Studies in the Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Sophocles

279 130 10MB

English Pages 217 [250] Year 1952

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Studies in the Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Sophocles

Citation preview

Illinois Studies in Language and Literature VOLUME


University of Illinois Press URBANA
















Vol. xxxvi, Nos. 1-2


URBANA, 1952











Director Emeritus of the Rockefeller Foundation

a token of lasting gratitude

PREFACE This volume is based on research in the manuscripts of Sophocles which I began in 1943. Some results of my investigations were published in the following papers: ‘The Manuscripts of Sophocles,” Traditto2 (1944) 1-41, and “The Sophocles Recension of Manuel Moschopulus,”’ Transactions of the American Philological Association 80 (1949) 94-173. Now, I am presenting the main body of my studies in this field. I am greatly indebted to the University of Illinois Research Board which generously supported my project by granting funds for the acquisition of manuscript photographs. Numerous libraries all over Europe extended to me every courtesy in fulfilling my constant requests for information and reproductions and in permitting me to publish facsimile specimens that appear at the end of this book. Many librarians, colleagues, and friends abroad helped me with some more specific information, which is acknowledged on several occasions in the text. Of course, the responsibility for the accuracy of such data as reported here is exclusively mine. For all these favors I am especially grateful to the following persons: Dom Anselmo M. Albareda, O.S.B. (Vatican), Otto Brechler (Vienna), Raffaele Cantarella (Milan), Valentino Capocci (Vatican), Vittorio De Marco (Rome), Aubrey Diller (Bloomington, Indiana), Luigi Ferrarit (Venice), Msgr. Giovanni Galbiati (Milan), Manuel F. Galiano (Madrid), Carlo Gallavotti (Rome), Ciro Giannelli (Vatican), Guerriera Guerrieri (Naples), W. O. Hassall (Oxford), R. W. Hunt (Oxford), Georgios Kournoutos (Athens), Teresa Lodi (Florence), Irma Merolle-Tondi (Florence), Eugen Meyer (Berlin), N. Morata, O.E.S.A. (Escorial), Agostino Pertusi (Milan), Linos Politis (Thessalonike), Jean Porcher (Paris), Paul Ruf (Munich), H. J. Scheltema (Groningen), Karel Svoboda (Prague), Sophie Trenkner (Cambridge, England), Franz Unterkircher (Vienna). My colleague, Professor Ben E. Perry, gave me the benefit of his learned and stimulating advice. Professor Henning Larsen, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and Professor John L. Heller, head of our Department of Classics, followed my endeavors with friendly helpfulness. I am very grateful to Professor Harris F. Fletcher, chairman of the Board of Editors of the Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, for taking effective interest in my work and for arranging its publication. Staff members of our University Library favored me with valuable cooperation, of which I am very appreciative.

University of Illinois Urbana

A.T. Vil













The Recension of Manuel Moschopulus



The Recension of Thomas Magistros



Readings in Sophocles



The Recension of Demetrius Triclinius.



The Source of the Turnebus Scholia



The Jena Recension .



The Barocci Recension ß.





Codices Vetustiores — The Laurentian Roman Family p .

Family X and the 101


Codices Deteriores of the Triad


The Manuscripts of the Class





The Manuscripts of the Class





Less Important Manuscripts of Antigone, neus, Trachiniae, Philoctetes


The Paris Class


Notes on Some Manuscripts





Indexes. Plates




. .

205 at end

Stemmata are on pages 119 and 137. iX







Florence, Laur. 32,9.


Parisgr. 2112.


Florence, Laur. Conventi Soppressi 152


Vatic. er. 2291.


Florence, Laur. 28,255...


Venice gr. 48...


Florence, Laur. Conventi Soppressi 71.


Naples II.F.9




Venice gr.472




Vatic. gr. 1333...


Venice gr.470

. Td














Vienna phil. gr. 2090.







VI .


2... .




. .




. .












Parisgr. 2711.


Cambridge, University Library, Dd.X1.70.




Parisgr. 2398...




Oxford, Barocci 61.



20000. .




The original sises of the manuscripts are reduced in most of these plates.








Paris gr. 2712 Oxford, Barocci 61 Oxford, Barocci 66 London, Harley 5744 Paris gr. 2798 Venice gr. XI 20 Paris gr. 2735 Naples II.F.9 Cambridge, Trinity College, R.3.31 Florence, Laur. 28, 25

Florence, Laur. Conventi Soppressi 152 Florence, Laur. 32, 40 Paris gr. 2796 Jena Bos.q.7 Paris gr. 2598 Moscow,


Istor. Muzel, olim Sinod.

Bibl. gr. 505

Vatic. Palat. gr. 151 Vatic. Barberin. gr. 125 Vienna phil. gr. 270 Athens,

Athens, Perugia Venice Berlin, Oxford,

᾿Εθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη,


᾿Εθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 1059 I.107 gr. 615 Phillipps 1604 D’Orville 73

Athens, Μουσεῖον Aoßepdov, κῶδιξ KoduBa


Bologna, Bibl. Univ., 2700 Paris, Supplément grec 500 Paris gr. 2812 A (in At. 1356-end and El. 1-488) Oxford, Canonici gr. 86 Paris gr. 2790 Milan, Ambros. C 11 sup. Oxford, Barocci 216 Kalavryta, Mov} rod Μεγάλου Σπηλαίον, 64 Florence, Laur. 31, 10

Florence, Florence, Paris gr. Roudnice

Laur. 32, 9 Laur. Conventi Soppressi 142 2799 VI.F.e.43



Va W Wa Wb







Modena a.T.9.4 (in fol. 1"-143”: ancient scholia) Madrid 4677 Leiden, Voss. gr. Q 6 Heidelberg, Palat. gr. 40 Vatic. gr. 904 Paris, Suppl&ment grec 109 Vatic. gr. 2291 Vatic. Urbinas gr. 141 Paris gr. 2711 Venice gr. 470 Dresden Da.21 Vienna phil. gr. 163 Vienna phil. gr. 209 Naples II.F.34 (in Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil.) Modena a.Q.5.20 Cambridge, University Library, Dd.XI.70 Paris, Supplément grec 310 Venice gr. 467 Vatic. gr. 910 Venice gr. 468 V, = Vin Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Vs = Vin Antig., Phil., Trach., Oed. Col. Moscow, Gosud. Istor. Muzel, Khludov A 172 Milan, Ambros. G 56 sup. Milan, Ambros. E 103 sup. Vatic. gr. 1332

We Vienna phil. gr. 281 Wd Vatic. Palat. gr. 319 We X Xa Xr Xs Y Ya Z Za Zb Zc Zd Ze

Vatic. Palat. gr. 139 Florence, Laur. Conventi Soppressi 71 Vatic. gr. 50 Vienna phil. gr. 161 Vienna philol. supplem. gr. 71 Vienna phil. gr. 48 Brussels 11343 Venice gr. 472 Florence, Laur. 31, 8 Munich gr. 500 Vatic. gr. 1333 Paris gr. 2795 Paris gr. 2812 A (in At. 1-1355 and El. 489-end)


Paris gr. 2884 (in Oed. Tyr. 1302-end and Antig.)


Florence, Laur. 32, 2



Vatic. gr. 57 Vatic. gr. 920 Paris gr. 2787 Florence, Laur. Conventi Soppressi 172 (in Ai. 1-668, Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Venice gr. 617 (in Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Venice gr. 616 (in Anttg., Oed. Col., Trach., Florence, Laur. 31, 1 Kosinitsa, unnumbered ms. Florence, Laur. Conventi Soppressi 41 Leiden, Bibl. Publ. Graec. 60 A


+ Vatic. Phil.) Phil.) Phil.)















Manuscripts BBaBbBcBd. t the Thoman recension. Heptad. Scholia ἤγουν πειραθῆναι on the tetrad. Symbols of Thoman mss. begin with Z. λ the Laurentian tradition. Heptad. See stemmata: pp. 119, 137. ha a subarchetype of the Laurentian tradition, being the immediate source of L and A. Ab a subarchetype of the Laurentian tradition, from which ¢ and o descended. £ the Moschopulean recension. Triad. Symbols of Moschopulean mss. begin with X. £m the purely Moschopulean class, with scholia οἰκείως. tp the Moschopuleo-Planudean class, with scholia οἰκείως + σύνταξις. x ἴδε Paris class, represented by AUY. p the Roman tradition. Heptad. Manuscripts GQOMR. For p, pa, pb, pc, pd: see stemmata, pp. 119 and 137. σ a final portion of Oed. Tyr. (ca. 900-end) supplemented in the Roman tradition from a Laurentian source (derived from Ab). @ acclass of younger veteres (deteriores) stemming from the Laurentian tradition. Triad. Manuscripts CEFNO and others. y the Venice class of younger veteres (deleriores) stemming from the Roman tradition, but following many text readings of ¢. Triad. Manuscripts VWWa and others. w the early medieval minuscule archetype of the ‘“‘old”’ tradition. Heptad. w = Xp. vet. = veteres. The veteres include the vetustiores and the deteriores. vetust. = vetustiores = LAGQMR. deteriores = class & and class y. Mosch. = Moschopulus = ξ. Thom. = Thomas Magistros = ¢. Tricl. = Triclinius. Jena recension = a late Byzantine recension (Atax, Electra). Scholia ἀναρμοστίαν. Symbols of manuscripts of this class begin with J.




The mss. are discussed on the pages indicated in ttalics. SYMBOLS jf Jeg Jo

Jm Jp

Ya | Tg Tb

ATHENS, ᾿Εθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 1056 (cf. p. 92) κ«αοἪ.«------ ᾿Εθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 1059 (p. 92) —s_ La wee Μουσεῖον Λοβέρδου, κῶδιξ Κολυβὰ 108 (p. 93) ATHOS, Μονὴ Βατοπεδίου, 33 (p. 207) _----- Mov? Baroreölov, 671 (p. 207) ---Mov} ᾿Ιβήρων, 132 (p. 94) w----- Mor? ᾿Ιβήρων, 185 (p. 207) ----- Μονὴ Meylorns Aabpas, unnumbered ms. (p. 207) BASEL C.VI.33 (p. 200) BERLIN, Phillipps 1588 (pp. 27, 790) -.--.-.- Phillipps 1604 (p. 92) ΒΟΙΟΟΝΑ, Bibl. Comunale dell’Archiginnasio, A 20 (p. 77) ------ςς Bibl. Universitaria, 2700 (p. 93) BREMEN, Staatsbibliothek, b.23 (pp. 77,2 Brescia B.VI.24 (2. 797) ᾿ BRUSSELS 11343 (p. /9/) CAMBRIDGE, Emmanuel College, 1.2.11 (p. 27) _ .-------- Trinity College, R.3.31 (p. 750) ..-.------.- University Library, Dd.XI.70 (p. 87) DRESDEN, Da.21 (p. 76) 222. Da.22 (p. 793) EscoriAL T.IIl.15 (2. 27)

Anno. 222 F ZS Za K Zg




w.IV.15 (p. 192) 2.1.9 (pp. 27, 190)

FLORENCE, —--___. -.-------ς 22222202 -.-......--.---------

Laur. Laur. Laur. Laur. Laur. Laur.


Laur. 32,32

(p. 27)


Laur. 32, 34

(p. 27)

.--.-----ο.ς 2222... ΠΝ --------ςπα

Laur. Laur. Laur. Laur. Laur.


28, 25 31,1 31,8 31,9 31,10 32,2

Laur. 32,9

(2. /45) (p. 66) (. 4/) (p. 27) (p. 766) (pp. 34, 47)

(p. 107)

32,40 (p. /59) 32,49 (p. 27) 32,51 (ῤ. 27) Conventi Soppressi 41 (p. 760) Conv. Soppr. 66 ᾧ(ῤ. 27)







FLORENCE, weneennee Annan Barca “ονννννος Aarau Al22ununn --------wannnenee




Laur. Conv. Soppr. 71 (2.27) Laur. Conv. Soppr. 98 (p. 27) Laur. Conv. Soppr. 142 (p. /86) Laur. Conv. Soppr. 152 (pp. 703, 110) Laur. Conv. Soppr. 172 (pp. 27, 42) Biblioteca Riccardiana, 34 (pp. 27, 67, 92, 190) Bibl. Riccard., 77 (p. /88) Bibl. Riccard., 89 (ρ. 200) Bibl. Riccard., 2546 (p. 200)

Grascow, University, Hunterian Museum, U.7.18

HAMBURG, cod. ms. in scrinio 16 HEIDELBERG, Palat. gr. 40

Jw Zu

(p. 156)

HoLgwamM 271 = (p. 799) Jena, Bos.q.7 (pp. 87, 90) KALAVRYTA, Mov} τοῦ Μεγάλου Σπηλαίον, 64

Rep. I.4.44.a (p. 27) Rep. 1.4.44.b (ρ. 27) Bibl., graec. 731 (p. 27) 267 (p. 207) Burney 106 (pp. 28, 66)

παι een πα eee ee eee ee

Harley 5743 Harley 5744

(p. 790) (p. 97)

METEORA, Mop} τῆς Μεταμορφώσεως, 345

(p. 207)

Maprip 4617 καςος.ος 467]

(p. 28) (p. 147)

MıLan, Ambros. A 105 sup.



(p. 95)

KosINITSA, unnumbered ms. (2. 67) LEIDEN, B.P.G. 60 A (. /02) anne Voss. gr.Q6 (p. /48)

LEIPZIG, Stadtbibliothek, weneee----- eee eee eee LENINGRAD, Gosud. Publ. LESBOS, Mori τοῦ Λειμῶνος, Lonpon, British Museum, Bb

(2. 799)

(p. 28)

anna a

Ambros. B 65 sup. Ambros. B 97 sup.

(p. /90) (p. 28)


Ambros. C 11 sup. Ambros. C 24 sup. Ambros. E 32 sup.

(p. 94) (pp. 28, 66) (p. 799)


Ambros. Ε 77 sup.

(pp. 28, 65)

a un.

Ambros. E 103 sup. (. 760) Ambros. G 43 sup. (2. 28)


Ambros. G 56 sup.

ann ------

Ambros. H 105 sup. (p. 28) Ambros. L 39 sup. (p. 28)


Ambros. N 166 sup.

MoDpEnA a.Q.5.20 (p. 8/) ===... &.T.9.2 Ὁ. 79)

(p. /53)

(2. 28)

(2. 27)



MODENA a.T.9.4

(p. 28)

MONTPELLIER, Faculté de Médecine, H.429 (p. 797) Moscow, Gosud. Istor. Muzel, olim Sinod. Bibl. gr. 504 (p. 792) κὀοΟ----------......-.-.----....- olim Sinod. Bibl. gr. 505 (p. 9) re Khludov A 172 (2. 157) MUNICH gr. 313 (p. 68) un... gr. 334 (p. 68) ------- gr. 494 (p. 28) ttt eee gr. 500 (p. 4/) 22... gr. 507 (p. 28) -ο------ gr. 5646 (p. 790)

Ib A



NaPLes 11.5.9




(pp. 68, 709)

-------. 2.U.9.19

Bnei Ba Jy Js


κ------- II.F.34

(pp. 77, 28) (p. 76)

“ΜΝ ILF.35 (p. 158) ΜΝ ILF.36 (pp. 28, 65) Oxrorp, Bodleian Libr., Auct.F.3.25 ΒΝ Auct.T.2.15 wane eee eee eee Lie +--+ +--+ - 2.2. ss twee Ballen en nennen nee ene eee eee


Barocci 61 (p. 96) Barocci 66 (p. 97) Barocci 216 (p. 94) Canonici Greek 86 (p. 93) D’Orville 72 (p. 28) D’Orville 73 (p. 92)

wane nee ee 20 22.2.0220 Laud Greek 54 Panis gr. 2531 (p. 796) κ ΚἝ---- gr. 2598 (ῤ. 87)

un... ο-ὕ.-...------e-Cu. T A

Ζ It

(pp. 76, 28) (. 79)

gr. gr. gr. gr. gr.

2662 2711 2712 2722 2735

un. gr. 2755 —..... gr. 2787 πκ κο---ςἰ- gr. 2100

Zd λ λ Ὺλ Ha

a ....-.-.nun.

gr. gr. gr. gr.

2794 2795 2796 2797

(p. /96) (p. 74) (pp. 28, 173, 190) (p. 20/) (p. 149) (p. 77) (pp. 34, 42) (p. 94)

(ῤ. (p. (p. (p.

163) 7) 760) 77)


κ-.-.--- gr. 2798

(p. 98)


_...-- gr. 2799 ----- gr. 2805

(p. 184) (p. 65)

Ze+ Jr

..-... gr. 2812 A

(pp. 4/, 93)

(pp. 76, 28)





PaRISs gr. 2820 a gr. 2884

. νος gr. 2886




(p. 29)

(pp. 29, 47)

(p. 198) (ῤ. 7892)

----- Supplement grec 109 (p. 702 --. Suppl&ment grec 310 (ῤ. 82) ----- Supplément grec 498 (p. 29) ----- Suppl&ment grec 500 (p. 93) a Supplément grec 1229 (p. 757) ----- Supplément grec 1247 (p. 29) PARMA, Bibl. Palatina, De-Rossi graec. 8 (p. /96) PATMOS, Mov? *Iwdvvov τοῦ Θεολόγον, 424 (p. 207) Perugia 1.107 (p. 92)

Rome, Bibl. Casanatense, 1243

(p. 29)

ROUDNICE NAD LaBEM, Lobkovick4 Knihovna, VI.F.e.43 (p. VaTICAN, Barberini gr. 125 (p. 9/) Ottoboni gr. 182 (p. 29)

Ottoboni gr. 284 Palat. Palat. Palat. Palat. Palat.

gr. gr. gr. gr. gr.

99 131 139 151 287

Palat. gr. 319


Xa Zh




(p. 762)

Palat. gr. 335 (p. 29) Reginensis gr. 153 (p. 795) Urbinas gr. 140 (p. 29) Urbinas gr. 141 (p. 769) Vatic. gr. 16 (p. 77) Vatic. gr. 40 (p. 29) Vatic. gr. 44 (p. 29) (p. 29) Vatic. gr. 45 (p. 78) Vatic. gr. 46 Vatic. gr. 47 (p. 78) (p. 29) Vatic. gr. 48 Vatic. gr. 49 (p. 194) Vatic. gr. 50 (p. 29) Vatic. gr. 57 (p. 42)


Zk Wb

(p. 799)

(p. 66) (p. 793) (p. 763) (2. 9/) (pp. 34, 42)

Vatic. Vatic.

. 904 .910 . 911 .920 . 1332

(p. 159) (p. 170) (p. 29) (p. 42) (p. 167)



VATICAN, Vatic. gr. 1333 w------- Vatic. gr. 1363

ic. gr. 1826 ic. gr. 1948 ic. gr. 2221

ic. gr. 2291


(pp. 40, 47, 65) (p. 29)

(p. 29) (p. 789) (p. 29)

(p. 703)

(bp. 29, 173)

(pp. 153, 165) (p. 75) (p. 92)

(pp. 29, 67)




(pp. 29, 43) gr. ΧΙ 20 (p. 98) phil. gr. 48 (pp. 29, 173) 141 (p. 79) 161 (p. 30) 163 (p. 77) 164 (p. 195) 209 (2.77) 253 (2. 68) 270 (p. 92) 281 (p. 67) . 302 (p. 30)






philol. supplem. gr. 71

(2. 30)



A“ = A ante correctionem.



A” = A post correctionem.

Art = A 6 cor-

rectione (the reading A being uncertain). A'=A in linea. A'= A supra lineam. A! = A by first hand (of the original scribe). A? = A by any later hand. Readings by later hands are in most cases disregarded in the presentation of the manuscript evidence, since they mostly are an irrelevant and secondary element of the evidence. A = variant in A with a prefix yp. or yp. καὶ. Alm = A in lemmate. As! = gloss in A.

Aus = A in margine.

ZA = scholia of A.

quoted, implied, or supported

ἀλλὰ ZA = the reading ἀλλὰ is

by the scholia of A.

tionem. p.c. = post correctionem. i.l. = in linea. = manus prima. = manus posterior.

a.c. = ante correc-

8.1. = supra lineam. Square brackets [ ]

enclose letters lost in the manuscript and restored by an editor, double square brackets [| ]] letters deleted in the ms. Dots indicate illegible


a = illegible trace of a letter is tentatively read a.

brackets (

braces {|


) enclose letters not extant in the ms. but added by an editor,

} letters extant in the ms. but expelled from the text by an

editor, parentheses ( ) the extension of an abbreviation. ἀλλὰ] ἄλλοις A means that instead of the vulgate (usually printed) reading ἀλλὰ, there

is the reading ἄλλοις in A. καὶ σὺ A: καὶ B: σὺ C means that to the reading καὶ od in A corresponds the reading καὶ in B and the reading σὺ in C (the colon between readings may be replaced by a comma, or simply dropped). add. = addidt#. om. = omitstt. corr. = corrextt. ms(s). = manu-


cod. = codex.

fol(l). = folio(s). folio). ff. = and

codd. = codices.

triad = Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. tigone.

apograph = direct transcript.

