, 63, 65-66 Berolinensis gr. 175 Ench O: pp. 4, 34-35 Besançon, Bibliothèque Municipale 420 Ench Aa: pp. 4, 61-62 Bononiensis 2359 Simp H: pp. 87-88, 101-102, 104, 106-108 Bucharest gr. 645 Ench Ii: pp. 4, 77 Bucharest gr. 655 NilB: pp. 151, 182-183 Bucharest gr. 1030 Enchjj: pp. 4, 77 Cantabrigiensis 1920 (Ii. VI. 41) EnchKk: pp. 4, 75-76 Dresdensis Da 55 Ench Γ: pp. 4-5, 19-21, 25-28 Edinburgh, University Library 234 Ench Hh: pp. 5, 34-35, 37, 39-40 Edinburgh, University Library 3076 Ench Nn: pp. 5, 61-62 Escorialensis gr. 39 (R.III.5) Ench P: pp. 5, 34-35, 37-38 Escorialensis gr. 272 (Y.III.2) Par D: pp. 200, 221-224 Escorialensis gr. 289 (Y.III. 19) Par E: pp. 200, 221-222, 225 Florentinus Laurentianus 31,37 Ench Π: pp. 5-6, 19-21, 25-26 Florentinus Laurentianus 55,4 Par M: pp. 200, 213-216 Florentinus Laurentianus 55,7 Ench H: pp. 6, 33-35, 37 Florentinus Laurentianus 74,13 Ench R: pp. 6, 35-36 Florentinus Laurentianus 81,22 Ench N SimpN: pp. 6, 48, 88, 110 Florentinus Laurentianus CS 163 Ench W: pp. 6, 63, 65-66 Florentinus Laurentianus Redianus 15 Enchb: pp. 7, 40-42, 108-109 Karlsruhe K 508 Ench Ee: pp. 7, 48-50 Kozani, ΧΣ 13 Ench Oo: pp. 7, 77-78 Leidensis Perizonianus gr. O 5 Ench Z: pp. 7, 63-64, 76, 79 Leidensis Vossianus gr. Q 54 Par H: pp. 200-201, 222, 227-228, 231-233 Londiniensis Add. 10064 Simp U: pp. 88, 98 Londiniensis Acid. 11887 EnchPp: pp. 7-8, 61-62 Londiniensis Burney 80 Ench Ff: pp. 8, 34-35, 37-39 Londiniensis Regius 16.C.XIX Simp O: pp. 88, 110 Mediolanensis Ambrosianus gr. 481 (L 43 supp.) Ench C: pp. 8, 19-21, 31-32, 40 Monacensis gr. 25 ParF: pp. 201, 221-222, 226 Monacensis gr. 529 Ench Γγ: pp. 8, 19-20, 25, 27-28 Monacensis gr. 567 Ench D: pp. 8, 40, 42-43 Mosquensis Bibliotheca Synodalis 438 Vladimir Par S: pp. 201, 222, 227-229 Neapolitanus II.C.37 (Borb. 96, Farnesianus ) Ench A: pp. 9, 19-21, 25, 27-30 Neapolitanus III.E.29 (Borb. 351) Ench Y Simp Y: pp. 9, 43-45, 47-49, 88, 108 n.14, 110 Neapolitanus III.E.30 (Borb. 352) Simp Ζ: pp. 89, 96 Neapolitanus Girolamini C.F. 2.11 Ench Σ: pp. 9, 19-21,25,27-30 Oxoniensis Bodleianus 16991 Ench Gg: pp. 9, 39 Oxoniensis Canonicianus gr. 23 Ench Tt: pp. 9-10, 19, 23-25 Oxoniensis Collegium Novum 247 Ench Q Simp Q: pp. 10, 45, 89, 108 n.14, 110 Oxoniensis Laudianus gr. 21 Par L: pp. 201, 221-222, 224-225 Parisinus gr. 39 Pari: pp. 201-202, 222, 227-228, 231-232 Parisinus gr. 362 Par O: pp. 202, 221-222, 225-227

Parisinus gr. 858 Par N: pp. 202, 221-224 Parisinus gr. 1053 Par P: pp. 202, 213-217 Parisinus gr. 1054 Ench Ss Nil G: pp. 10, 30-31, 152, 170-171 Parisinus gr. 1220 Nil P: pp. 152, 165-170 Parisinus gr. 1302 Par Q: pp. 202-203, 222, 227-228, 230-231 Parisinus gr. 1959 Simp R pp. 89, 103 Parisinus gr. 1960 Simp]: pp. 89, 101, 104, 108-109 Parisinus gr. 2072 EnchESimpE: pp. 10, 43-44, 89, 104-105 Parisinus gr. 2122 EnchX: pp. 10, 63, 65-66 Parisinus gr. 2123 Ench Bb: pp. 11, 61-62 Parisinus gr. 2124 Ench U: pp. 11, 55-57 Parisinus gr. 2446 Par T. pp. 203, 215-216 Parisinus gr. 3047 Ench Φ: pp. 11, 19-21, 25-27 Parisinus Suppl. gr. 200 Ench Ce: pp. 11, 61-62 Parisinus Suppl. gr. 684 M/S: pp. 152, 174-175, 177-178 Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1023 Ench F Simp F: pp. 11-12, 43-44, 90, 104-106 ParisinusSuppl.gr. MM EnchX: pp. 12, 19-21,31-33 Parisinus Dupuy 902 Ench Dd: pp. 12, 61-62 Parisinus Mazarineus 4459 Ench I Simp I: pp. 12, 46-47, 90, 110 Parisinus Mazarineus 4460 Simp D: pp. 90, 94-97 Perusinus gr. 173 Simp V: pp. 90, 98-99 Romanus Angelicus gr. 80 Ench S: pp. 12, 36 Sinaiticus Catharina 385 Par U: pp. 203, 222, 227-228, 230 Uppsalensis gr. 25 EnchG: pp. 12-13, 63-65 Vaticanus gr. 100£nc/(Vv: pp. 13,35-36 Vaticanus gr. 326 Simp B: pp. 90, 94-97 Vaticanus gr. 327 Simp C: pp. 52-55, 91, 97-100 Vaticanus gr. 653 M/W: pp. 152, 174-177 Vaticanus gr. 740 ParJ: pp. 203, 222, 227-228, 231-234 Vaticanus gr. 894 Ench Ww: pp. 13, 19, 32-33 Vaticanus gr. 952 Ench Θ: pp. 13, 19-21, 25, 27-30 Vaticanus gr. 1142 Par K: pp. 203, 222, 227-228, 231-234 Vaticanus gr. 1314 £nc/t Ψ: pp. 13, 19-21,25-26 Vaticanus gr. 1434 M/V: pp. 153, 174-177 Vaticanus gr. 1823£π