* = recto. ” = verso. f. = and one following (page, several following (pages, folios). arg. = argument.

tetrad = Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., An-

heptad = Aitax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antigone, Oed. Col., Trachin.,

Philoct. At. = Aiax. El. = Electra. OT = Oedipus Tyrannus. Ant. = Antigone. OC = Oedipus Coloneus. Tr. = Trachiniae. Ph. = Philoctetes. In quoting line or verse numbers in Sophocles, as a matter of practical principle I follow the numbers of the Brunck vulgate (according to his folio edition: Sophoclis quae exstant omnia rec. Rich. Franc. Phil. Brunck.

vol. I-II. Argentorati, 1786).

Brunck’s numbers appear also in Dindorf,

Pearson, Masqueray — insofar as this is feasible. However, in lyrical lines the line division has been in many cases changed quite considerably since Brunck’s time, and it is therefore often impossible to indicate, correctly and unequivocally, the location of a word by quoting the verse number as given in a recent edition. Therefore, I consistently quote

the numbers of Brunck, and in case of doubt the reader should determine 10



the location of a Sophoclean quotation by referring it to the Brunck edition ; this is important especially for lyrical lines. Variant readings are considered in reference to the Oxford text of Pearson. A lemma from the Pearson text is sometimes prefixed if a misunderstanding is likely to arise without such a definition of the text unit involved. Then it means that instead of this text unit as printed in Pearson and repeated by me with a bracket at the end (]), the subsequent readings are exhibited in the mss. indicated. Mistakes in spellings, meaningless differences of accentuation and aspiration are disre-

garded, unless for some reason I want to reproduce the manuscript text most faithfully.

In inflectional forms, I often write iota subscript if it

is missing in mss. (as it mostly is), or if it appears as iota adscript (as it mostly happens in L). Data on manuscript readings are given explicitly on the basis of my

personal inspection of photographic repro-

ductions, unless I make a different statement on the source of the information in question. For the Leiden palimpsest A, I rely exclusively on its collation published by H. J. Scheltema, ‘De codice Sophoclis Lugdunensi,’’ Mnemosyne ser. IV, 2 (1949) 132-137.

In general, no conclusions ex silentio are allowed on manuscript readings not quoted explicitly. Pearson = Sophoclis Fabvlae recognovit A. C. Pearson Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis. Oxonii, [1924]).


Ancient scholia on Sophocles are quoted in reference to the edition of Papageorgius; Byzantine scholia, in reference to the edition of Dindorf. Papageorgius = Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias vetera e codice Lauren-

tiano denuo collato edidit Petrus N. Papageorgius (Lipsiae, 1888). Dindorf or Dindorf, Scholia = Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedtas septem ex codicibus aucta et emendata.


II. edidit G.



1852). The Vita of Sophocles is quoted in reference to pages and lines in Dindorf, Scholia pp. 1-8. Arguments to single plays are numbered according to their sequence

in Dindorf, Scholia pp. 11-30 (or in Pearson).

The text of the arguments

is discussed in reference to Dindorf, Scholia.

Suda = Svidae Lexicon edidit Ada Adler. (Lexicographi Graect, vol. I.) I-V (Lipsiae, 1933-1938). Manuscript evidence to Suda is quoted from Adler’s apparatus. Sometimes, manuscript readings from the editions of Gaisford and Bernhardy are supplemented. Variants of later and interpolated mss. of Suda are occasionally disregarded in my references.

Turyn, Aeschylus = Alexander Turyn, The Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Aeschylus (Polish Institute Series No. 2. New York City, 1943).








Manuscripts = A. Turyn, “The Manuscripts of Sophocles,” Traditio 2

(1944) 1-41.

Recension = A. Turyn, ‘The Sophocles Recension of Manuel Moschopulus,”’ Transactions of the American Philological Association 80 (1949)

94-173. For description of mss. and pertinent bibliographical references, the reader is requested to use also my former papers: Manuscripts and Recension. Below, in the description of manuscript material, only parchment and paper are distinguished; Oriental paper (bombycine) is not indicated specifically.






I. Tae RECENSION OF MANUEL MOSCHOPULUS In a former study,' I began an investigation of the Byzantine recen-

sions of Sophocles.

After several Byzantine editions — those of Manuel

Moschopulus, Maximus Planudes, Thomas Magistros, Demetrius Triclinius — were identified mainly with the aid of their characteristic scholia, I reconstructed the edition of the three Sophoclean plays — Atax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus —by Manuel Moschopulus (symbolized by &). That was chronologically the earliest Byzantine recension of the Andronicus II Palaeologus era. It had a commentary— the scholia olxelws — and, in the poetic text, many innovations against the “old” text carried by the consensus of the “‘old’’ and genuine manuscripts, the

vetustiores, as: L, the famous Laurentian 32, 9; A, the Leiden palimpsest Bibl. Publ. Graec. 60 A; G = Laur. Conventi Soppressi 152; Q = Paris, Supplément grec 109; R = Vatic. gr. 2291.

This idea of beginning the study of the text transmission of Sophocles with the presentation of the Byzantine recensions was prompted by the necessity of recognizing first the elements of the Byzantine interpo-

lations. Since almost every ‘old’? manuscript written after ca. 1300 A.D. was exposed to the horizontal or transversal influence of the interpolated readings, we have to know the potentialities of those interpolations. The vertical tradition of the ‘‘old’’ mss. is most frequently perturbed by the alien interpolations which were introduced by the later copyists under the influence of the then popular Byzantine texts. As a result of this situation, the picture of the later ‘‘old” mss. is highly inconsistent, so much so that offhand it is almost impossible to establish an adequate stemmatic representation of interrelationships between

those mss.

But if we know what were the Byzantine readings carried by

the Byzantine recensions, then we can detect them as being just inter-

polations whenever they appear sporadically in the old mss. Thus, our knowledge of the Byzantine recensions proves to be a powerful reagent which, in our analysis of the “‘old’’ mss., will precipitate interpolations

and leave in these mss. for our consideration only their proper features as a basis

for recognizing


interdependence of those genuine


witnesses. Of course, we shall also take into account the concomitant scholia in the veteres as an indication of their affiliations. This will be especially helpful in view of the fact that most of those veteres are composite or desultory mss. which change their sources in the course of tran1Cf. A. Turyn, “The Sophocles Recension of Manuel Moechopulus,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 80 (1949) 94-173 — hereafter quoted Recension. Cf. also A. Turyn, ‘The Manuscripts of Sophocles,” Traditio 2 (1944) 1-41 — hereafter quoted Manuscripts —, especially pp. 1-6. 15








scribing.? Only our main veteres, the vetustiores LAGQOR, are entirely consistent throughout their Sophoclean contents. With regard to possible interpolations in this group, only QR occasionally — and relatively rarely — caught some interpolations. Before we proceed with the analysis of those Byzantine recensions which followed Moschopulus, I consider it necessary to integrate into this book a brief and condensed summary of the characteristic features of the Moschopulean recension, which were gained in our previous investigation of the Moschopulean manuscripts. This is indispensable for the convenience of the reader who will need to have at hand the essential material on that first Byzantine recension, in order to be able to observe the continuation of some Moschopulean interpolations in the subsequent Byzantine recensions and to detect Moschopulean interpolations even in many veteres of younger date. Therefore, I am going to restate succinctly the main elements of the Moschopulean recension, on the basis of my previous analysis, to which I refer the reader for more details and proofs. Manuel Moschopulus was the first Byzantine scholar of the Palaeologean era to edit the text of the Sophoclean triad (Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr.) with an original commentary (symbol ξ for the Moschopulean recension). We can assign the Moschopulean recension approximately to the time around 1290 a.p.* Moschopulus changed the Sophocles text in many cases and succeeded even in correcting some errors of the genuine tradition, especially if an ancient reading visibly conflicted with the metrical rules of the iambic trimeters. He wrote original scholia, with the characteristic beginning οἰκείως (scholia οἰκείως or Moschopulean scholia) ; see below, plate 1x. They are printed in the edition of Johnson‘

from two Oxford mss., Laud Greek 54 (Johnson’s L) and Auct.F.3.25 ®On composite or desultory mss. in general, cf. an important statement by Carlo Gallavotti, Per l'edisione di Teocrito (Atti della Reale Accademia d'Italia. Rendiconti della Classe di scienze morali e storiche. Serie VII. Primo supplemento al Volume IV. Roma, 1943) pp. 18 f.— On the inadequacy of sample tests in manuscript research, cf. an excellent methodological statement by A. Pertusi, “Intorno alla tradizione manoscritta degli scolii di Proclo ad Esiodo,’” Aevum 24 (1950) 13. δ On the chronology of Moschopulus, cf. A. Turyn, The Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Aeschylus (Polish Institute Series No. 2. New York City, 1943) — hereafter

quoted Turyn, Aeschylus— p. 103 note 89. The date of the ms. Paris 2884 (which is partly Moschopulean) — 1301 A.D. — is a terminus ante quem for the Moschopulean recension (cf. below, p. 41). But we can go even farther back, because in the ms. H (Laur. 32, 40: cf. below, p. 159), written probably around 1290 a.p., there are occasional interpolations from Moschopulus (e.g., Εἰ. 1124 ἐκαιτεῖται). And in F (Laur. 28, 25: cf. below, p. 145), written also around 1290 A.D., there are even some Thoman inter-

polations, which originated after the Moschopulean recension. ‘Cf. Sophoclis Tragoediae sepiem Tribus Voluminibus comprehensae, Nové versione donatae, Scholiis veteribus (tam antehac quam nunc primum & variis Lectionibus illustratae. Oper& Thomae Johnson.


editis) nolisque perpeluis, I-III (Londini-Etonae,






(Johnson’s B), and reprinted in Dindorf, Scholia pp. 145-277. In some mss. of the Moschopulean recension, the scholia olxelws are interspersed with the scholia of Maximus Planudes, which have the characteristic beginning σύνταξις. The Planudean scholia are identified as Planudean by authorship marks μαξ which appear in the ms. Naples II.F.9 (our symbol D: see below, plate x) and in the Bremen b.23. A sample of the Planudean scholia was published by me (Recension pp. 117f.). There are some slight differences also in poetic text readings between the purely Moschopulean class §m (which carries the scholia οἰκείως) and the Moschopuleo-Planudean class £p (with scholia οἰκείως + σύνταξις). Moschopulean mss., fundamentally certified as Moschopulean by their characteristic scholia οἰκείως (or οἰκείως + σύνταξις), exhibit some significant readings which are obviously interpolations. They appear to be interpolations by the very fact of their being different from the consensus of the most genuine witnesses of the ancient tradition, i.e., from LAGQR. The reader needs here a repertory of Moschopulean interpolations, to which frequent references are made in the further discussions. Therefore, I include below a list of the Moschopulean readings in Sophocles. I am in a position to present this list in a simplified manner, since the detailed and specific evidence has been exhibited before. Below, the ancient readings will be marked with the symbol vetust. which designates

the consensus of the mss. LAGQR (wherever their evidence is available) or of most of them. If there is a split among the vetustiores — between the Laurentian tradition ἃ (= LA) and the Roman tradition p (= GQR) — then the specific evidence of single mss. is listed. The Moschopulean readings, as evidenced in my former study by the consensus of the Moschopulean mss. X XaXrXs (or of most of them), will be marked with the symbol Mosch. Slight, meaningless differences in single mss., being inconsistencies with regard to the general reading of the tradition in question or just meaningless slips, are disregarded. Only readings by a first hand are taken into account; changes by any later hand are disregarded as an irrelevant element. Sometimes, isolated Yp.-variants, recorded in a single ms. against the consensus of its class, are disregarded. We should not be surprised to see that, among the vetustiores, the mss. Q (XVI‘ cent.) or R (XV* cent.) occasionally, but rather rarely, depart individually from the ancient genuine reading and follow a Byzantine interpolation. The attitude of the subsequent interpolators — Thomas Magistros and Demetrius Triclinius, respectively —is shown systematically in s For Byzantine scholia in general, see: Scholia in Sophoclis tragoedias septem ex codicibus aucta et emendata. Vol. II. edidit G. Dindorfius (Oxonii, 1852) — hereafter quoted “Dindorf” or Dindorf, Scholia. Unfortunately, Dindorf reprinted the Moscho-

pulean scholia with an indiscriminate admixture of the scholia Barocci (on this recension, cf. below, pp. 96 ff.)








every case of a Moschopulean interpolation. Occasionally, either of them or both of them adopt a Moschopulean interpolation. Sometimes, Thomas or Triclinius react to a Moschopulean interpolation by inventing a new interpolation of their own. Thoman evidence as used here in a limited way is based only on two Thoman mss.: Zc (Vatic. 1333) and Z (Venice 472); cf. below, p. 40. Zc represents the first Thoman edition,

while Z is a witness of the later Thoman edition (cf. below, pp. 47 ff.). Triclinian evidence basically rests on the mss. T (Paris 2711) and Ta

(Venice 470); cf. below, pp. 74 ff. In comparison



former list of Moschopulean

cension pp. 131 ff.), there are here a few changes.



I have added some

Moschopulean readings which I did not include before (cf. At. 130, 482, 1029, El. 1362, OT 1185, 1472 — for the whole Moschopulean recension; and EJ. 1264 for the class £m). In presenting them here for the first time,

I am more specific in submitting the manuscript evidence.

And I have

dropped a few readings previously listed as Moschopulean,

but now —

after further analysis — recognized by me to be “old” variants.* Here is the list of the Moschopulean readings: Aiax 58 ἐμπίπτων vetustiores, Z: ἐμπιτνῶν Moschopulus, TTa. Ai. 61 φόνου vetust., ZTTa: πόνου Mosch. Ai. 75 ἄρῃς vetust., Z: ἀρεῖς Mosch., TTa. Ai. 80 εἰς (ἐς L!) δόμους vetust., ZT Ta: ἐν δόμοις Mosch. Ai. 112 ἔγωγέ σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι LGZTTa: ἐγώ σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι Mosch., OR. Αἱ. 130 βάθει LGQR (= vetust.), Suda (sub E 46), X'Xa'Z*TTa:


X*Xa*XrXs (= Moschopulean variant), Ζ'. Ai. 169 ὑποδδείσαντες vetust. (praeter Q): ὑποδείσαντες Mosch., QZTTa. Ai. 227 ὦμοι vetust. (ὥιμοι L), ZcZTTa: οἴμοι Mosch. Ai. 235 ἔσω σφάξ᾽ L: ἔξω σφάξ' GR, ἕξω σφάζ᾽ Q: ἔσω ott’ ZcZ, εἴσω σφάζ᾽ TTa: (ἔσω om.) ἔσφαξ᾽ Mosch. Ai. 259 φρόνιμος velust., ZCZT Ta: φρόνιμον Mosch. Ai. 301 dwattas L'QR, Oxyrh. Pap. 20937 ἐπαΐξας GZcZTTa: ὑπαΐξας Mosch. At. 307 διοπτεύει vetust., TTa: διοττεύοι Mosch., ZcZ. 8 Aiax 222 aldoros is an ancient variant (aldoros L'™, Hesychius s.v., Suda sub As

133; perhaps αἴϑοπος L** aldoros L’). On Aiax 1419 τρὶν ἰδεῖν 8° οὐδεὶς, cf. below, pp. 20, 106. On El. 198 τοιαύτη νοῦν, Oed.

προφυτεύσαντες, cf. below, p. 140. — Electra 55 που, 947 τελεῖν, 1024 Tyr. 773 λέξαιμ', 797 χρησμῶν γ᾽ ὀνείδη, 1265 ὅπως ὁρᾷ, are variants of

the younger veteres, the so-called detertores. T Readings from papyri are quoted in this book, whenever the occasion warrants it, in connection with the manuscript evidence. On the whole, they do not contribute any divergent evidence. Fora list of Sophoclean papyri, cf. Paul Collart, "1.65 fragments des tragiques grecs sur papyrus,” Revue de philologie 63 (1943) 6; Laura Giabbani, Tests leiterari greci di proveniensa egisiana (1920-1945). (Pubblicasioni dell’ Istituto di papiro-

logia “G. Vitelli” della Universita di Firense.

Firenze, 1947) pp. 64 f.


Αἱ. 482 XXaXrXs Ai. 488 Ai. 496 Ai. 499 Ai. 519 At. 524


αὐτοῦ LIGQOR (= vetust.), Suda (sub T 455, codd. AV): σαυτοῦ (= Mosch.), ZcZTTa.*® τινος vetust., ZCZT Ta: τινες Mosch. εἰ vetust., ZcZTTa: ἣν Mosch. δούλιον vetust., Z*: δούλειον ZcZ!: δουλίαν Mosch., TTa. πᾶσιν vetust., Z-ZTTa: πᾶσ᾽ Mosch.*® γένοιτ᾽ 8’ οὗτος LOR*ZcZ: Yo’ οὗτος GR', Sudae (sub Μ

1169) codd. BE (cf. integrum versum in Sudae codd. AV ἂν οὗτος xrd.): γένοιτό ποθ᾽ οὗτος Mosch., TTa. At. Ai. Ai. Ai. Ai.

534 557 565 569 582

τ᾽ ἂν ἣν vetust., ZcZ: τ᾿ ἦν ἂν Mosch., TTa. δείξῃς vetust., Zc’Z: δείξεις Mosch., Ζο" ΤΤΑ. εἰνάλιος vetust., ZCZTTa: ἐνάλιος Mosch. δείξῃ vetust., ZcZTTa: δείξει Mosch. θρηνεῖν vetust., Suda (sub E 2833 et sub Θ 480),

οὕπως γένοιτ᾽


pp. 648.19, 1147.8, Zc: θροεῖν Mosch., ZTTa. Ai. At. Ai. At. At. Ai. Ai. Ai. At.

634 689 705 717 727 780 780 805 877

κρείσσων vetust., ZT Ta (κρεῖσσον Zc): κρέσσων Mosch. ὑμῶν ἅμα vetust., ZcZ (ὑπέρμεγα L7): ὑμῖν ἅμα Mosch., TTa. ξυνείη vetust., ZcZT: tuvelns Mosch., Ta. μετανεγνώσθη vetust., ZcZT Ta (μεταγνώσθη Q) : μετεγνώσθη Mosch. ξύναιμον vetust., ZcCZT Ta: σύναιμον Mosch. τοιαῦθ’ vetust., Zc: τοσαῦθ’ Mosch., ZTTa. εἶπεν vetust., ZcZ: do’ Mosch., TTa. ἑσπέρους LGZcZTTa: éoxeplovs Mosch., QR. οὐδὲ μὲν δὴ velust., ZcZ'T'Ta: οὐδὲ μὴν δὴ Ze: οὐδ᾽ ἐμοὶ δὴ Mosch.,

Αἱ. 951 ἄγαν ὑπερβριθὲς vetust., Z: ἄγαν γ᾽ ὑπερβριθὲς Mosch., Zc: καὶ μὴν ἄγαν ὑπερβριθὲς TTa. Ai. 969 rl vetust., ΖοΖτΤα: πῶς Mosch. Ai. 994 ἁπασῶν vetust., ZcZ: πασῶν Mosch., TTa. Ai. 1008 ἐμός τ' ἴσως vetust., Suda (sub II 3069): ἐμός 6’ ἅμα Mosch., ZcZTTa.

Ai. 1011 ἵλεων vetust., Suda (II 3069): ἥδιον Mosch., TTa: ἴδιον ZcZ. At. 1019 ἀπορριφθήσομαι vetust. (praeter Q): ἀπορριφήσομαι Mosch., Q, ZcZTTa. * Cbviously, τῆς αὑτοῦ ¢perés appears here to be transmitted as the ancient (= Alexandrian) reading. The reflexive pronoun of the third person would be understood in reference to the second person: cf. Ewald Bruhn, Sophokles erklart von F. W. Schneidewin und A. Nauck.

VIII: Anhang

(Berlin, 1899) p. 45 §78.

On the other hand, even

an original TEZATTO®PENOZ should have meant τῆς σαυτοῦ φρενός (considering the possible neglect of the gemination). But at some stage of the transliteration it may have been misunderstood as τῆς αὑτοῦ φρενός. On problems in transliteration in Greek classical literature, cf. Rudolf Herzog, Die Umschrift der älteren griechischen Literatur in das tonische Alphabet (Programm sur Rektoratsfeier der Universität Basel 1912. Basel, 1912).

® Moschopulus understood πᾶσ’ = räcı. understood correctly rac’ = rica.

But the Jena recension

(cf. below, p. 90)








Ai. 1029 τοῦτ᾽ LIGQR ( = vetust.), Suda (sub A 2769 et sub T 1233): τοῦδ᾽ XXaXrXs ( = Mosch.), ZcZTTa. At. 1031 &xvärrer’ vetust., Suda (sub E 510 et sub II 2299), Z, &yxvärrer’ Zc: ἔγνάπτετ᾽ (vel ἔγνάμπτετ᾽) Mosch., &yvärrer’ TTa.

Ai. 1036 οὖν vetust. (praeter Q), TTa: ἂν Mosch., ZcZ, Q. At. Ai. Ai. Ai. Ai. Ai. Ai. At. At.

1070 1081 1113 1127 1146 1154 1160 1214 1230

λόγων τ᾽ velust.: λόγων (τ᾽ om.) Mosch., ZcZTTa. παρῇ vetust., ZcCZT!: πάρα Mosch., T*Ta. ἐπώμοτος vetust., ZcZT Ta: ἐνώμοτος Mosch. δεινόν τ᾽ L: δεινὸν (τ᾽ om.) GOR: δεινόν γ᾽ Mosch., ZcZTTa. ναυτίλων vetust., ZCZT Ta: ναυτίλῳ Mosch. ὥνθρωπε vetust., ZcZT Ta: ἄνθρωπε Mosch. παρῇ vetust., ZcZ: πάρα Mosch., TTa. ἄγκειται L!: ἔγκειται GORZcZ: ἀνεῖται Mosch., TTa. ἐφρόνεις vetust., Suda (sub T 747), ZcZ*: ἐφώνεις Mosch.:

ἐκόμπεις Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 638 (p. 18.27 Dibner), Z (nisi errore -zoıs), TTa. Ai. 1236 κέκραγες vetust. (praeter Q): κέκραγας Mosch., ZcZTTa, 0. Ai. 1253 πλευρᾷ 1110: πλευρὰ QRTTa, -pd ex -pa Zi: πλευρὰν Mosch. : πλευρᾶς ZcZ*. Ai. 1284 ἦλθ’ ἐναντίος vetust., ZcZ: ἦλθεν ἀντίος Mosch., TTa. Ai. 1339 οὐκ ἂν ἀτιμάσαιμ᾽ velust., Zc: οὔκουν ἀτιμάσαιμ' Mosch.: οὐκ ἄν γ᾽ ἀτιμάσαιμ' ZTTa. Ai. 1369 γ᾽ om. vetust., Zc: γ᾽ habent Mosch., ZTTa. Ai. 1419 πρὶν 6’ ἰδεῖν οὐδεὶς vetust. (praeter L), ZcZ: πρὶν ἰδεῖν δ᾽ οὐδεὶς L, Mosch., TTa. — Cf. below, p. 106. Electra 42 χρόνῳ μακρῷ vetust., ZcZT Ta: μακρῷ χρόνῳ Mosch. El. 61 μὲν ὡς οὐδὲν vetust., Suda (sub A 843 et sub T 557), Zc: μὲν (ὡς om.) οὐδὲν Mosch., ZTTa. El. 96 t£tvice(v) vetust., Suda (sub E 1629 et sub Ξ 26): &£elvıce(») Mosch., ZcZTTa. El. 99 φοινίῳ vetust., Zc: φονίῳ Mosch., ZTTa. El. 123 ἀκόρεστον vetust., ZcZ: ἀκόρετον Mosch.: ἀκόρεστ' TTa. El. 132 οὐδ' αὖ θέλω vetust., ZcZ: οὐδ᾽ ἐθέλω (vel οὐδὲ θέλω) Mosch., TTa. El. 139 οὔτε λιταῖσιν vetust., Suda (sub Π 14), ZcZ: οὔτε λιταῖς Mosch. : ob λιταῖς TTa. El. 169 ἔπαθεν vetust. (praeter A?), Zc: ἔπαθ᾽ AP, Mosch., ZTTa. El. 197 ἔρως vetust., ZcZ: tpos Mosch., TTa. El. 218 ἀεὶ vetust., ZcZTa: αἰεὶ Mosch., T. El. 279 ἐμὸν vetust., ZcTa: ἀμὸν Mosch., ZT. El. 314 ἢ 5’ ἂν vetust., ZcZ: § κἂν Mosch., TTa. El. 422 τῷ vetust., Zc: ᾧ Mosch., ZTTa. El. 433 ἀπὸ om. vetust., ZcZ: ἀπὸ habent Mosch., TTa. Cf. below, p. 106 note 108.






El. 496 μήποθ' (semel) vetust., ZcZ=: μήποτε μήπτοθ' Mosch., Z*TTa. El. 528 εἷλε κοὐκ vetust., ZcZT Ta: εἷλεν οὐκ Mosch. El. 534 δὲ vetust.: δὴ Mosch., ZcZTTa. El. 554 0° om. vetust., Zc: y’ Mosch., Z: θ᾽ TTa. El. 588 ἐμὸν vetust., Zc: ἀμὸν (vel ἁμὸν) Mosch., ZTTa. El. 618 προσηκότα vetust., Suda (sub E 1846), Zc: προσεικότα Mosch., ZTTa. El. 671 τὸ ποῖον vetust., ZCZTTa: ὁκοῖον Mosch. El. 676 πάλαι λέγω vetust., Eustathius p. 702.5, ZTTa: τότ᾽ ἐννέπω Mosch., ZcZrTr. El. 691 πένταθλ᾽ vetust., ZcZ (πένταθλες Sudae sub B 511 cod. A, πένταθ᾽' cod. V): πεντάεθλ᾽ Mosch., TTa. El. 713 ἐν vetust., ZcZT : ἐκ Mosch. El. 809 φρενὸς οἴχῃ vetust., Zc: οἴχῃ φρενὸς Mosch., ZT Ta. El. 825 déos vetust., ZcZ: ἅλιος Mosch., TTa. El. 890 λοιπόν u’ A LGZc, λοιπὸν μὴ R: λοιπὸν tv’ 4 Mosch.: λοιπὸν ZTTa. ἐν. El. 903 ψυχῆς vetust., Z*°: ψυχῇ Mosch., ΖοΖρΤΊΔ. εὐ El. 985 μὴ 'κλιπεῖν vetust., ZcZTTa: μὴ λικεῖν Mosch. El. 1029 μάθῃς vetust., Zc*ZT : πάθῃς Mosch., Zc!. El. 1094 ἐν om. vetust., Zc*Z**: ἐν habent Mosch., ΖεροΖρο: ix’ TTa. El. 1124 ἐκαιτεῖ vetust.: ἐπαιτεῖται Mosch.,

ZT Ta: ἀπαιτεῖται Zc.

El. 1124 τόδε vetust., ZT Ta: τάδε Mosch., Zc. El. 1141 ξένῃσι vetust., ZT Ta: ξέναισι Mosch., Ze. El. 1163 κελεύθου vetust., ZcCZT Ta: κελεύθους Mosch.

El. 1193 σ᾽ om. vetust.: σ᾽ habent Mosch., ZcZTTa. El. 1226 χεροῖν vetust., Z: χερσὶν Mosch., ZcTTa. El. 1232/3 γοναὶ (semel) vetust., ZcZ“: γοναὶ γοναὶ Mosch., Z>*TTa. El. 1260 ris οὖν ἀντάξι' ἂν Pearson: rls οὖν ἀξίαν vetust., Z*: rls οὖν ἂν ἀξίαν Mosch.: τίς οὖν ἀναξίαν ΖοΖΡο: τίς δῆτ᾽ οὖν ἀξίαν TTa. El. 1310 τοὐμὸν φαιδρὸν vetust., Zc: φαιδρὸν τοὐμὸν Mosch., Z*: φαιδρῷ τοὐμὸν ZITTa. El. 1324/5 οἵαν --- ἀκώσετ᾽ L'G: ol’ ἂν --- ἀπώσαιτ᾽ Mosch., ZcZTTa, olay — ἀκώσαιτ᾽ R. El. 1343 ἐν vetust., Zc: οὖν Mosch., ZTTa. El. 1362 μάλιστα ἀνθρώπων L'GR ( = vetust.), μάλιστ᾽ ἀνθρώπων Zc: μάλιστά ao’ ἀνθρώπων XXaXrXs ( = Mosch.), ZTTa. El. 1365 κυκλοῦνται vetust., TTa: κυκλοῦσι Mosch., ZcZ. El. 1375 ὅσοι πρόπυλα velust., Zc: ὅσοιπερ πρόπυλα Mosch., Z: ὅσοι προπύλαια TTa. El. 1380 προσπιτνῶ vetust., Suda (sub E 1862 et sub A 582), ZcZ: προκιτνῶ Mosch., TTa. " El. 1414 φθίνει φθίνει vetust., ZcZTTa: φθίνει (semel) Mosch.




El. 1456 p’ vetust., ZcZTTa: p’ om. Mosch. El. 1502 ἕρπε vetust., Zc: og’ Mosch., ZTTa. El. 1506 θέλοι vetust., Zc: θέλει Mosch., ZTTa. Oedipus Tyrannus 29 καδμεῖον vetust., ZcZT Ta: καδμείων Mosch. OT 34 συναλλαγαῖς L'G, Suda (sub Σ 1430), ZcZTTa: ξυναλλαγαῖς Mosch., R. OT 42 ἡμῖν εὑρεῖν vetust., ZcZ, ἡμῶν εὑρεῖν Sudae (sub II 2832) codex V: εὑρεῖν ἡμὶν Mosch., TTa (etiam Sudae codex A).!? OT 43 του vetust.: που Mosch., ZcZTTa. OT 50 στάντες (τ᾽ om.) vetust., ZcZ: στάντες τ' Mosch.: στάντες γ᾽ TTa. OT 77 ὅσα (ἂν om.) vetust., ZcZ: ὅσ᾽ ἂν Mosch., TTa. OT 105 εἴσιδον vetust., Zc: εἰσεῖδον Mosch., ZTTa. OT 117 κατεῖδεν vetust., ZcZ: κατεῖδ’' Mosch., TTa. OT 130 τὸ vetust., Suda (sub Π 3083), ZcZTTa: τὰ Mosch. OT 134 πρὸς vetust., ZcZ: πρὸ Mosch., TTa. OT 159 κεκλόμενος L, Eustathius p. 714.63, ZcZTTa, κεκλημένος G, κυκλόμενος R: κεκλομένῳ Mosch. OT 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ἐμοῦ vetust., ZcCZT Ta: γένοιτ᾽ ἐμοῦ Mosch. OT 250 ξυνειδότος vetust., ZCZT Ta: συνειδότος Mosch. OT 281 δύναται L!GZc, öbvar’ R: δύναιτ᾽ Mosch., ZTTa. OT 297 οὐξελέγχων vetust., ZT Ta: οὐξελέγξων Mosch., Zc, Oxyrh. Pap. 2180. This agreement of the Moschopulean innovation with the papyrus reading was purely accidental. OT 322 ἔννομον vetust. (praeter A?), Zc: ἔννομ᾽ A?, Mosch., ZTTa. OT 525 τοῦ πρὸς 5’ LZc!, ] xpos δί Oxyrh. Pap. 2180: robxos δ' GR: πρὸς τοῦ &’ Mosch., ZTTa. OT 528 ἐξ ὀμμάτων ὀρθῶν re κἀξ L'TTa, Sudae (sub O 571) codex G: JE ομμα[των] ὃ ορθῳΐϊν Oxyrh. Pap. 2180: ἐξ ὀμμάτων 8’ ὀρθῶν δὲ κἀξ GR, Sudae codd. AS: ἐξ ὀμμάτων 5° ὀρθῶν τε κἀξ Sudae cod. M: ἐξ ὀμμάτων ὀρθῶν δὲ κἀξ Mosch., ZcZ. OT 549 τήνδ᾽ vetust. (Z*°?): τὴν Suda (sub Ec 339), Mosch., ZcZTTa. OT


οὐκ el ob τ᾽ és οἴκους ob τε xpéwy κατὰ στέγας velust., Zc:

οὐκ εἶ

σὺ τ' (ἐς om.) οἴκους ob Te κρέων κατὰ στέγας Mosch.: οὐκ εἶ σύ τ᾽ εἰς (sed ἐς Ζ) οἵκους ob Te κρέων (κατὰ om.) στέγας ZT Ta. OT 657 λόγων vetust.: λόγῳ Mosch., ZcZTTa. OT 659 dvyety vetust., ZcZ: φυγὴν Mosch., TTa. OT 660/1 θεῶν θεὸν vetust., ZCT Ta: θεῶν (θεὸν om.) Mosch.: (θεῶν om.) θεὸν ZI. OT 697 8’ vetust., ZcZTTa: r’ Mosch. OT 752 ἐν αὐτοῖσι 5° ἣν vetust., ἐν αὐτοῖς δ᾽ ἦν Zc: ἐν δ᾽ αὐτοῖσιν ἦν Mosch., ZTTa. OT 763 ol’] 8 y’ L: 85° GRZcZ: ὅδε γ᾽ Mosch., TTa. 1° Cf, below, p. 106 note 110.




OT 779 μέθῃ vetust.: μέθης Mosch., ZcZTTa. OT 792 δηλώσοιμ᾽ vetust., T'Ta: δηλώσαιμ᾽ Mosch., ZcZT*. OT 804 ξυνηντίαζον vetust., ZcZTTa, ξυνηντίαζε Sudae (sub II 2162) codex A: συνηντίαζε Sudae cod. V, συνηντίαζον Mosch. OT 815 ἀνδρὸς viv tor’ vetust., Zc: ἀνδρός ἐστιν Mosch., ZTTa. OT 836 τοσοῦτον (γ᾽ om.) vetust., Zc: τοσοῦτόν γ᾽ Mosch., Z: rocodré γ᾽ TTa. OT 935 παρὰ vetust., Zc: πρὸς Mosch., ZTTa. OT 966 ὑφηγητῶν δ᾽ ἐγὼ vetust., Zc: ὑφηγητῶν ἐγὼ Mosch., ZTa: ὑφ᾽ ἡγητῶν ἐγὼ T. OT 976 λέχος οὐκ ὀκνεῖν vetust., Zc: λέκτρον οὐκ ὀκνεῖν Aoschop., ZTTa. It is noteworthy that λέκτρον appears as a gloss by L«l. OT 1046 ὑμεῖς γὰρ vetust., Zc: ὑμεῖς y’ Mosch., Z: ὑμεῖς (y’ om.) TTa. OT 1064 δρᾶ vetust., ZcZ: δρᾶν Mosch., TTa. OT 1185 χρῆν LGR ( = vetust.), ZcZTTa: χρῆν μ' XXaXrXs ( = Mosch.). OT 1225 αἱρεῖσθε vetust., Zc: ἀρεῖσθε Mosch., ZTTa. OT 1231 at vetust., ZcZTTa: at*v Aosch. (glossa Moschopulea at ἂν). OT 1242 εὐθὺς πρὸς vetust., ZcZ: εὐθὺ πρὸς Mosch.: εὐθὺς ἐς TTa. OT 1250 ἄνδρα vetust., ZcZTTa: ἄνδρας Mosch. OT 1252 εἰσέπεσεν vetust., ZcZ: εἰσέπαισεν Mosch., TTa. OT 1266 ἐπὶ vetust., ZcZ: ἐπεὶ Mosch., TTa. OT 1267 ἔκειθ’ ὁ vetust., ZcZ: ἔκειτο Mosch., TTa. OT 1299 rls ὦ vetust., Zc: rls σ᾽ ὦ Mosch., ZTTa. OT 1306 ποίαν L: οἵαν GR: τοίαν Mosch., ZcZTTa, Oxyrh. Pap. 1369. This agreement of Moschopulus with the papyrus reading was accidental. OT 1348 ποτ᾽ ἂν vetust., ZcZT Ta: ποτέ (ἄν om.) Mosch. OT 1351 ἔλαβέ u’ ἀπό re L!: ἔλυσε u’ ἀπό τε GRZc, ἔλυσ᾽ Eu’ ἀπό τε Z: ἔλυσεν ἀπό τε Mosch.: (ἔλαβε aut ἔλυσε om.) u’ ἀπό re TTa. OT 1422 οὔθ᾽ vetust., Suda (sub Γ 109), ZcZTTa: οὐχ Mosch. OT 1423 οὔθ' vetust., Suda (sub T 109), ZcTTa: οὐδ’ Mosch., Z. OT 1446 γε vetust., ZcZTTa: re Mosch. OT 1459 ἀρσένων vetust., ZCZT Ta: ἀρρένων Mosch. OT 1472 μοι LGZcZTTa: 'poiv Mosch. (‘poty Xa, X ἐμοῖν XrXs), R. The above Moschopulean readings are characteristic for the whole Moschopulean recension (£). As I said before, within the Moschopulean recension we distinguish two classes: the purely Moschopulean class £m (scholia olxelws), and the Moschopuleo-Planudean class fp (scholia οἰκείως + abvrafıs). Below, I list significant readings that are characteristic for each of these classes separately or respectively. These significant readings are represented typically by the mss. X and Xa for the class ἐπὶ; and by the mss. Xr and Xs for the class £p. On each occasion,



I quote also the reading of the other Moschopulean illustrate more explicitly their differences.

class, in order to

Here are the significant readings of the class ἔπι: Atax 725 ἔνθεν κἄνθεν οὔτις LG, Ep: ἔνθεν κἄνθεν καὶ οὔτις Em: ἔνθεν κἄνθεν κοῦτις ZCZ, QR: ἔνθεν κἄνθε κοῦτις TTa. Αἱ. 1368 σὸν ἄρα vetust., ἔρ, ZcZTTa: σὸν γὰρ ἄρα Em. Electra 222 οὐ vetust., tp, ZcZT Ta: οὐ γὰρ ἔπι. El. 454 αὐτὸν els ἐχθροὺς vetust., tp, ZcZT Ta: els ἐχθροὺς αὑτὸν Em. El. 575 μόλις vetust., tp, ZcZT Ta: μόγις Em. El. 644 νυκτὶ τῇδε vetust., £p, ZcZT Ta: τῇδε νυκτὶ Em. El. 1264 ὅτε LGR ( = vetust.), XrXs ( = tp), ZcZTTa: ὅταν XXa

( = tm). Oed. Tyr. 630 μέτεστι τῇσδ᾽ οὐχὶ σοὶ vetust., tp, ZcZ: μέτεστι col tm: μέτεστιν οὐχὶ σοὶ TTa. OT 906/7 γὰρ λαΐου θέσφατ᾽' L'G!, Suda (sub E 1583), γὰρ Aatw R: γὰρ παλαιὰ λαΐου θέσφατ᾽ Em: γὰρ Aatov παλαιὰ θέσφατ᾽ Ep," ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ τὰ λαΐου θέσφατ᾽ TTa. OT 1213/4 χρόνος δικάζει vetust., tp, ZcCZTTa: χρόνος ὃς δικάζει

τῆσδ᾽ ob θεόφατ᾽ ZcZ: δ᾽ Em.

And these are the significant readings of the Moschopuleo-Planudean class tp: Ai. 245 ἤδη τοι κρᾶτα vetust., Em, ZcPZ: ἤδη (τοι om.) mss. XsAUY, Madrid 4617, Naples II.F.36, Paris 2884, 498, Vatic. gr. 48 — but not Xr), Zc™: ἤδη (τοι om.) κάρα At. 1369 πανταχῇ vetust., Em, ZcZ: πανταχοῦ tp, TTa. El. 238 ἔβλαστεν vetust., £m: ἔβλαστ᾽ Ep, ZcZTTa. OT 652 οὔτε vetust., ἔπι, ZcZTTa: obxor’ Ep. OT 722 θανεῖν vetust., tm, ZcZTTa: παθεῖν Ep. OT 840 ἐκπεφευγοίην vetust., tm, ZcCZTTa: ἐκπεφευγοίμην OT 906/7: see above. OT 1355 ἄχθος vetust., tm, Zc: ἄχος tp, ZTTa.

κρᾶτα Ep (e.g., Paris suppl. gr. TTa.


The peculiar character of the Moschopulean recension reveals itself also in some specific wordings of the arguments to the three plays. As to the Sophoclean Vita, it is impossible to make any statement with regard to a Moschopulean version of this biography. In quite many Moschopulean mss., the Vita is omitted, and where it precedes a Moschopulean triad, it does not show any constant characteristics that we could attribute to a special version of the Vita tied up with the Moschopulean triad. Since there is nowhere any mention to be found of Moschopulus’ 11 The Moschopulean interpolation consisted in introducing the word παλαιὰ into the text. But each of the two Moschopulean classes inserted rada:d in a different sequence of words.






redaction of the Sophoclean Vita, we must assume that Moschopulus probably did not work on the Vita, but posstbly included its ‘“‘old’’ version into his edition. For Moschopulean readings in the arguments and possibly in the Vita, I am using below the mss.: XXrXsAD, Escorial T.III.15, Laur. Conv. Soppr. 98, Vatic. gr. 45. Most Moschopulean mss. do not show any Vita; some exhibit a Vita which clearly belongs to a different recension. In using the old Vita, Moschopulus may have made a correction which appears in many Moschopulean mss., an obvious correction of a manifest “old” mistake: Vita p. 1.9 Dindorf στράτωνι GR, also F,” this being the transmitted corrupt “old” reading: ἴστρῳ XrAD, Laur. Conv. Soppr. 98, Escorial

T.III.15, also adopted by TTa.

in the Thomano-Triclinian

Vita as represented

This was rather an easy correction in view of Istrus’ name

appearing in the Vita, p. 1.4 and p. 1.11. But Moschopulus’ role in making a peculiar recension of the arguments to the triad is quite certain and very characteristic. The Moschopulean argument to Aiax shows some departures from the old version — I am going to quote only the most characteristic elements of the Moschopulean version. For the sake of completeness, I shall also record the Triclinian attitude in the passages involved. The Triclinian arguments are supposed to reflect the Thoman version of the arguments

(cf. below, pp. 35 ff.), but unfortunately we lack primary or direct evidence on Thoman arguments to the first three plays from Thoman mss. For the argument to Aiax, since it was lost in L, I shall use the testimony of F to represent the Laurentian tradition. In the arguments to the other plays of the triad, the usual consensus of LGQMR will represent the old tradition. The references are made to the text of the arguments in Dindorf’s Scholia. I disregard below some trifling differences between

the mss. and the Dindorfian text.

Here are some Moschopulean features

of the arguments: Arg. to Aiax p. 25.9 Dindorf ἐν τῇ μάχῃ om. FGQMR: ἐν τῇ μάχῃ habent XXrAD, also TTa. Obviously, these words were added by Moschopulus. The most striking Moschopulean change appears toward the end of the argument to Aiax. The two passages, pp. 27.11 — 28.4, on the whole (apart from minor differences), appear in F and, therefore, represent the Laurentian tradition. In the Roman version, instead of the rest pp. 27.11 — 28.4 of the argument, there are only these words (after p. 27.10 ἀποθανόντοτ) : δεῖ δὲ τὸν ὑποκριτὴν πανταχόθεν διαβλέπειν ὥσπερ δεδοι% The

ms. F (Laur.

28, 25: cf. below,

p. 145)

dition; the Vita is lost at the beginning of L.

represents here the Laurentian









κότα μὴ ὁραθῇ GQOMR (this actually belongs already to the scholia). Now, in the Moschopulean recension, the rest of the argument pp. 27.11 — 28.4 is represented with the following peculiar change: instead

of p. 27.12 δαιμονίως ---- 19 κυνηγίᾳ F, there are in the Moschopulean recension only the words προλογίζει δὲ ἡ 'Adnvä XXrAD, Escorial T.III.15. In the argument to Electra, the Moschopulean changes are clearly visible in the edition of Iahn-Michaelis.!? In the old tradition, there are two arguments: one ὑπόκειται κτλ. pp. 29.15 — 30.2, and the other one τροφεὺς κτλ. p. 30.4-8, which in the Laurentian class carries no title, but in the Roman class had the heading καὶ ἄλλως GMR. Both arguments pp. 29.15 — 30.8 (apart from trifling differences) appear in the Dindorfian wording in the mss. LFNGMR. Now, the Moschopulean recension, instead of p. 30.1 φοβουμένη ---8 “Apyer, gives this wording: δείσασα μὴ καὶ αὐτὸν κτείνωσιν᾽ ὁ δὲ ὑπεξέθετο αὐτὸν els Φωκίδα πρὸς τὸν Στρόφιον. viv δὲ μετὰ εἵκοσιν ἔτη ἐπανιὼν σὺν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸ “Apyos δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ τὰ ἐν “Αργει

XXrXsAD, Vatic. 45. (And this is followed by p. 30.9-11:) Ἢ σκηνὴ — ᾿Ορέστου XrXs, X also AD, Vatic. 45. Among the arguments to Oed. Tyr., the old tradition included arg. I, II, oracle, enigma. It seems that the Moschopulean recension included arguments I, II, enigma; perhaps Planudes added the Solution of the Enigma, for it appears, e.g., in the Moschopuleo-Planudean mss. D and Xr. Here are the most characteristic Moschopulean readings: arg. II to Oed. Tyr. p. 12.6/7 ἐπιγράφουσιν (ὡς om.) LFENGM=R (ἐπιγράφουσιν ὡς MP°) 14 ξἐπέγραφον ὡς XrXsAD, Vatic. 45; p. 13.3 βροτῶν δηλήμονα LFGMR, βροτῶν δηλήμονα πάντων NXr®: om. Xr*Xs, Vatic. 45; enigma p. 14.4 γίνηται LMR, γένηται G, γίνεται F (γίνονται Xr): κινεῖται XrAD, Vatic. 45. In my former study of the Moschopulean recension, I also analyzed many mss. which appeared to be Moschopulean and listed them systematically. For the sake of completeness, since this book is intended to cover all the extant Sophoclean mss., and since mss. of all the other classes — both “old’’ and Byzantine — are analyzed and listed in the subsequent chapters, I wish to include here a bare list of Moschopulean mss. The demonstration of their Moschopulean character and their

descriptions are to be found in Recenston pp. 152-173, and the reader is referred there for more detail. Below, I have added to the mss. listed before, a few other mss. which have revealed their Moschopulean character in my recent research. The mss. listed below are Moschopulean 13 Cf, Otto Iahn — Adolfus Michaelis, Electra* (Bonnae, 1882) p. 35: the right-hand column shows the Moschopulean version. — Cf. Robert Aubreton, Démétrius Triclinius

es les recensions médiévales de Sophocle (Collection d'études anciennes. Paris, 1949) p. 78. “4 The ms. N (Madrid 4677: cf. below, p. 147) belongs, along with F, to a younger branch of the Laurentian tradition.






in their Sophoclean contents entirely, if nothing else is mentioned. If the Sophocles portion of a given ms. is only partially Moschopulean, then the Moschopulean part is specified explicitly. Here follows the list

of Moschopulean Sophocles mss. Berlin, Oeffentliche Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, Phillipps 1588. This ms. is an apograph of Riccardi 34. Only Oed. Tyr. is probably Moschopulean. Cf. Recension pp. 149 f. Bremen, Staatsbibliothek, b.23. Azax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Brescia, Biblioteca Civica Queriniana, B.VI.24. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. See below, p. 191. Cambridge, Emmanuel College, 1.2.11. Fragments of Azax. Dresden Da.22. Partially Moschopulean. See below, p. 193. Escorial, T.III.15. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Escorial, ¥.1V.15. Atax, Electra (1469). See below, p. 192.

Escorial, 2.1.9. This is an apograph of Paris 2712 (A).


in Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, plut. 31, 9. Aicx, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Laur. 32, 32 + 32, 51. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Laur. 32, 34. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Laur. 32, 49. Atax, Electra. Laur. 32, 51. See above under Laur. 32, 32. Laur. Conventi Soppressi 66. Electra (755-end), Oed. Tyr. (1-311). Laur. Conv. Soppr. 71. See below, plate 1x. Our symbol X. Used by me as a typical representative of the Moschopulean class £m. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Laur. Conv. Soppr. 98. Azax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Laur. Conv. Soppr. 172. Cf. below, p. 42. Moschopulean in Atax 669-end, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, 34. Only Oed. Tyr. is Moschopulean. Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana, 77. Moschopulean in Atax and the first

text of Electra (1-567).

Cf. Recension pp. 155 f.; below, pp. 188 f.

Glasgow, University, Hunterian Museum, U.7.18. Aicx, Electra. Leipzig, Stadtbibliothek, Rep.I.4.44.a. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr.

Leipzig, Stadtbibliothek, Rep.I.4.44.b.

Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr.

Leningrad, Gosudarstvennaia Publichnaia Biblioteka imeni M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina, graec. 731. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. (1-1033). Probably Moschopulean. (The supposition of W. BeneSevi , Philologische Wochenschrift 46 [1926] 1145 ff., to the effect that this ms. Lenin-

grad 731 was used as the printer’s copy for the Aldine edition, is untenable, since the Aldine edition was printed on the basis of the ms. Vienna

phil. gr. 48 (Y): cf. below, p. 175.)






London, British Museum, Burney 106.



This is an apograph of Paris

2884. Also cf. below, p. 66. This ms. is, in the same way as its source, Moschopulean in Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. 1-1301. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 4617. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A 105 sup. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Ambros. B 97 sup. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Ambros. C 24 sup. Moschopulean only in Aiax and Electra. Cf. below, p. 66.

Ambros. E 77 sup.

Only Atax is Moschopulean.

Cf. below, p. 65.

Ambros. G 43 sup. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Ambros. H 105 sup. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Ambros. L 39 sup. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Ambros. N 166 sup. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Modena, Biblioteca Estense, a.U.9.19. Atax (312-1390), Electra, Oed. Tyr. Moscow, Gosudarstvenny! Istoricheskif Muzel, from the former Moskovskaia Sinodal’naia Biblioteka graec. 504. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Cf. below, p. 192. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, graec. 494. Atax 1-143. Cf. below, p. 190 note 202. Munich gr. 507. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, cod. II.F.9 (my symbol D). See below, plate x. Cf. Recension pp. 114 ff. This is an

important ms. containing Planudean scholia with Planudean authorship marks pat. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Naples II.F.34. Moschopulean only in Atax,

Electra, Oed.



below, p. 76. Naples II.F.35. Moschopulean in Atax 24-1034. Cf. below, p. 158. Naples II.F.36. Only Atax is Moschopulean. Cf. below, p. 65. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct.F.3.25. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr.

Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Barocci 66. Cf. below, p. 97.


only in Oed.


Oxford, Bodl. Libr., D’Orville 72. Atax, Electra. Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Laud Greek 54. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, Ancien fonds grec 2712 (symbol A). See below, plate m1. Moschopulean in Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Cf. below, p. 173. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2796. Moschopulean in Atax 194-end, Electra,

Oed. Tyr. 1-36. Cf. below, p. 160. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2797. 1-639. Cf. below, p. 77. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2805. 1-204. Cf. below, p. 65.


in Aiax and Electra


in Aicx and





Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2820. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2884.



Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Written a.p. 1301. Cf. below, p. 41.

Moschopulean in Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. 1-1301.

This ms. was copied

in the ms. London, Burney 106 (cf. above, p. 28; below, p. 66). Paris, Supplément grec 498. Aiax. Paris, Supplement grec 1229. Moschopulean in Aiax 107-end and Electra. Cf. below, p. 151. Paris, Supplément grec 1247. Atax. Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, 1243. Atax, Electra. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottoboni gr. 183. Aicx, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Palat. gr. 131. Atax 1040-end, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Cf. below, p. 193. Palat. gr. 335. Azax, Electra. Urbinas gr. 140. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Vatic. gr. 40. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Vatic. gr. 44. In this ms., Aiax 1-100 is Thoman. Then, Atax 101-end, Electra, Oed. Tyr. 1-799 are Moschopulean. The rest, Oed. Tyr. 800-end, follows a Laurentian source. Vatic. gr. 45. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Vatic. gr. 46. Cf. below, p. 78. Atax 767-951, Electra 8-end, and Oed. Tyr. 1-1525 are Moschopulean. Vatic. gr. 48. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Vatic. gr. 50. Our symbol Xa. Used by me asa representative of the Moschopulean class tm. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Vatic. gr. 911. Atax, Electra. Vatic. gr. 1363. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Vatic. gr. 1826. Aiax, Moschopulean. Moschopulean scholia on Oed. Tyr. Vatic. gr. 2221. Moschopulean in Aiax 505-end and Oed. Tyr. 177-


Cf. Recension p. 171.

Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, graec. 467 (No. di collocazione 764). Cf. below, pp. 173 ff. Our symbol U. Moschopulean in Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Venice gr. 514 (No. di collocazione 771). Cf. below, p. 193. Atax. Venice gr. 616 (No. di collocazione 663). This ms. is probably an apograph of Venice 617 (see below; cf. p. 67). Moschopulean in Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Venice gr. 617 (No. di collocazione 810). Moschopulean in Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. Cf. below, p. 43. This ms. is probably copied in the Venice 616 (see above). Vienna, Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, cod. philosophicus philologicus graec. 48. Cf. below, pp. 173 ff. Our symbol Y. Moschopulean in Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr.







Vienna philos. philol. gr. 161. Our symbol Xr. representative of the Moschopuleo-Planudean class Oed. Tyr." Vienna philos. philol. gr. 302. Atax, Electra, Oed. Vienna philol. supplem. gr. 71. Our symbol Xs. representative of the Moschopuleo-Planudean class Electra, Oed. Tyr. 4 This ms. Vienna phil. Antigone 1-67 with ancient (cf. below, p. 36). The text interpolated, and its scholia


Used by me as a tp. Atax, Electra, Tyr. Used by me as a tp. Aiax (1-1380),

gr. 161 contains also arguments III, I, to Antigone, and scholia. The arguments are given in the Thoman version of the Antigone fragment is ancient, though occasionally appear rather in the Roman version.






After the quite ingenious recension of the three plays by Moschopulus (with the scholia οἰκείως), the recension of Thomas Magistros followed." It had the scholia ἤγουν πειραθῆναι and was later than the edition of Moschopulus, against whom Thomas quite often argued in the scholia. It seems that Thomas was antagonistic to Moschopulus, though in some cases he could not fail to recognize the rightness of this or that textual correction made by his predecessor and had to adopt it. On many occasions, Thomas disregarded or spurned Moschopulean readings. Thomas’ achievement consisted mainly in making a new commentary on the four plays (A:., El., Oed. Tyr., Antig.), the scholia ἤγουν πειραθῆναι, which give long paraphrases of some interesting or difficult passages, and of course, he introduced into the poetic text numerous innovations, mostly poor interpolations made just for the sake of changing the text (though Thomas probably believed to improve it). Very few of them

have been or will be adopted by modern Sophocles editors. As to the chronology of the Thoman recension of Sophocles, I should like to state here a few essential facts. In a former discussion,” I postulated that Thomas was born ca. 1265 A.D. and was approximately of the same age as Moschopulus. The ms. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2884 (our symbol Zf), which was subscribed" a.p. 1301, contains a Thoman Aeschylus, and a Sophoclean tetrad which is partly Moschopulean and partly Thoman.” Thus it is clear that the Thoman recension of the Sophoclean tetrad was prior to 1301 A.D.:® it must have been accom-

plished some time in the last decade of the XIII* century.

As to Thomas’

work in the field of tragic studies, some cross references in his scholia show a definite succession of the Thoman editions of the three tragedians.?! In the tragic domain, the earliest edition of Thomas was his recension of the Euripidean triad (Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae), for in his scholia on Aeschylus Thomas refers to his scholia on Euripides. This proves that % Cf. Recenston pp. 102 ff. 7 Cf. Turyn, Aeschylus p. 103 note 89. - Cf, below, Ὁ. 41 note 31. 19 Cf. Recension pp. 165 f.; cf. above, p. 29; below, p. 41. 20 Since the Thoman text of Paris 2884 (Zf) belongs to the second Thoman version (cf. below, p. 47), we can consider that the second Thoman recension was already established prior to 1301 A.D. *1Cf, Cornelius Marinus Francken, De antiguarum Aeschyli interpretationum ad genuinam lectionem restituendam usu et auctoritate (Diss. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1845) pp. x, x11; G. Dindorf, Scholia graeca in Euripidis tragoedias I (Oxonii, 1863) pp. xvir f.; Turyn, Recension pp. 104 ff. ® (Cf. the Thoman scholium on Aesch. Prom. 853 (Chr. Godofr. Schütz, Aeschyli




the Euripidean recension of Thomas was prior to his Aeschylean recension. Then, Thomas’ Aeschylean recension was prior to his Sophoclean recension, for in his Sophoclean scholia there are references to his Aeschylean scholia.™ Accordingly, the chronological sequence of Thomas’ tragic recensions was this: Euripides — Aeschylus — Sophocles. This means that prior to 1301 A.D., the date of Paris 2884, Thomas had completed his commented editions of Euripides (Hec., Or., Phoen.), Aeschylus (Prom., Sept., Pers.), and Sophocles (at least, the commented tetrad: Ai., El., OT, Ant.). I believe that this is a good reason to assume that he was born about 1265 a.p., if he was able to complete these three recensions before 1301 A.D. He could not be much younger at that time to have achieved that great amount of work. There is one very important problem to be discussed at once. The Thoman scholia ἤγουν πειραθῆναι in that specific set cover only the four plays: Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antigone. There are many mss. with these Thoman scholia and with peculiar readings which we shall recognize below as Thoman — mss. containing just the said four plays. As for the remaining three plays — Oedipus Coloneus, Trachiniae, Philoctetes— , first we have to establish the fact whether Thomas actually edited them. There are in existence on these three plays no Thoman exegetic scholia which we could identify as Thoman or Byzantine prodtragoediae IV [Halae, 1821] p.

110.2; G. Dindorf, Aeschyli tragoediae superstites III: Scholia

[Oxonii, 1851] p. 273.9; I quote it, for documentary reliability, from Thoman mas. of Aeschylus— Cambridge, University Library, Nn.3.17 A fol. 24", or Vatic. gr. 2222 fol. 1885) : γεγράφαμεν δὲ τὴν ἱστορίαν πᾶσαν ἐν τῇ Ἐὐριπίδου Ἑκάβῃ. This refers to the Thoman version of an ancient scholium on Eur. Hec. 886 (Dindorf, Schol. Eur. I p. 435.23-436.16 +p. 436.20-437.2). For some other cross references, cf. Dindorf, Scholia Eurtp. I

p. xvi.

In the Thoman argument to Aesch. Septem (which was published by Dindorf,

Philologus 20 [1863] 386f., 42” [38”]), we read at the end University Library, Nn.3.17 αὕτη ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατὰ λεπτὸν ἐν

from the Triclinian ms. of Aeschylus, Naples II.F.31 fol. (I quote it from Thoman mss. of Aeschylus — Cambridge, A fol. 31”, or Vatic. gr. 1824 fol. 78"): ἐγράφη δὲ ἡ ἱστορία Φοινίσσαις Εὐριπίδου. This is a reference to the Thoman

argument to Eur. Phoenissae (Dindorf, Schol. Eur. III pp. 5.10-10.8; cf. Dindorf, Schol. Eur. IV p. 260). Another cross reference from Aeschylean scholia to Euripidean scholia which Dindorf quoted (cf. Dindorf, Philologus 20 [1868] 399; Dindorf, Schol. Eur. I p. xvii) actually stems from Triclinius’ Aeschylean scholia, not from Thomas himself. Dindorf (Philologus 20 [1868] 399) published from Triclinius’ Aeschylus (Naples Il.F.31 fol. 57° [53"]) this scholium on Aesch. Septem 412: Ἢ περὶ τῶν γιγάντων ἱστορία ἐν dowlacas ἡμῖν ebpsπίδου εἴρηται. This scholium is written in the Triclinian Aeschylus with a capital initial projected to the left and should be, therefore, a Thoman scholium (cf. Turyn, Aeschylus p. 106). Yet, actually it is not a Thoman scholium, for it does not appear in purely

Thoman mss. of Aeschylus like, e.g., Cambridge University Nn.3.17 A fol. 43", Oxford Selden Supra

18 fol. 46”, or Vatic. gr. 2222 fol. 211".

Consequently, it must have been

added by Triclinius to the Thoman scholia, while he incorporated them into his Aeschylean commentary. This scholium was meant by Triclinius to be a cross reference to the Thoman scholia on Eur. Phoen. 937-942.

#3 ] discussed those cross references in Recension pp. 104 ff.





ucts. Demetrius Triclinius, who incorporated in his commentary the Moschopulean scholia on At., El., OT, and the Thoman scholia on Ai., El., OT, Antig., would certainly have used Thoman scholia on Oed. Col., Trach., Phil., if there had been any, but he used on these three plays only ancient exegetic scholia. Yet, apart from the question of scholia, which Thomas appears not to have made on Oed. Col., Trach., Phil.,

there remains the question of the poetic text of those plays, and there is an explicit testimony by Triclinius, who relied on Thomas and was quite precise in his references to Thomas, about Thomas’ recension of the argument to at least one play of the remaining group. This is an im-

portant element in the evidence on the inclusion of these plays in the Thoman edition of Sophocles, and for this reason I wish to quote this evidence explicitly: Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2711 (= Τὴ, fol. 1485 Ὑπόθεσις τοῦ ἐπὶ κολωνῶ οἰδίποδος" διωρθώθη δὲ καὶ αὕτη παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ payl-

orpov (arg. I).

The same headline appears in Venice 470 (Ta) fol. 180°

and in Naples II.F.34 (Te) fol. 157”. For Trachiniae, the excerpt from Apollodorus


as argument,


there was

no room

in the

pertinent headline to mention Thomas: T fol. 193" ἐκ τῆς ἀπολλοδώρον βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ δράματος ἡ ὑπόθεσις (the same in Ta fol. 221” and Te fol. 205"). And to be sure, there is no mention of Thomas in the arguments to Philoctetes: T fol. 226° uxé@eois τοῦ δράματος (inc. ᾿Απαγωγὴ) and ἡ ὑπόθεσις ἔμμετρος (metrical argument) ; the same appears in Ta fol. 239"-240° and Te fol. 241"-241 bis”. It seems that the metrical argument discouraged changes and the prose argument being short did not offer too much opportunity for interpolations. It is pertinent to note that Triclinius recorded the fact of Thomas’ contributions to Sophocles mostly by headlining correspondingly his commentary if it included Thoman scholia, as it was the case with At., El., OT, Ant.* As to marking Thomas’ work in other places, he mentioned Thoman revision of the Vita and of the arguments to Electra and Antigone, but did not quote Thomas’ name in the headline of the arguments to Aiax and OT,* though it is obvious that Thomas edited all the four first plays. Therefore, I consider the mention of Thomas in the heading of the argument to OC in Triclinian mss. to be a sufficient indication that Thomas edited also the three plays OC, Trach., Phil., though without any scholia. This observation is corroborated by the fact that there are manuscripts which exhibit the poetic text of these three plays in a strongly interpolated and closely related form which is different from the Triclinian recension and obviously prior to Triclinius because it did not avail itself of the benefit of some Triclinian corrections. On the other hand, that same recension ™ Cf. Recension pp. 107 f. on the ms. Ta; cf. below, p. 74, on the ms. T.

*% Among the Triclinian mss., only in T fol. 110° in the margin, opposite the headline of arg. I to Oed. Tyr., there is a note διωρθώθη καὶ ταῦτα παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μαγίστρου.








was followed by Triclinius in many cases, in accordance with the basic attitude of Triclinius toward Thomas.% Furthermore, there are a few mss. which exhibit at the same time, in one volume, some or all plays of the tetrad in the Thoman version (as certified by the Thoman scholia in several other mss. of the tetrad) and all or some plays of the remaining group in that peculiar version which we assume to be likewise Thoman.

E.g., the ms. Laur. Conv. Soppr. 172 + Vatic. Palat. 287 (symbol Zo for the Thoman part only) shows Atax ca. 1-668 and Antigone in the admittedly Thoman recension and, then, OC, Trach., Phil., in that peculiar interpolated recension which I have just mentioned. The Laur. 32, 2 (symbol Zg) shows At., El., OT, Ant., in the Thoman version and Trach., Phil., in the recension in question. The Venice 617 (Zp) has Antig. in the Thoman recension and OC, Ph., Tr., in that Byzantine tradition in question. The Paris 2787 (Zn) has OT in the Thoman version and OC, Ph., Tr., in that Byzantine recension. As we see, there are some mss. which can be considered to be common links between the two groups of those Byzantine interpolated plays so as to show their common origin. Since the commented tetrad in that tradition is Thoman, also the remaining three plays — OC, Tr., Ph. — as represented in the pertinent mss., are to be considered likewise Thoman. It is rather a fortunate occurrence that those few mss. include interpolated plays from the two groups and thus link them together as a manifestation of the complete Thoman edition. Of course, we rely on the assumption that

these mss. followed basically the same source throughout the whole given ms. It seems appropriate to insert here a survey of problems inherent in the Thoman version of the Vita as well as of the arguments. For this material will contribute a welcome corroboration of the fact that there existed a Thoman recension of the whole heptad. It is only natural to assume that the Sophoclean Vita and arguments in the Thoman recension underwent some peculiar changes, and in recording the evidence for the characteristics of that recension we should

devote our attention also to these texts. “The first to recognize — partly — that tradition was Peter Elmsley, Sopkoclis Oedipus Coloneus (Oxonii, 1823) p. 86 ad OC 7 and pp. 355 f. He based his observation on the mss. ZnZoTTe (my symbols) and attributed the concordant readings of these mss. to the archetype of that recension. This is not entirely correct, because those concordant readings are only those Thoman

readings that were adopted by Triclinius.

There are some more Thoman readings which were not adopted by Triclinius and yet are to be attributed to the Thoman recension. As a matter of fact, Elmsley’s observation

indicated virtually that there was a special Byzantine tradition on which Triclinius relied very heavily. This situation has been clarified and Elmsley’s statement corrected by Ivstvs Hermannvs Lipsivs, De Sophoclis emendandi praesidiis (Progr. Misenae, 1860) 17 ff. The authorship of that Byzantine pre-Triclinian recension as postulated by

Elmsley was attributed to Thomas Magistros by F. W. Schneidewin, Neue Jahrbücher fiir Philologie und Paedagogik 67 (1853) 500.






This problem is somewhat complicated by the partial lack of direct evidence. For example, we do not possess any exemplar of the Thoman Vita in those most reliable manuscripts of the Thoman tetrad, like ZcZZaZbZd. In some cases — as in Zc and Zd — the original beginning of the ms. is missing, so the Vita, if there was any, is lost in these mss. But I am impressed by the fact that Z and Za and Zb do not show any Vita, and, moreover, there are no arguments in ZcZZaZbZd (except for ancient arguments I, II, to Electra in Zd, and an argument to Electra in Z by a later hand). The ms. Ze has the Vita and argument to Atax taken from the Jena class, which is used in a part of the same codex. I somehow feel that perhaps in his first draft of the tetrad Thomas omitted the Vita and the arguments to the tetrad. Nonetheless, we are faced with the explicit testimony of Triclinius regarding the Thoman διόρθωσις of the Vita and arguments to Electra, Oed. Tyr., Oed. Col., Antigone (cf. below, pp. 74 f.). We can imagine that Triclinius followed the Thoman version of those texts, though he may have included anywhere some additional changes of his own beyond what had been modified by Thomas.” Accordingly, in most cases we actually cannot be too sure whether a difference between the Thomano-Triclinian wording of the Vita or the arguments and the “old” wording originated with Thomas or with

Triclinius. Therefore, it would be safer to speak of Thomano-Triclinian readings without committing ourselves by crediting a specific change to Thomas. Thus, without deciding whether the features listed below were Thoman and followed by Triclinius — or only Triclinian, I should like to record here a few characteristic features, first of all, of the Thomano-Triclinian Vita, as exemplified by TTa. Vita p. 2.2/3 Dind. αἰσχύλου νεώτερος ἔτεσιν ἑπτὰ" εὑριπίδου δὲ κδ' F (which here represents the Laurentian tradition):® αἰσχυλ' νεώτερος ἕτεσιν }εὑριπιδ' δὲ, kb G: αἰσχύλος νεώτερος ἕτεσιν ζ᾽ εὑριπίδης δὲ, κὸ R: αἰσχύλου μὲν νεώτερος ἔτη δεκαεπτά" εὑριπίδου δὲ παλαιότερος εἰκοσιτέσσαρα TTa. This

reading changed the number seven of the old tradition into seventeen and inserted the word παλαιότερος. The fact that Sophocles was older than Euripides was obvious to the corrector in view of Sophocles’ birth

date Olymp. 71 (Vita Soph. p. 2.1: so GR) and Euripides’ birth date” Olymp. 75. — The next striking reading in the Thomano-Triclinian Vita is ἢ. 2.10 μικροφωνίαν FGR: ἰσχνοφωνίαν TTa. In general, the reader may look up the apparatus in Dindorf, Scholia pp. 1-30, to the Vita and the arguments. Variants recorded there from 2 This practice of Triclinius is evidenced, e.g., by his modifications of the Thoman Vita of Aeschylus: cf. Turyn, Aeschylus p. 12. = Cf. above, p. 25 note 12. 5 Cf. Vita Euripid. in Eduard


Scholia in Euripidem

I (Berolini,


p. 1.4; Vita Euripid. Thomana in Dindorf, Scholia graeca in Euripidis tragoedıas p. 11.10; cf. Suda s.v. Εὐριπίδης 3695 (II p. 468.14-16 Adler).




T will give, on the whole, an idea of the differences between the Triclinian (i.e., the Thomano-Triclinian) wording and the old text of that


While I address the reader to Dindorf's apparatus, I should

like to point out here a few more characteristic elements in the texts in question. To Oed. Tyr., the Triclinian mss. TTa exhibit only arg. I and arg. III ἄλλως. This argument ἄλλως is not known to me from any other sources outside the Triclinian recension. There is a characteristic reading in arg. I to Oed. Tyr. p. 12.1 Dind.: δισσαῖς re χερσὶν ἐξαναλώσας L'GR: δισσαῖς Te χερσὶν ἐξανάλωσε(ν) N,® Moschop., δισσαῖς re χερσὶν ἐξανήλωσεν Zn: δισσαῖσι χερσὶν ἐξετύφλωσεν TTa. It is noteworthy that the Thoman ms. Zn follows the vulgate of the deteriores and the text of Moschopulus. Now, the situation in the arguments to Antigone is highly interesting. The evidence of the vetustiores is this. In L, we find arg. I (of Aristophanes) before the play, and arguments III and II (by Salustios) after the play. — In M and R, this is the sequence of arguments: arg. III, arg. II. Thereupon, the following text is appended from arg. I (cf. pp. 18.23 — 19.10 Dind.): διαφέρει δὲ τῆς εὑριπίδου ἀντιγόνης, ὅτι φωραθεῖσα ἐκείνη διὰ τὸν αἵμονος


ἐξεδόθη πρὸς γάμον,


δὲ τοὐναντίον.

ἡ δὲ

διδασκαλία τοῦ δράματος ἐστὶ τριακοστὸν δεύτερον MR. This is the evidence for the vetustiores. Before we look for the evidence from manuscripts which we presume to be Thoman, let us examine the Triclinian argument to Antigone attributed by Triclinius explicitly to a Thoman διόρθωσις. This is the argument to Antigone in TTa: Ὑπόθεσις ἀντιγόνης : διωρθώθη δὲ παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μαγίστρον. (arg. III:) ᾿Αποθανόντα ---- θάνατον. (Then, from arg. I,

pp. 18.23 — 19.10:) κεῖται --- τριακοστὸν δεύτερον. Thus, what is attributed by Triclinius to Thomas is the formation of the argument to Antigone

by combining, from the ancient tradition, the argument III with a part of argument I appended, and implicitly we can assume that some (though

conceivably not all of them) peculiar readings of TTa in this argument originated with Thomas and were adopted by Triclinius. It is perhaps symptomatic that, e.g., in Thoman mss. Zo and Zp the argument to Antigone has the sequence arg. III, arg. I — but the argument I is given there in full. There is a common reading of the Thoman mss.: p. 19.2 αἵμονα 1.1: μαίμονα ZoZpTTa. Also p. 20.14 τὸν LMR: om. ZoZpTTa. But there are cases where ZoZp have peculiar readings not adopted by TTa; on the other hand, TTa have also special peculiarities. E.g., cf. p. 21.2 ἀποσφάζει LMRTTa: κατασφάζει ZoZp. Then, cf. p. 19.677 post dvalpects] καὶ μόρος εὑρυδίκης LZp: καὶ θάνατος εὑρυδίκης Zo: καὶ θάνατος αἵμονος καὶ εὑρυδίκης TTa. It seems that θάνατος was tentatively introduced by Thomas, and then this reading was enlarged by Triclinius. % On the ms. N, cf. above p. 26 note 14.






The situation in the arguments to Oedipus Coloneus is much more interesting. Here is the evidence as to how they are carried by the manuscripts (I disregard the index personarum). The ms. L has argument I νπ(όθεσις) οἰδίποδ(ος) τοῦ ἐπὶ κολωνῶι and, at the end of the play, arguments II, III, and IV, this one having the headline σαλουστι(ου) ux(d0eots) πυθαγορ()ου. ἄλλως. The mss. QMR exhibit argument I only. Zn and Zp have the argument matter in this sequence: arg. I ‘O ἐπὶ κολωνῷ — τάφον αὐτοῦ (pp. 14.17 — 15.18); then, arg. IV headlined ἄλλως: σαλουστίου (σταλ- Zn) πυθαγορείου; finally, the rest of arg. I Ἢ σκηνὴ — oldlxous (p. 15.19-21). — Zo has only arg. I in full. TTa have only arg. I in full.

Now, the Triclinian mss. TTa headline this arg. I in the following manner:


τοῦ ἐπὶ κολωνῶ

οἰδίποδος - διωρθώθη

δὲ καὶ




αὐτοῦ μαγίστρον. This means that the argument matter to Oed. Col. was revised by Thomas and that Triclinius followed it (though he may have added some revisions and changes of his own). Accordingly, we should examine the arguments of ZnZoZp for possible interpolations (i.e., departures from LQMR) and, then, we should compare the Triclinian version TTa of this argument matter as to whether it coincides with the interpolations of ZnZoZp. Since Triclinius did not carry the argument IV, we have to concentrate our attention on the argument I. Here I am going to quote some striking interpolations of ZnZoZp in this argument and ‘the concurrent evidence from TTa (or readings of TTa that can be explained as a subsequent development of an interpolation of ZnZoZp). Arg. I to Oed. Col. p. 14.18 Dind. τῆς γὰρ πατρίδος ἐκπεσὼν ὁ Οἰδίπους LOMR: om. ZnZoZpTTa; p. 15.2 ἦσαν yap rav LOMR: ἢ γὰρ τῶν ZnZoZp: (ἦ om.) τῶν γὰρ TTa; p. 15.2 φιλοστοργότεραι LOR, φιλοστεργότεραιΜ: μᾶλλον φιλόστοργοι ZnZpT Ta, (idem, sed voce μᾶλλον ante περὶ τὸν πατέρα traiecta) Zo; p. 15.6 ἔπειτα (ita L: ἐπεὶ QMR) — 8 πρὸς αὐτὸ LOMR: om. ZnZoZpTTa (probably an oversight because of a homoeoteleuton) ; p. 15.9/10 ἀπαλλάττεται LIQMR: ἀποστέλλεται ZnZoZpTTa; p. 15.16 κρατήσειν LOMR: κρατῆσαι ZnZoZpT Ta. Argument IV in ZnZp shows some interpolations departing from L, but since we lack this argument from Triclinius for comparison, we can dismiss it from the present discussion. Suffice it only to mention that also in this arg. IV the mss. Zn and Zp agree in some peculiarities as it

should be expected (cf. p. 18.1 πεπήρωται L: πεπλήρωται ZnZp; p. 18.10 πάντα L: δέοντα ZnZp; p. 18.11 θυγατρὶ L: μητρὶ ZnZp). The conclusions from the above analysis of the argument I to Oed. Col. are of great importance. Triclinius states explicitly that he follows the Thoman revision of that argument, and indeed he agrees in peculiar







interpolations of that argument with ZnZoZp.


This fact alone would be

enough for concluding that ZnZoZp are Thoman manuscripts.

Thus our

assumption that these manuscripts ZnZoZp— and those related to them — represent the Thoman tradition is signally confirmed and corroborated. It is interesting that also in the argument to Trachiniae, taken from

Apollodorus (Bibliotheca I1.148-160 pp. 95.15 — 99.19 Wagner), although Triclinius does not mention any Thoman διόρθωσις of this excerpt, nonetheless there are a few interpolations in ZoZp which are followed by Triclinius. (I disregard for the Apollodorean excerpt the ms. Zn; it goes

for p. 21.7-13 Dind. with Triclinius, for the rest it shifts to the old tradition.) I think that the reason of Triclinius’ foregoing any reference to Thomas was first of all the fact that Triclinius quite substantially departed both from the traditional text of the old Sophocles mss. and from the Thoman text in the lines p. 23.17-19 Dindorf by following the original text of Apollodorus. Thus Triclinius probably felt that he did not follow Thomas in a way which would justify labeling the argument as one edited by Thomas. Moreover, he added the Labors of Heracles (Dindorf, Scholia p. 24; Anth. Planud. XVI 92 Diibner), which were transmitted at least in the Laurentian tradition, so far as we know, but were dropped by the Thoman manuscripts ZoZp. Yet, coincidences between some interpolations of ZoZp and TTa prove that Triclinius continued to use here the Thoman tradition: cf. arg. to Trach. p. 21.19 Dind. οὗτος LMR, Apollodorus: οὗτος ἦν ZoZpTTa; p. 22.7 dvaxpayobons LMR, Apollodorus: dvaxpatotons ZoZpTTa. I do not press especially cases where Thomas changed the argument on the basis of Apollodorus and Triclinius adopted the same Apollodorean reading, e.g.: p. 21.13 ποτὸν ἢ βρωτὸν LMR: βρωτὸν 4 ποτὸν Apollodorus, ZoZpTTa: p. 22.6 πορθμεύων LMR: διαπορθμεύων Apollod., ZoZpTTa; p. 24.4 ἐπὶ LMR: κατὰ Apollod., ZoZpTTa. It is interesting to see that both Thomas and Triclinius compared the original text of Apollodorus with the excerpt transmitted in the Sophocles tradition. In one place Thomas corrected a corruption of the old tradition by restoring the original reading of Apollodorus, but Triclinius acted differently: p. 21.9 trepov] στερὸν L στερρὸν MR (a corruption that occurred at the uncial stage): ἕτερον Apollod., ZoZp: ἀριστερὸν TTa; evidently Triclinius made a conjecture by enlarging the word transmitted in the old Sophocles

tradition. At any rate, the conclusion

is justified

that also this argument


Trachiniae from Apollodorus did undergo a Thoman revision and that Triclinius knew its Thoman revision though he did not follow it too faithfully and rather departed from it substantially. This accounts for






his omission of any reference to Thomas in the headline of this argument against his customary way. By the same token it seems to appear that Trachiniae did exist in a Thoman recension: i.e., that the Thoman recension went beyond Oedipus Coloneus and included Trachiniae, too. Of course, Philoctetes was likewise included in the Thoman recension. In Philoctetes, we are faced with a similar situation. A specific revision of the prose argument appears in ZoZp, but Triclinius did not follow it, and this was the reason why we do not find a reference to Thoman διόρθωσις in the Triclinian headline. Yet, this cannot be a prejudice against the existence of the Thoman revision of that argument to Philoctetes and, by the same token, of the Philoctetes text itself. The evidence with regard to arguments to Philoctetes is this: L has the metrical argument to Philoct. and the prose argument, followed by τὰ τοῦ δράματος πρόσωπα. In the Roman tradition, the metrical argument is exhibited in GQ, but omitted in MR. The mss. GQ have the prose argument, then the

metrical argument, and personae dramatis. G exhibits, after personae dramatis, the ancient scholium on Phil. 1 (p. 350.1-5 Papag.). The mss. MR show the prose argument followed by personae dramatis, but — curiously enough — omit the scholium on Phi. 1 even among the scholia. Among the Thoman mss., I again disregard in this connection the ms. Zn which gives the prose argument only, in the ancient version, and personae dramatis — but I shall consider here the mss. ZoZp which exhibit a highly peculiar version of the prose argument (the metrical argument was omitted there). The specific form of the prose argument to Phil. in ZoZp reveals itself toward the end (p. 29.11 Dindorf). In the old tradition, the last sentence reads: πρῶτος ἦν Σοφοκλῆς L (xetrac— Σοφοκλῆς om. GMR;; πρῶτος ἦν Σοφοκλῆς om. Q). But ZoZp give instead: (πρῶτος om.) ἦν (sic Zp: # Zo) σοφός ZoZp. This is followed in ZoZp by τὰ τοῦ δράματος πρόσωπα, to which the ancient scholium on Phil. 1 (p. 350.1-5 Papag.) is appended — in a manner that resembles the arrangement in G.

Now, what is the situation in Triclinius? The mss. TTa give the prose argument, headlined ὑπόθεσις τοῦ δράματος, and the metrical argument headlined ἡ ὑπόθεσις ἔμμετρος, then personae dramatis. The end of the prose argument is given correctly in accordance with L: πρῶτος ἦν codoκλῆς TTa (but in T, the erroneous Thoman reading is recorded, close to the end of the sentence ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ γλαυκίππου, above the line: ἦν σοφός T*). And, of course, the scholium on Phil. 1 is written in the right place, in the scholia column ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν σχολίων. This shows that Triclinius did not follow the Thoman version of the argument. He could not acquiesce in the nonsensical reading ἦν σοφός, he could not detach the scholium on Phil. 1 from the scholia group, and he wanted to include





also the metrical scholium.




This situation resembles that with regard

to the argument to Trachiniae. But though Thomas’ revision of the argument to Philoctetes is not mentioned by Triclinius, this does not affect the basic setup which shows that Thomas did revise Philoctetes,

too, and that the Thoman text of Phtiloctetes was known and used by Triclinius. Since there were no Thoman scholia on the plays beyond Antigone, and only ancient scholia were recorded by Triclinius in Philoctetes, there was no room for Triclinius to make any reference in Philoctetes to the Thoman recension — in the same way as he forewent any reference to Thomas in Trachiniae. With regard to the outward appearance of Thoman mss., I should like to call attention to the page arrangement in Zn. While OT is written there in a single column to a page, the other plays— Trach., Phil., Oed. Col. — are written in two columns to a page. That reflects, of course, the makeup of the original Thoman edition. The play OT — as the other plays of the tetrad — was provided with scholia and had to be written in a single column to a page to leave more space for marginal scholia. The remaining plays, however, i.e., OC, Tr., Ph., had no scholia at all and originally were most probably written in two-column pages. Anyway, the double columns prevail in those later interpolated mss. without scholia. For example, Zg and Zo have double columns throughout all the plays. However, Zp sticks to the single column arrangement. Before I quote Thoman readings, I am listing below Thoman mss. They appear to be Thoman by virtue of their scholia, if any, on the tetrad (ἤγουν πειραθῆναι) and by virtue of the incidence — jointly with those scholia — of peculiar interpolations, i.e., new readings different from the consensus of LAGOR. In the list of mss. given below, I disregard apographs of extant mss. For detailed description of mss., I refer the reader to my papers: Manuscripts and Recension. If I can revise the description of a ms. in relation to that given previously, I

shall quote the more important features in such a revised description. The Thoman character of a ms. will appear in the further course of this study through the very fact of that ms. being quoted in the coverage of interpolated readings presumed to be Thoman. All the symbols of Thoman mss. are mine, and have been in many cases used already in my paper Recension. These are the Thoman mss. : Zc = Vatic. gr. 1333 (cf. Recension pp. 103 f.; see below, plate x11). Paper, XIV! cent. Aiax (227-end), Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antigone. Thoman scholia (ἤγουν πειραθῆναι). The beginning of the original ms., 41. 1-226, was lost and replaced by a later addition, which we disregard. Z = Venice gr. 472 (No. di collocazione 766). See below, plate xz. Paper, XIV“ cent. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antigone. Thoman scholia.



Za = Florence, Laur. 31, 8. Cf. Eduard Fraenkel, Aeschylus Agamemnon (Oxford, 1950) I p. 4 and specimen ibid., pl. 11. — Paper, XIV‘ cent. Atax, Electra (1-895). Thoman scholia. Zb = Munich gr. 500. Paper, XV/XVI* cent. Aiax, Antigone, Oecd. Tyr., Electra. Thoman scholia. Zd = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2795. Paper, XIV“ cent. (cf. Aubre-

ton, Démétrius

Triclinius p. 104). Atax

(31-end), Electra, Oed.


Antigone (1-68). Thoman scholia on Ai., El., OT. Ancient arguments I, II, to Electra. Ze = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2812 A. Paper, XVI** cent. Aiax, Electra. This ms. is Thoman in Atax 1-1355 (fol. 100'-141”) and El. 489-end (fol. 159-190") and has Thoman scholia on this text; only this portion of the ms. we mark with the symbol Ze. The portion Atax 1356-end and ΕἸ. 1-488 (fol. 142*-159") belongs to the Jena family and has Jena scholia on El. 137-484; for this Jena portion we use the symbol Jr (cf. below, p. 93). Zf = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2884 (cf. Recension pp. 165 f.). Paper, 1301 a.p."! Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antigone. Only the portion comprising Oed. Tyr. 1302-end and Antigone is Thoman and has sparse Thoman scholia on Ant. 101-161; this portion is symbolized Zf. The rest of the Sophocles text is Moschopulean. There is an apograph of the poetic text of Paris 2884 in the London ms. Burney 106 (cf. Recension p. 158; cf. above, p. 28; below, p. 66). Zg = Florence, Laur. 32, 2 (cf. Manuscripts pp. 15f.). Paper, XIV‘ cent., 296X222 mm., 252 foll., in 2 columns, 30-38 lines to a column for the text of Sophocles. Once owned by Symeon, bishop of Gerace, 1348 (cf. Udalricus de Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Analecta Evripidea [Berolini, 1875] 5f.). Fol. 1% peculiar argument to Atax (by second hand, that of Symeon); 2'-10" Aiax; 11” peculiar argument to Electra, and another one ἡ οὖν ὑπόθεσις ---- εὑρήσεις (cf. G. Wolff, Zeitschrift für die Alterthumswissenschaft 13 [1855] 45 f.), both added by Symeon; 12: Electra; 23 arg. I to OT; Oed. Tyr.; 34" Philoct.: 44° arg. to Ant.; 447 Antigone; 52° arg. to Trach. (from Apollodorus) ; 53" poem on Labors of Heracles ; 5§3'-61" Trachiniae. On the whole, no scholia. However, Symeon added some sparse scholia. And a different hand wrote a few Moschopulean

scholia on the beginning of Electra. There is an apograph of Laur. 32, 2 in the Laur. 31, 1 (Zs); see below, p. 66. It is worth while to note the relationship of Laur. 32, 2 to the δἰ In the subscription of Paris 2884 (cf. Recension 165), the year has to be read .¢w6’, the date of the ms. being February 24, 1301 (cf. Aubreton, Démétrius Triclinius 97).

I have re-examined this subscription in a photostat and in an ultraviolet reproduction. This is its text (Paris gr. 2884, fol. 247”): + ΧΑριστ)ξ βοήθ(ει) μοι τῶ σῶ δούλω ἀθανασίω τῶ σπονδ()λη τῶ γράψαντι ταύτην τὴν βίβλον- ἐτελειώθ(η) γοῦν ἡ παροῦσα βίβλος κατὰ τὴν εἰκοστὴν τετάρτην τοῦ φευρουᾳρίου μηνὸς ἔτους «ςωθ΄.








ms. Laur. Conv. Soppr. 172 + Vatic. Palat. 287 (see below) in Aeschylus and Euripides.” Zh = Vatic. gr. 57. Paper, XIV‘ cent. Fol. 87"ν-147:: Atax, Electra, Antigone (1-1164, 1298-end). The Sophocles portion is written by three hands. The main hand wrote fol. 88:--94" : Aiax 1-409, Thoman text (no scholia). Another hand — fol. 95'-100" top: Azax 392-730, Mos-

chopulean text with Moschopulean scholia.

Another hand — fol. 100”

top-105": Atax 731-981, Thoman text with Thoman scholia. Main hand — fol. 106-147": Aiax 982-end, Electra, Antig.; Thoman text, with some ancient scholia mostly on Electra. I shall disregard the Moschopulean portion Ai. 392-730. The symbol Zh applies only to the Thoman portion comprising: Atax 1-409, 731-end; Electra, Antigone. Zk = Vatic. gr. 920. Paper, A.D. 1340, in two volumes. Volume I: 217X145 mm., fol. 1-174; volume II : 255 X 188 mm., fol. 175-353. Written by different hands, subscribed Α.Ὁ. 1340 (fol. 221”): + ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ || ] τοῦ I 4+ τῶς “ωϑ pen, ἔτει ἱν(δικτιῶνος) 4°, μηνὶ paprly κ᾽. ἡμέρα β΄. ὥρα &’ + Only for a very small part of the Sophocles text at the beginning can we assume

it to have been written by one Μελέτιος: cf. fol. 89° κε iv XE be τοῦ Bu ἐλεήσον τὸν ἁμαρτολὸν μελέτιον. Fol. 82” Vita (shortened); 83'-128" Aiax; 129° metrical notes; 129” arg. to Electra and the scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papageorg.); 130° Electra; 174: arguments I, II, to Oed. Tyr.; 174"-221" Oed. Tyr. Except for the beginning A+. 1-116 (fol. 83'-87') which is Moschopulean with Moschopulean scholia, the main body of the ms., from Aiax 117 on (from f. 87" on) to the end, is Thoman and is supplied with Thoman scholia. The Moschopulean beginning is disregarded below, and the symbol Zk applies only to the main Thoman text of the ms. Zn = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2787. Paper, late XIV* cent. (cf. Jean

Irigoin, Scriptorium 4 [1950] 195), 215140 mm., 179 foll., 20 lines to a single column page in Oed. Tyr.; 2 columns to a page, 31 lines to a column, in Tr., Ph., OC. — Fol. 103: arg. I, oracle, enigma, solution of the enigma, arg. II to Oed. Tyr.; 104" personae dramatis; 105" Qed. Tyr.; 143: arg. to Trach. (from Apollodorus); 143% Labors of Heracles ; 144° Trachiniae; 154° arg. to Phil. (ἀπαγωγὴ); Philoctetes; 165: arg. I, IV, to Oed. Col.; 165*-179* Oedipus Coloneus. No scholia, but there are Thoman glosses and interlinear scholia on Oed. Tyr., which agree with those found in other Thoman mss.

Zo = Florence, Laur.

Conventi Soppressi


on the Euripides

172 + Vatic. Palatin. 287

(cf. Recension


P. G. Mason,

Classical Quarterly 44 [1950] 63-68).

text of this ms.,

cf. now

Parchment, XIV“

# Cf. Turyn, Aeschylus pp. 69 f., 74; Giorgio Pasquali, Storia della tradisione e critica del testo (Firenze, 1934) p. 36 note 1.



cent. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct. The text of Aiax at the beginning— Conv. Soppr. 172, fol. 84°-89°: Aicx 1-668 — is Thoman. Then, the rest of the triad — Conv. Soppr. 172, fol. 90-123": Aiax 669-end, Electra, Oed. Tyr. — is Moschopulean (cf. Ai. 717 μετεγνώσθη, and cf. Recension Ὁ. 155). The other plays obviously revert to the Thoman source so that Antigone, Oed. Col., Trach., Phil., in the Palat. 287, are Thoman. No scholia, except for a few sparse notes. The symbol Zo applies only to the Thoman part of these combined mss., i.e.: Atax 1-668, Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct. Zp = Venice gr. 617 (No. di collocazione 810). Cf. Recension p. 172. Paper, XV“ cent. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct. The triad is Moschopulean and has Moschopulean scholia. But Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil., are Thoman. They have no scholia.

This ms., in its Thoman part, is a gemellus of Palat. 287 (Zo); cf. Trach. 293 ἂν om. ZoZp; 295 συντρέχειν LRZgZnTTa: συμπράττειν ZoZp. symbol Zp applies only to the Thoman portion of this ms.


Below I am going to quote some more conspicuous readings of these manuscripts. The frequent appearance of those common readings will prove that the above mss. — in addition to their Thoman scholia, if any, on the tetrad — are actually Thoman mss. and that those common readings are Thoman interpolations. The reader has to bear in mind that the Thoman tradition is not too well known to Sophoclean scholars. While the Moschopulean text, owing to Aldus and Brunck, is a popular feature of the modern Sophocles vulgate, and while the Triclinian text

through Turnebus dominated Sophocles editions for over two centuries, there was no analogous event in the history of printed Sophocles editions which would disclose systematically and popularize the Thoman interpolations. It is not that we have any reason to regret the oblivion which enveloped those poor interpolations: it is simply a statement of fact or a

statement of the vicissitudes of the Thoman


The Thoman

tradition was only partly known in the past through collations of some mss. The ms. Zf was disclosed by Brunck (under his symbol £), and also the ms. Zn (under Brunck’s symbol B). Zb was revealed by Erfurdt-Hermann. As for the Thoman mss. mainly of Oed. Col., Trach., Phil., many scholars contributed toward the disclosure of Zg, Zo, Zp, Zr, Zs. This was done by Hermann, Elmsley, Dindorf, Campbell, Subkoff, Cantarella, mostly with regard to single plays and without systematic collations of the entire codices. Elmsley and Lipsius (cf. above, p. 34 note 26) paved the way for the recognition of the peculiar

Byzantine character of the tradition in question especially in Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil. As the reader will see, the quality and usefulness of the Thoman inter-








polations is extremely poor and cannot be compared with the brilliant critical talent of Moschopulus applied to trimetric lines or with some metrical corrections of Triclinius in lyrical lines. And this raises the question of how important it is— apart from satisfying merely our curiosity — to tabulate systematically Thoman readings, instead of being content with listing just a few samples. Yet, there is a very urgent consideration which speaks for learning all the elements of the Thoman edition. As I stated on several occasions, even the ‘“‘old’’ mss. if written

at any time after ca. 1300 A.D. were exposed to the impact of the socalled horizontal or transverse tradition: they were simply laid bare — owing to the interpolating spirit especially of the XIV* century — to most capricious infiltrations of Byzantine readings. This interpolating fancy, or rather mania, studded even the “old’’ mss. with so many alien interpolations that any attempt to establish a stemmatic pattern in the interrelationship of those “‘old’’ mss. is doomed to failure if one considers those alien ingredients as essential features. We have simply

to discard them from our examination of the characteristic features of the veteres which are to be the basis of their genealogy. And this is the reason why we have to know all Byzantine recensions and all their interpolations — in order to know what is to be discarded in our evaluation of the veieres, which is our main task. Let us quote some Thoman readings as covered by the mss. listed above. Their character as interpolations reveals itself by their difference from the “‘old’’ readings. Their Thoman authorship is proved by their appearance predominantly in Thoman mss., in all or many of them. The reader has to watch the coverage of pertinent readings by symbols beginning with Z. The consensus of LAGQR (or of most of them) represents the ancient reading. Suda quite often agrees with the Roman family p (= GQR). £ is the symbol of the Moschopulean recension. T and Ta represent the Triclinian recension, which very frequently followed Thomas. The chronological sequence of Byzantine recensions has been established by me (cf. Recension p. 124) in this way: Moschopulus— Thomas — Triclinius. I purposely quote Moschopulean and Triclinian readings in order to show the complete picture of Byzantine readings in a given case, and also to show whether Triclinius follows Thomas, as it often happens. Many of the Thoman mss. in the tetrad have Thoman scholia (ἤγουν πειραθῆναι), if any, as it is recorded in the description of those mss.

Below, I quote direct evidence from manuscripts, instead of giving general class readings deduced from my specific findings. The only general symbol used below is £, to mark the consensus of Moschopulean mss. No conclusions ex silentio are allowed as to manuscripts that are not quoted explicitly.





First of all, I shall quote some selected Thoman readings from the tetrad. Such Thoman samples will serve as criteria for identifying Thoman mss. and will give us a basis for a general discussion of mss. of the Thoman recension with special regard to the consistency and generality of the manuscript evidence of Thoman readings. The other plays — Oed. Col., Trach., Phil. — will be treated separately. Now examples (by far not a complete list) of Thoman readings in the tetrad follow: Aiax 82 ὄκνῳ LGOR, Suda (sub O 116), &, ὀκνῶν ZhP°: ἰδεῖν ZZaZbZd ZeZgZh“ZoT Ta. Ai. 84 ὀφθαλμοῖς ye LGQREZgZorTTa: ὀφθαλμοῖσι (γε om.) ZZa ZbZdZeZh, ὀφθαλμοῖς (γε om.) Zo”. Ai. 154 iels LGQR, Suda (sub K 1841), &Zg'TTa: els λόγους ZZaZb ZdZg*ZhZkZo, (-Yos) Ze. Ai. 233 κεῖθεν κεῖθεν LORE, ‘xetOev 'xeidev GZo: ἐκεῖθεν ἐκεῖθεν ZZbZcZd ZeZgZhZkTTa. Ai. 516 ἀλλ’ ἡ LGOREZdPZgZ0T Ta: ἄλλη ZZbZcZd*Zezk. Ai. 546 τοῦ τόνδε LZk: τοῦτόν γε GQREZgZoTTa: πον τόνδε ZZbZcZe, ποῦ τόν γε Zd.

Ai. 708 πάρα λευκὸν LGOREZdP°Zer°Zg (hanc lectionem etiam scholiis Thomanis testantibus), TTa: πάλλευκον (glossa Thomana λαμπρότατον Zcel). Ai. 801 θεστορείου LGQREZgZhTTa:




θεστορίδου ZZbZcZdZeZk.

Az. 1011 ἵλεων L!AGOR, Suda (sub II 3069, praeter ἵλεως cod. V), Zg: ἥδιον £ZhTTa: ἴδιον ZZbZcZdZeZhrrZk (glossa Thomana οἰκεῖον). Ai. 1271 πάντα ταῦτ' LGQRE: ταῦτα πάντ᾽ ZZbZcZdZeZgZhZkTTa. Electra 890 λοιπόν u’ ἢ LGZcZg, λοιπὸν μὴ R: λοιπὸν ἵν’ ἢ E: λοιπὸν ἢ ZZbZdZhZkTTa. El. 1124 ἐπαιτεῖ LIGR: ἐπαιτεῖται £ZZgZhT Ta: ἀπαιτεῖται ZbZcZdZk. El. 1496 ὡς ἐν ταὐτῷ LGRE: ὡς ἂν ταὐτῷ Zc: ὡς ἂν ἐν ταὐτῷ ZZbZdZg ZhZkTTa. Oed. Tyr. 18 of de. . ἠιθέων L! of δὲ τ᾿ ἠιθέων G, Suda (sub A 234 codd. GM: — θ᾽ — AFV), ETTa: of 5° &r’ ἠιθέων R: of 5° ἠιθέων ZZbZcZdZgZkZn. OT 86 φήμην φέρων LGREZgZkTTa: φάτιν φέρων ZcZn', φέρων φάτιν ZZbZd. OT 180 δ’ ἁ γενέθλα LE: δὲ γένεθλα GR, Je yl..... Ja Pap. Soc. It. 1192: 5’ ἀγένεθλα ZZbZcZdZkZnTTa (cf. schol. Thom.). OT 411 xpoorärov LGR, Suda (sub Γ 94), &ZgZkTTa: προστάτης ZZbZcZdZn. OT 445 ob τ᾽ L!: σὺ γ᾽ GREZ*ZkTTa: τά γ' Z1ZbZcZdZg!ZkrZn. OT 1253 ἐκθεάσασθαι LGREZcZgT°: ἐνθεάσασθαι ZZbZdZkZaT'Ta. Antigone 134 y& LRZc: γᾶν ZZbZ{ZgZhZoZpTTa.



Ant. 152 παννύχοις LARZhTTa: παννυχίοις ZZbZcZfZgZoZp.

Ant. 210 ἐκ γ᾽ ἐμοῦ LAR: ἐξ ἐμοῦ ZZbZcZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 225 ἔσχον 1,ἘΖὈν»Ζο: εὗρον ZZbZc”*ZEZgZhZoZpT Ta. Ant. 247 χρὴ LR: χρῆν ZZbZcZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 386 εἰς μέσον LRZc: els (vel ἐς) δέον ZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa Zcel, scilicet primitus haec erat glossa Thomana). Ant. 493 κλοπεὺς LRZp”: κλοπαῖς ZZbZcZfZgZhZoZpT Ta.


Before I proceed further, I should like to make a few remarks on the setup of the Thoman evidence as exemplified by the above specimens. Of course, I cannot make generalizing statements on the character of Thoman readings — that can be done only if we survey the entire list

of Thoman readings.

Suffice it to say that they are just interpolations,

which do not show any special acumen

in things metrical or any out-

standing imagination in diagnosing any defects of the text and in trying to improve it. One phenomenon strikes us here: the inconsistency of the Thoman mss., the varying constellations of Thoman mss. in the

acceptance of those interpolations. This situation is in strong contrast with the strict discipline and consistency of the Moschopulean recension as well as of the Triclinian recension. The inconsistency of those varying groups of Thoman mss. makes any attempt at establishing their stemma impossible, even though some smaller groups are recognizable

by common mistakes, as e.g.: Oed. Tyr. 550 τι LGR, Suda (sub Ex 339), tZcZgZkTTa: om. ZZbZdZn; OT 556 ἄνδρα LGREZcZgZkZn**: om. ZZbZdZn™; OT 1529 ὀλβίζειν LGR, Suda (sub O 132), &ZcZfZgZkTTa: ὀλβιάζειν ZZbZdZn. But even so, the satellites of such a small group oftentimes diverge in the acceptance or rejection, respectively, of some reading. The explanation is quite simple. Some copyists of Thoman

mss. most probably compared their source with manuscripts of other recensions




a Thoman





another reading, an old one, a Moschopulean one, or even a Triclinian one.* But the most frequent case of inconsistency probably resulted from the fact that the Thoman edition (especially the second Thoman edition, which is discussed below) should be visualized as an edition

supplied with variae lectiones written above the line, sometimes with a prefix γρ(άφεται). It was not always the case. Often, Thomas introduced his interpolations in his master copy either in a definite way, superseding by it the old reading — then the Thoman reading was acCf. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione pp. 135 ff. Of course, in poetry and with regard to a late Byzantine edition, the situation is quite different from that in prose. “ That is why I do not exclude the possibility that an agreement of very few Thoman mss. with Triclinius may at times mean that the copyists of those Thoman mss. followed a Triclinian reading. Such a case cannot be decided peremptorily, and it does not matter very much — anyway, such a reading would be a Byzantine interpolation.



cepted by most Thoman





Or, he would record his interpolation

in a tentative or optional way: as a result, some Thoman mss. would adopt it or stick to the old reading, or record the Thoman reading above the line, or adopt it ἐπ linea and record the superseded old reading supra lineam (possibly as γράφεται). At times, by mistake,a Thoman gloss would in subsequent copies sneak into the text and push out the original reading into the position above the line. But there was—apart from these considerations—one more reason for the inconsistency of Thoman mss. I strongly suspect that there were two drafts of the Thoman recension, the earlier one, more conservative, with a smaller number of in-

terpolations, more reluctant to adopt some of the Moschopulean readings, — and a second one, with far more


prone to follow some Moschopulean corrections. representative

of the earlier edition

(Vatic. gr. 1333).

interpolations, more

I know of one possible

of Thomas,


the ms.


The other Thoman mss. represent the later edition.

Of course, there were different grades of the interpolating libido among the copyists of the later Thoman text, according to the personal taste and critical temperament of every copyist. My view about Zc is based on the following considerations. Zc shows in many cases a striking affinity with the “‘old”’ tradition as represented by the famous Laurentian ms. L, even in cases where the other Thoman mss. do not share the special Laurentian mistake or reading and agree with other sources. Cf. Atax 1325 σ᾽ om. L!Zc: habent GOREZZbZdZe ZgZhZkTTa; Oed. Tyr. 349 εἶναι om. L!A (etiam PPa — cf. below, pp.

158f.), Zc: habent GREZZbZdZgZkZnTTa; OT 1024 αὐτὸν ἐξέπεισ᾽ LPQRE ZZbZdZgZkZnTTa: ἐξέπεισ᾽ αὐτὸν L**? (etiam P), Zc; OT 1480 Ir’ GREZZbZfZgZkZnTTa, (ex ér’) Zd: om. L!A (etiam PPa), Zc; Antig.

920 θανόντων RZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa:



This interesting

agreement of Zc with L sometimes allows us even to discover an original reading of L obliterated by a later correction: cf. OT 253 extremum re] γε L!?Zc (etiam PPa’).™ As a result of this situation, I urge future editors of Sophocles to use sporadically Zc as additional evidence which is apt occasionally to illustrate a peculiar reading of L, especially when that reading of L is obliterated to the point of becoming illegible. I should say that our discovery of Zc, which has not been used before by scholars, is a most welcome addition to the Laurentian evidence, as paradoxical as it may seem in the case of a Byzantine interpolated manuscript. In this connection, I should point out that originally the Thoman recension was based rather on the Laurentian than on the Roman text. # We have to realize that some peculiar agreements of single mss. with L may have come about in an indirect manner through the influence of the Thoman recension if in ἃ given case the Thoman recension coincided with L. This goes especially for the possible influence of the Thoman ms. Zc which often agrees with L (cf. below, p. 145).








This can be exemplified by a case like this: At. 28 τρέπει LZZaZbZeZg

ZhZkZoTTa: νέμει GORE. The next interesting feature of Zc is its evident reluctance to adopt Moschopulean readings in cases where the other Thoman mss., which I assume to represent a later Thoman edition, accept the Moschopulean readings. A typical case is El. 809 where Moschopulus corrected an obvious transposition of words transmitted by the veteres. Zc— let us

say, the first Thoman

draft — ignored the Moschopulean


but other Thoman mss. did accept it: El. 809 φρενὸς οἴχῃ L'AGRZcZg!?: οἴχῃ φρενὸς EZZbZdZeZg*ZhZkTTa. But, of course, there are cases when Zc along with the other Thoman mss. adopts a Moschopulean reading, which means that from the very beginning, starting with his first edition, Thomas adopted a Moschopulean interpolation, e.g.: At. 1070 λόγων τ’

LGQR: λόγων (τ᾽ om.) EZZbZcZdZeZgZhZKTTa. There is one more interesting feature pointing to the fact that Zc is the text of the first Thoman edition as it was composed along with its scholia. Zc as a rule agrees with the Thoman scholia, while sometimes a reading appearing in the other Thoman mss. conflicts with the statement of the pertinent Thoman scholium. Let us examine Atax 1118

οὐδ᾽ ab LG!tZreZbZcZdZeZkr?: οὐδ᾽ ἂν G°QR: οὐκ ἂν Z“ZgZhZkTTa. is the Thoman


scholium on the line (I quote Zc fol. 30°): τὸ “οὐδ᾽ αὖ

τοιαύτην᾽᾽ ἔμφασιν ἔχει. ἀποδέχομαι, οὐδὲ αὖ καὶ

ὥσπερ yap el ἔλεγε πρὠην ὅτι οὐ μαλακὴν γλῶσσαν πάλιν τοιαύτην, οἵαν ὁ Τεῦκρος ἔχει, θρασεῖαν καὶ

μεγάλαυχον ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς. This scholium explains οὐδ᾽ αὖ, which must have been the reading carried by the original or first Thoman edition. The later Thoman reading οὐκ ἂν appears only in the poetic text of some Thoman mss., but is disregarded in their scholia: e.g., ms. Z fol. 114: shows this scholium in exactly the same wording as Zc. The later Thoman reading οὐκ ἂν was followed by Triclinius. However, Triclinius noticed the discrepancy of the Thoman scholium with the reading which he himself accepted, and simply dropped that Thoman scholium from his commentary. There is another interesting example At. 1059 αἰσχίστῳ

LGrQs!tZreZbZcZdZe: ἀθλίῳ GOR: ἐχθίστῳ Z*ZgZhZkTTa.

The Tho-

man scholium reads p. 351.36 αἴσχιστον and p. 352.2 ἐν αἰσχίστῳ καὶ ἀτιμοτάτῳ θανάτῳ in Thoman mss. (Z fol. 112”, Zc fol. 28”, Zk fol. 117”), and it reads likewise in Triclinian mss. (Ta fol. 135", Td fol. 27*).%* While the original reading of the first Thoman edition was αἰσχίστῳ, the second edition offered in the poetic text an alternate or elective reading ἐχθίστῳ, but this change was not reflected in any retouching or adjusting * The changes exhibited by Turnebus in his printed scholium (cf. Turnebus, Scholia p. 25; repeated by Dindorf,

Scholia pp. 351.36 and 352.2) — they were made to have

the scholium agree with the text reading carried by Triclinius — stem in Turnebus from the Cambridge ms. Tg, which was followed by Turnebus in the scholia on the tetrad (cf. below, pp. 83 ff.).

There is no scholium in T fol. 315.





of the scholia. I have to emphasize most strongly that the Thoman scholia on the tetrad did not undergo any change in the second Thoman edition, and that the changes in the later Thoman edition affected only the poetic text. There is practically no difference in scholia between Zc and Z, which represents the later Thoman edition.

In the poetic text, there are cases of a complete split between Zc alone and all the other Thoman mss., which means that an interpolation was made only in the second edition, e.g., El. 1386 βεβᾶσιν LGREZc: βεβᾶσι δ' ZZbZdZeZgZhTTa, -w δ’ Zk. The degree of consistency in the coverage of a new reading by Thoman mss. is related to a possible split between the first and the second draft, and then also reflects the manner in which the new reading was introduced by Thomas in his second edition, either being integrated in the text in a definite and exclusive way or jointly with an alternate choice. This procedure resulted in varying constellations of attesting mss.

The reader who studies the complete list of Thoman


will notice that there were some more conservative Thoman mss. which gave preference — in the case of an optional variant — to the “old” readings, and others which preferred interpolations. Triclinius in trimeters (not in lyrics where he had independent imagination and judgment) relied on a Thoman text and, I should say, on a copy of the second

Thoman draft. I need not give examples to prove it. Even a cursory glance at the list of Thoman readings will show in a great abundance Triclinius’ agreement with Thoman interpolations, especially with those of the second Thoman edition. Just for the sake of argument, we might discuss a possible misunderstanding concerning the relationship between the second Thoman edition and Triclinius. Since those Thoman mss. mostly were written in the XIV** and XV* centuries, it would be possible for someone to imagine a reverse chronological relation and to assume that perhaps the more interpolated Thoman mss. of the second draft (being written after Triclinius’ time) carried Triclinian readings. Such an assumption is refuted by the fact that there are in the Triclinian scholia (not in the Thoman scholia taken over by Triclinius, but in those written originally by Triclinius) polemic statements against some Thoman readings which we attribute to the second Thoman edition (i.e., readings which do not appear in Zc, but are exhibited in other Thoman mss.) and which Triclinius rejected. For example, At. 805 ἀντηλίους LQ, Suda (sub A 249), &Zc!ZgTTa, ἀνθηλίους GRZc*ZhZk: ἀντολίους ZZbZdZe (Thoman gloss ἀνατολικοὺς Zc#'Zet'). Obviously, ἀντοMovs was used in the later edition of Thomas and was meant to be a syncopation of ἀνατολίους of the kind which was practiced in some rather violent Byzantine interpolations, e.g., Pindar Olymp. 2.108 ἀριθμὸν veteres: ἀρθμὸν Triclinius; Olymp. 6.18 πάρεστι veteres: viv πάρστι (for the





sake of antistrophic responsion)







argues against the reading ἀντολίους in a scholium p. 348.18-23 Dindorf (T fol. 24”, Ta fol. 132"). This is a proof that there was a second Thoman edition prior to Triclinius. — Let us consider Ant. 330 γνώμης τ᾽ LRZP° ZcZhZpe", γνώμης γ᾽ Zo: καὶ γνώμης Z“ZbZfZgTTa. The nonmetrical reading καὶ γνώμης could never have been invented by a Triclinius, and it is obvious that he found it in his Thoman source and somehow did not notice its metrical defect; he took it over inadvertently. — Also cf. Ant. 806 πατρίας LRZcTTa: πατρῴας ZZbZfZgZhZoZp. Now, Triclinius argues against πατρῴας, which was a later Thoman reading (for

the first Thoman edition has πατρίας Zc): cf. schol. Tricl. p. 319.7 Dind. (T fol. 97*, Ta fol. 214”) γᾶς xarplas ypdde, μὴ πατρῴας" ob γὰρ ἁρμόζει τῷ μέτρῳ οὕτως. — Then, cf. Ant. 943 σεβίσασα LRZcZiZg, σεβήσασα Zh:

τιμήσασα ZZbZoZp

(it was an ancient gloss L*'Zct').

Triclinius seems

to argue against τιμήσασα (though he does not mention it explicitly) in a scholium p. 320.34 Dind. (T fol. 100”, Ta fol. 216"): ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σεβίσασα ἀπὸ τοῦ σεβίζω ὀφείλεις λέγειν: οὕτω γὰρ ἁρμόζει τῷ μέτρῳ.

We should also realize that sometimes Thoman mss. — especially other mss. than Zc — occasionally adopted different readings in the process of the so-called horizontal transmission. For example, El. 868 του om. GRZZg: it means that ZZg were impressed by the reading of the class p to the point of following it. We are fortunate to have a very abundant manuscript evidence for

the tetrad: At., El., OT, Ant., which permits us to gain insight into the varying aspects of the Thoman tradition. It is also fortunate that some mss. embrace plays from the two groups (i.e., from the tetrad, and from the remaining plays) and thus logically certify the continued Thoman character of that same tradition in OC, Tr., Phil. As I pointed out above (p. 34 note 26), in the remaining plays the Thoman tradition was virtually recognized by Elmsley, though he did

not distinguish it properly from the Triclinian tradition.

Then, essential

progress was achieved by Lipsius. Obviously, those plays OC, Tr., Phil., were edited by Thomas without a commentary. What amazes us, is the frequency of Thoman interpolations in that group of plays, a frequency much higher than the ratio of Thoman interpolations in the first four plays. There is also a problem of varying constellations which may be attributed to the same reasons as those explained above. There are also alternate Thoman readings in the remaining plays, without any possibility of establishing a stemmatic pattern. Of course, it is absolutely sure that ZoZp are gemelli, transcribed from the same source. The split among the Thoman mss. mostly results from the fact that in many a # Cf. Car. Ioh. Tycho Mommsen,

Pindari carmina (Berolini, 1864) pp. 27, 45.






case some Thoman mss. join the “old” reading while other Thoman mss. do carry the interpolation. Triclinius either joins the Thoman reading, or the “‘old’’ reading, or invents his own reading. There are also in the remaining groups many proofs that Triclinius relied on a Thoman edition: e.g., cf. the case OC 28 μὴν LOR: μὲν ZnZoZp: μὲν γ᾽ TTa. This shows that Triclinius had before his eyes the Thoman text and straightened out the metrical defect of the Thoman reading by inserting γ᾽, instead of reverting to the old reading μὴν. And this Triclinius did in spite of the fact that he had an "'old’’ Sophocles copy from which he drew the ancient scholia exhibited in the Triclinian edition.® I am inclined to believe that Thomas in his first edition included the tetrad with his scholia. Some time later, he edited the complete Sophocles in which he revised the text of the tetrad carrying the same scholia as before and edited also the remaining three plays without scholia. In that later complete edition he seems to have used the method of either introducing definitely his interpolations or marking them as optional choices. That would account for the varying constellations in the Thoman evidence throughout all the seven plays. In a separate chapter, I shall give a complete list of Thoman readings in the tetrad. As to the remaining three plays — Oed. Col., Trach., Phil. — , I shall limit myself to quoting below only some conspicuous Thoman readings in these plays so as to make identification of Thoman mss. easier for scholars. A compilation of all the Thoman readings in these three plays would take up too much room in this study and extend it beyond fair limits. At any rate, any future editor of Sophocles will be able to complete such a list for his practical purposes without great difficulty, since the number of pertinent mss. is not too high. And quite many Thoman readings in those three plays are recorded especially by Elmsley (for OC), Dindorf (Annotationes), Subkoff (for Trach.), Cantarella (for Trach.). The sequence of plays in the Thoman edition must have been this: Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct. For the tetrad, this is the normal sequence in Thoman mss. supplied with scholia ἤγουν πειραθῆναι. Then, the Thoman mss. ZoZp exhibit the sequence Ant., OC, Trach., Phil. (and in the Triclinian part of Te the sequence was Ant., OC, Trach., Phil.). Some specimens of Thoman readings in OC, Tr., Ph., follow here: Oed. Col. 7 ξυνὼν LOR, Suda (sub Π 21): παρὼν ZnZoZpTTa.

OC 22 μαθεῖν LORTTa: λαθεῖν ZnZoZp. OC 28 μὴν LOR: μὲν ZnZoZp: μέν y’ TTa. “For Triclinius’ knowledge of the Laurentian LTTa; Εἰ. 1097 ζηνὸς LYreTTa: διὸς LGR, alii.

tradition, cf. also OT

166 «ai om.








OC 51 ἅτιμος & γ᾽ ἐμοῦ QR, ἄτιμος γ᾽ & γ᾽ ἐμοῦ L: ἄτιμος ἐξ ἐμοῦ ZnZoZpT Ta. Trachiniae 7 valovo’ ἐνὶ πλευρῶνι R: ναίουσ᾽ ἐν πλευρῶνι L: valoved γ᾽ ἐν τλευρῶνι ZgZoZp, ναίουσα δ' ἐν πλευρῶνι Zn: πλευρῶνι ναίουσα TTa. Tr. 60 τ’ LR: om. ZgZnZoZpTTa. Tr. 187 λέγεις LRZgZnTTa: ἔχεις ZoZp. Tr. 206 ἀλαλαῖς LR: ἀλαλαγαῖς ZgZnZoZp: ἀλλαλαγαῖς TTa. Tr. 736 μητέρα σ᾽ ἢ LZoZpTTa: μητέρ᾽ ἢ ZgZn.® Tr. 810 προὔλαβες LT Ta: προὔβαλες ZgZnZoZp. Tr. 890 εἰπὲ LTTa: εἰπὲ τίνα θυμὸν εἶχεν ZgZnZoZp (the interpolation resulted from an ancient scholium ἀν(τὶ) τ(οῦ) τίνα θυμὸν εἶχεν τότε L). Philoctetes 6 ὕπο LGQrZnTTa: πάρα ZgZoZp. Phil. 10 κατείχετ᾽ LGQRZnTTa: xareix’ ZgZoZp.

Phil. 30 καταυλισθεὶς LAGQR: κατακλιθεὶς ZgZnZoZpT Ta. Phil. 171 μὴ σύντροφον LGQR: vet.): μηδ᾽ αὖ σύντροφον TTa.

μηδὲ σύντροφον


(cf. schol.

Phil. 281 νόσου LGQRZoZp: νόσον ZgZn: νόσῳ TTa. Thomas, also in the remaining three plays, knew both old classes, and p, and probably recorded in his edition the alternate choices, if there were any, so that descendants of the Thoman edition sometimes diverge by following different choices: e.g., cf. Trach. 181 τόκον L, Suda (sub E 2637), ZoZpTTa: γόνον RZgZn. I do not want to prolong the sampling as the reader will find below, for the use of future editions of Sophocles, a full list of Thoman readings at least for the tetrad. The evaluation of their merits does not shed any especially advantageous light on Thomas’ critical talents. There were very few of his corrections which actually affected or will affect the constitution of the Sophocles text. In this connection, I should like to refer to a few good corrections of Thomas. Let us consider Aiax 1230 ἐφρόνεις L'GQR, Suda (sub T 747), ZvZbZcZgZh, εὐφρόνεις ZdZk: ἐφώνεις Moschop., Ze: ἐκόμπεις Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 638, (-oıs) Z, (-es) TTa. Here, perhaps it was rather Triclinius’ idea to bring the correct reading from the scholia on Aristophanes into the Sophocles text. For it is rather peculiar that this correction is carried by only one Thoman ms. Z. Possibly the originator of the correction was Triclinius from whom the ms. Z took it over. Iam discussing this case as a warning that in some cases the priority of a Byzantine change cannot be established in an absolutely certain way. — % It is regrettable that R is incomplete in Trachiniae (it ends with line Trach. 372), so that we have to rely basically on L and A for the old tradition in most of this play. Possibly Thomas in some readings coincided with the p tradition, which we do not know for the rest of Trachiniae, and we run the risk of attributing sometimes to Thomas

what he possibly had found in the class p.






Then, cf. El. 890 λοιπόν μ᾽ ἢ LGZcZg, λοιπὸν μὴ R: λοιπὸν ἵν᾽ ἢ Moschop.: λοιπὸν ἢ ZZDZdZeZhZkTTa. — In OT 184 παρὰ βώμιον it was Thomas’

idea to read these words separately (cf. below, p. 59).

In the remain-

ing plays (apart from the tetrad), there are several corrections carried by Thoman mss., though in some cases I am not sure that they are Thomas’ own conjectures, and not those of some anonymous Byzantine. Thomas’ merits, for his time, of course lay in the field of paraphrase and scholia. Certainly, in the latter three plays he did give a somewhat more polished text. At any rate, if we view him against the background

of his epoch and his predecessors, he extended the common knowledge of Sophocles beyond the triad, and this was per se a great achievement. Yet, in the field of textual criticism Thomas cannot be compared with Moschopulus who showed considerable metrical alertness and a great

critical skill.





In the following I list Thoman readings in the tetrad as they appear in mss. whose Thoman character is certified in most cases by Thoman scholia. The purely practical reason why I limit the following list to the tetrad only, with the exclusion of the remaining three plays, has been explained above (p. 51). In the manuscript evidence quoted in the list, the reader will notice some interesting elements of the situation. Sometimes a Thoman reading appears (so far as Thoman mss. are concerned) only in Zc, or only in some other Thoman mss. (i.e., in mss. of the second Thoman edition), or simultaneously in Zc and in other Thoman mss. The degree of acceptance of a Thoman reading by Thoman mss. is of some interest as it reveals whether the adoption of a Thoman reading was definite and mandatory, or optional or elective. The ac-

ceptance of a Thoman reading by Triclinius is interesting inasmuch as it confirms the fact of Triclinius following a Thoman text in making his edition. We have to keep in mind that in some cases, if an interpolation is represented by the agreement of an isolated Thoman ms. or of very few Thoman mss. with Triclinius, perhaps it was Triclinius who originated the interpolation and then a later Thoman ms. caught that interpolation from the Triclinian recension. Anyway, as a rule, we have in those departures from the ancient reading of LAGQR — departures carried by Thoman mss. but not initiated by Moschopulus — just Thoman interpolations. Of course, sometimes peculiar readings of some Thoman mss. may be even nothing more than unintentional mistakes which originated on some lower echelons of the Thoman transmission, but it is good to know of them, for they might reappear in some veteres of a later date, in the so-called detertores, as a result of the horizontal transmission. If such readings are listed as Thoman, they will be easily recognizable as such if and when we come across them in later veteres. Since the list given below is a systematic presentation of the Thoman readings in the tetrad, the reader will find here again the Thoman samples already quoted above in our preliminary discussion; here those samples are integrated into the systematic sequence. For critical notation followed throughout this book, see above, p. 10. In the arrangement of Thoman manuscriptsymbols, I am now putting Zc before other Thoman symbols, in order to mark in this way the chronological priority of this evidence of the first Thoman edition. I remind the reader that £ is the symbol for the Moschopulean recension; TTa

represent the Triclinian recension.






Aiax 82 ὄκνῳ LGOR, Suda (sub O 116), ξ, ὀκνῶν Zh: ἰδεῖν ZZaZbZd ZeZgZh“ZoT Ta. At. 84 ὀφθαλμοῖς γε LGQOREZgZorT Ta: ὀφθαλμοῖσι (γε om.) ZZaZbZd ZeZh, ὀφθαλμοῖς (γε om.) Zo”. At. 148 πλάσσων LGQREZdZgZk: πλάττων ZZaZbZeZhZoTTa. At. 149 els LGQREZDZdZeZkTTa: ἀεὶ els ZZaZg!Zh!Zo!. Ai. 154 ἱεὶς LGQR, Suda (sub K 1841), &Zg'TTa: iels λόγους ZZaZbZd ZhZkZo, (-Yos) Ze. At. 166 ἀπαλέξασθαι LGR, Suda (sub A 2881), ξΤ Τὰ, ἀπαλλέξασθαι Zg: ἀπαλλάξασθαι Z'ZaZbZd”ZeZkZoQ, ἀπαλάξασθαι ZdrZh. Αἱ. 233 κεῖθεν κεῖθεν LORE, 'κεῖθεν 'xeidev GZo: ἐκεῖθεν ἐκεῖθεν ZcZZbZdZe ZgZhZkTTa. Ai. 328 οὔνεκ᾽ LGOREZbZdZhr’ZkZ0T Ta: εἵνεκ᾽ ZcZZeZg, ἕνεκ᾽ Zh. Ai. 348 ἰὼ LGQREZbZdZe""Zo: ἰώ μοι ZcZZe™ZgZhZkTTa. Ai. 381 τ LGOREZCZPFZbZdZeZorTTa: om. Z*ZgZhZo™. Ai. 396 ἕλεσθέ u’ ἕλεσθε u’ LGQR, Suda (sub I 457), &ZbZdZeZo: ἕλεσθὲ u’ Mech’ ZcZZgZhZk:

ἔλεσθ᾽ ἔλεσθ’ TTa.

Ai. 499 δούλιον L'L'’™GOQRZ*Zg!, δούλιον δ᾽ Zd** δούλιον γ᾽ Zo*: δουλίαν

tTTa, δουλίαν δ’ Ζάρο: δούλειον ZCZ'ZbZk, δούλειον y’ Ze, Αἱ. 516 ἀλλ’ ἡ LGOREZd”*ZgZoTTa:

δοὐλείαν γ᾽ Zo’.

ἄλλη ZcZZbZd"*ZeZk.

Ai. 546 τοῦ τόνδε LZk: τοῦτόν γε GQREZgZoTTa:

που τόνδε ZcZZbZe,

ποῦ τόν γε Zd. Αἱ. 595 νοεῖς LGQREZcZ°ZbZdZeZk*ZoTTa: φρονεῖς ZZgZk. At. 108 πάρα λευκὸν LGOREZdP°Zer°Zg (etiam scholiis Thomanis


tantibus), TTa: πάλλευκον ZCZZbZd**Ze™, πάλευκον Zk (glossa Thomana λαμπρότατον Zot), Ai. 798 πάρεστ᾽ ἐκεῖνος LGOREZcZbDZdZeZhZk: πάρεστι κεῖνος ZZgT Ta.® Ai. 801 θεστορείου LGQREZgZhTTa: θεστορίδου ZcZZbZdZeZk. Ai. 805 ἀντηλίους LQ, Suda (sub A 249), &Zc'ZgTTa: ἀνθηλίους GRZc* ZhZk: ἀντολίους ZZbZdZe (glossa Thomana ἀνατολικοὺς Zct!Zes'). Cf. above, pp. 49 f. Ai. 830 ῥιφθῶ LGQREZcZdZkTTa: ῥιφῶ ZZbZeZgZh. At. 888 ἐμέ ye τὸν LGQREZdZgZh: ἐμέ γε τῶν ZcZZbZeZk: ἐμοὶ τῶν TTa. Ai. 888 μακρῶν ἀλάταν πόνων LG, QP° (-ρὸν 0,5), RE, Zc! ( — ἀλήτην --Zc*), ZbZdZh, ( — dAwrav — ) Ze: μακρῶν πόνων ἀλάταν ZZg, ( — ἀλήτην) Zk: μακρῶν (ἀλάταν om.) πόνων Ta.“ T “ This Thoman reading πάρεστι κεῖνος appears in the ms. F (cf. below, p. 145), which was written ca. 1290 A.D., rather close to 1300. Therefore, this reading, though represented only by ZZg, is Thoman,

not Triclinian, in view of the presumable later chro-

nology of the Triclinian recension. 4 Triclinius in his scholium p. 349.21 Dind. (T fol. 26”, Ta fol. 133"), while explaining his ejection of ἀλάταν, seems to have rather the sequence μακρῶν πόνων ἀλάταν before his eyes: περισσὸν ἦν κἀνταῦθα els τὸ (ita T: τὸν Ta) μακρῶν πόνων τὸ ἀλάταν — i.e., he used the later draft of Thomas.








Αἱ. 913/914 ὁ δυστράπελος ὁ δυσώνυμος LGQR, Suda (sub A 1701) &ZcZ*ZbZdZeZhZk: (ὁ om.) δυστράπελος ὁ δυσώνυμος Z'ZgTTa. Ai. 1007 μηδαμοῦ LGQR, Suda (sub II 3069), μηδαμῇ EZbZe, Zh! (-ds Zh*), TTa: οὐδαμοῦ ZcZ'ZgZkZd* (-ῶς Zd!). Ai. 1011 ἵλεων L!AGOR, Suda (sub II 3069, praeter ἵλεως cod. V), Zg: ἥδιον £ZhT Ta: ἴδιον ZcZZdZeZhrZk (glossa Thomana οἰκεῖον). Ai, 1023 ταῦτα πάντα LOREZcZbZeTTa, τοιαῦτα πάντα G: 7000’ ἅπαντα ZZdZgZhZk. Ai. 1050 δοκοῦντα 5’ ὃς LGQREZ*ZbZdZe: δοκοῦντά θ᾽ ὃς ZeZ'Zer"ZhTTa (δοκοῦνθ᾽ ὃς Zg**Zk). Ai. 1059 αἰσχίστῳ LGrQeltZcZreZbZdZe: ἀθλίῳ ΟΟΚ : ἐχθίστῳ Ζ"Ζᾳ ZhZkTTa.® Ai. 1118 οὐδ᾽ αὖ LGitZcZreZbZdZeZkr: 008’ ἂν GOR: οὐκ ἂν Z*Zg ZhZkTTa.* Ai. 1124 δεινὸν LGQREZcZZbZdZe: μέγαν ZgZhZkTTa (μέγαν primitus fuerat glossa Thomana ad vocem δεινὸν explanandam supra lineam scripta, velut Zc#!Z#'Zbs'!Zde'!Zes'), Ai. 1130 ψέξαιμι LGQEZcZV°ZbZdZeZhTTa, ψέξοιμοι R: ἀτίσαιμι Z, ἀτιμάσαιμι Zg, κατιμάσαιμι Zk. Ai. 1145 xpudels LG'E: κρυφθεὶς G°QRZe*Zg: κρυβεὶς ZcZZb, Zd (κρυφincipiebat scriba), Ze'?ZhZkTTa. Ai. 1192 πρότερον LGQ, Suda (sub 2 268), EZcZbZdZeZhTTa, πρὸ (-repov om.) R: πρῶτον ZZgZk? Ai. 1202 γλυκὺν LGOR, Suda (sub O 747), £EZcZbZdZeZhzZkrTTa: τὸν γλυκὺν ZZgZk™. Ai. 1228 σέ τοι τὸν ἐκ τῆς LGREZcZgZhZkTTa: σέ τοι τὸν (ἐκ τῆς om.) Q: σέ τοι σὲ τὸν τῆς ZZbZdZe. Ai. 1230 ἐφρόνεις L'GOR, Suda (sub T 747), ZcZrZbZgZh, εὐφρόνεις ZdZk: ἐφώνεις EZe: ἐκόμπεις Schol. Aristoph. Acharn. 638 (p. 18.27 Dibner), ἐκόμποις Z, exduxers TTa (cf. above, p. 52). Ai. 1268 σμικρῶν λόγων LGQREZcZ*ZbZdZeZk: σμικρῶν πόνων Z'Zg ZhTTa. Ai. 1271 πάντα ταῦτ᾽ LGQRE: ταῦτα τάντ’ ZcZZbZdZeZgZhZkTTa.*


1339 οὐκ οὖν] οὐκ ἂν L'GQRZcZbZdZgZhZk:

οὔκουν £: οὐκ ἄν γ᾽

ZZeTTa. Ai. 1342 y’ LGR£ZcZbZd: om. ZZeZgZhZkQTTa. Electra 8 ναὸς LGR£ZcZbZdZkKTTa: νεὼς ZZg“Zh, vaws Zg”°. “(Cf. above, p. 48.

“Cf. above, p. 48. 4 This is a most characteristic case of uniformity in the Thoman recension. The transposition was made by Thomas already in his first edition and was followed in a determined and exclusive way in the master copy of his second edition. Obviously, no

alternate variant was recorded there. Triclinius.


the Thoman

reading was followed by





El. 10 re LGR£ZcZbZdZkZ (an ZPe?): δὲ ZgZhTTa. El. 56 κλέπτοντες LGREZcZ*ZbZdZkT: θνήσκοντες ZIZgZhT Ta. El. 136 al al LGREZbZdTTa: al al ξ ξ ZcZZgZhZk. El. 152 al al LGR£ZcrZrZbZdZkTTa: alév schol. Thom., Z, ἀεὶ Zc, αἰεὶ ZgZhZkr..

EI. 159 ἐν LGR, Suda (sub A 4684), £ZcZ®ZbZdTTa: om. Z“ZgZhZk. El. 210 πάθεα παθεῖν LGR, Suda (sub Π 3092), £ZcZbZdZkTTa: παθεῖν πάθεα ZZgZh. El. 324 μὴ viv LGREZCZZbrrZdZkrTTa: μηδὲν Zcer ZrZbZdrZk. El. 340 ἀκουστέα LGREZcZZd'ZgZh'ZkTTa: ἀκουστέον ZbZd*Zh*. El. 345 Oarep’ ἢ LGREZZbZdZh'ZkTa: θάτερον ἢ ZcZgZh*T.* El. 373 οὐδ᾽ LGPR£ZcZh, ἠδ᾽ G*: κοὐδ᾽ ZZbZdZkT*: cota ZgT'Ta. El. 515 αἰκία LGR£ZcZZbZdZhrZk TTa: Bla ZgZh. El. 533 τίκτουσ᾽ LGREZbZdZk: τεκοῦσ᾽ ZcZZgZhT Ta. El. 536 τὴν γ᾽ LGR£ZcZr’ZbZhZk, τήνδ' Zd: τὴν (γ᾽ om.) Z*°ZgTTa. El. 581 τίθηις L, τίθης GREZc: τιθῇῆς ZZbZdZhZkTTa: τίἰθῆς Zg. CA. Suda (sub O 292). El. 584 τίθης LGREZc: τιθῇς ZZbZdZgZhZk. Cf. Suda (sub Σ 589). El. 615 ἄτερ LG*REZcZZbDZdZgZhZkTTa: ἔχειν Οἱ: μέτα Ζον»Ζν»ΖὈν» Ζὰν». El. 649 ἐκβαλεῖν LGREZCZbZhZkP®: ἐκβαλεῖν u’ ZZdZgZk“T Ta. El. 680 φράσω LGREZcZZbZdZh'TTa, φράσσω Zk: φέρω Zg'Zhi. El. 707 ἔνατος LEZcZb: &vvaros GR: ἔνατος 6° ZZdZgZhZkT. ΕἸ. 721 δεξιὸν δ' GREZDZd: δεξιὸν (δ᾽ om.) L!, Suda (sub Σ 277): δεξιόν τ᾿ ZcZZgZhZkT. ΕἸ. 754 ἱππικὸν δρόμον LGREZcZ*ZbZg*Zh*: ἱππικῶν δρόμων Z'ZdZg'Zh! ZkTTa. ΕἸ. 772 μάτην &p’ LGREZcZbZdTTa: μάτην γ᾽ ἄρ' ZZhZkZg? (μάτην

γὰρ Ζρ)). El. 890 λοιπόν u’ ἢ LGZcZg, λοιπὸν μὴ R: λοιπὸν ἵν᾽ ἢ ξ: λοιπὸν ἢ ZZbZd ZhZkTTa. El. 922 ὅποι γῆς LEZDZdZk: ὅποι γ᾽ ἧς GR: ὅπου γῆς ZcZgZhTTa. El. 943 ἃ "ν LEZ™ZgZhZk“TTa: ἅ γ᾽ G, ἃ R: ἃ "ν o’ ΖεΖ».ΖὈΖάΖΙκρο. El. 956 κτανεῖν LGR£ZcrZZb, Zd (an p.c.?), ZgZhTTa: θανεῖν ZcZk. El. 973 γε μὴν LGREZcZbZd: μὲν οὖν ZZgZhZkTTa. El. 998 χερί LGR&Zc!ZZdZhs: χεροῖν Z*ZZgZh'ZkTTa. El. 1006 καλὴν LGREZdZhT*, Oxyrh. Pap. 693: κακὴν ZcZZb, Zg (an ex καλὴν), ZkT!. (Cf. schol. Thom. p. 374.20-22 Dind.) El. 1093 ἐφεύρηκα LGREZcZbZdZh: εὕρηκα ZZgZk. El. 1094 ἐν om. LGRZc¥Z™ZgZk: ἐν EZc™ZP°Zb: ἐπ’ ZdZhTTa. “ This is a rather rare case of a divergence between T and Ta. from a double reading in the original Triclinian edition. “On Sophoclean papyri, cf. above, p. 18 note 7.

It resulted probably



El. 1124 ἐπαιτεῖ LIGR: ἐπαιτεῖται EZZgZhTTa: ἀπαιτεῖται ZcZbZdZk. El. 1138 φίλαισι LGREZCZdZhZK TTa: φίλῃσι ZZg. El. 1140 βάρος LGR£ZcZZbZdZhZkP°TTa: κάρα ZgZhvZk™. El. 1217 γ᾽ ἡσκημένον LGR, Suda (sub H 595, nisi quod -péva cod. V), tZcZbZdZhZk: κἠσκημένον ZZgTTa.” El. 1257 σώζου LGREZc'ZZb'!Zd'ZgZhZk'TTa: σῶζε ZeZb*Zd*Zk*, schol. Thom.*® El. 1260 rls οὖν ἀξίαν L'GRZ“Zg*ZhZk*: τίς οὖν ἂν ἀξίαν E: ris οὖν ἀναξίαν ZcZrZbZdZgP’ZkP°, schol. Thom.: τίς δῆτ᾽ οὖν ἀξίαν TTa. El. 1294 ἢ LG§Zc*Z'!Zb'Zd*Zg'?Zk*TTa: 3 R: of Zc!Z*Zd*Zg?*ZhZk'Zk:: of Zc*Z*Zb'Zd'Zk*: 5 Zc*Z*Zb*Zd*: lectiones ἢ, 3, of, ol scholia Thomana testantur.

El. 1310 τοὐμὸν φαιδρὸν LGRZc: φαιδρὸν τοὐμὸν EZ*Zb*Zd*Zk7?: φαιδρῷ τοὐμὸν Z'Zb'!Zd'ZgZhZkTTa. El. 1383 δυσσεβείας LGREZc!ZiZb*Zd*ZgZhZkTTa: εὐσεβείας Zc*Z*Zbi Zd'Zk*?, schol. Thom. El. 1386 BeBiow LGREZc: βεβᾶσι 6° ZZbZdZeZgZhTTa, -w 5’ Zk. El. 1410 ὦ τέκνον ὦ τέκνον LGREZcZbZh: ὦ τέκνον τέκνον ZZdZgZkTTa. El. 1424 κυρεῖ LGREZHZk: κυρεῖ γε ZcZZbZdZgTTa. El. 1437/8 παῦρα y’ ὡς ἠπίως (yp νηπίωι i.l.: -ον 8.1.) ἐννέπειν L: παῦρά γ᾽ ὡς ἠπίως ἐννέπειν GREZdZh: παῦρα γ᾽ ὡς ἐννέπειν ἠπίως Zc: παῦρά γ᾽ ἐννέπειν ὡς ἠπίως Zb, παῦρἀά τ᾽ ἐννέπειν ὡς ἠπίως ZgZk, παῦρα τ᾽ ἐνέπειν ὡς ἠπίως Ζ: καῦρα γ᾽ ὡς ἥπιον ἐννέπειν TTa. El. 1496 ὡς ἐν ταὐτῷ LGRE: ὡς ἂν ταὐτῷ Zc: ὡς ἂν ἐν ταὐτῷ ZZbZdZg ZhZkTTa. El. 1510 τελεωθὲέν LGREZcZZbZh: τελειωθέν ZAZgZkTTa. Oedipus Tyrannus 13 μὴ ob L, Sudae (sub A 1933) codd. MB, tZg” Zk“TTa: μ'οὺ GRZk»* (in pagina alia manu suppleta Zc): μὴ (ob om.) ZZbZdZg*?Zn, Sudae cod. A. OT 18 οἱ de... ἠιθέων L!: οἱ δέ τ᾽ ἠιθέων L?G, Suda (sub A 234 codd. GM: — θ' — AFV), ETTa: of δ᾽ ér’ ἠιθέων R: of δ᾽ ἠιθέων ZcZZbZdZgZkZn.* OT 30 ἀΐδης LGREZcZkZn7*: ἀΐδας ZZbZdZn: &öns ZgTTa. OT 81 ὄμματι LGREZcZZdZn'TTa: ὄμμασι(ν) ZbZgZkZn!. OT 86 φήμην φέρων LGREZgZkTTa: φάτιν φέρων ZcZn!, φέρων φάτιν ZZbZd. OT 104 πόλιν LGREZcZgZkZn'TTa: χθόνα ZZbZdZn!.® @ There is no pertinent scholium in Thoman mss. The scholium p. 378.13-17 Dind. is Triclinian (Ta fol. 155”). 4 Probably Thomas mistook a Moschopulean gloss for a text variant. Φ This is one of those rare cases of uniformity of the Thoman


p. 56 note 44). But this Thoman interpolation was not followed Thomas did not realize the possibility of reading here ol δέ τ᾽ θέων. Ὁ Cf. Eurip. Alc. 479 the variants

χθόνα and


cf. Evaldus

(cf. above,

by Triclinius.— Bruhn, ‘Lucubra-

tionum Euripidearum capita selecta,” Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Supplem. 15 (1887) 237.





OT 105 sw LGREZgZkZnTTa: που ZcZZbZdZn". OT 129 τοῦτ’ LGRE£ZcZbZdZgZkZnrTTa: ταῦτ᾽ ZZn. OT 174 ἰηΐων LGR, Suda (sub I 223), &ZgZkZn™TTa: ἰήων ZcZZb ZdZn*. OT 180 δ᾽ & γενέθλα LE: δὲ γένεθλα GR: δ᾽ ἀγένεθλα ZcZZbZdZkZnTTa (cf. schol. Thom.). OT 184 παραβώμιον LGR (tamquam unam vocem explanant scholia vetera), &£ (item scholia Moschop.), ZcZdZk (at cf. schol. Thom.): παρὰ βώμιον ZZbZgZn (cf. schol. Thom. παρὰ τὴν βώμιον ἀκτήν), TTa. OT 230 οἶδεν LGR£ZcZbZdZgZn: εἶδεν ZZkTTa. OT 248 κακῶς νιν [[κ]] ἄμοιρον L, κακῶς νιν ἅμοιρον GR, Suda (sub A 1664), £ZZbZkZnrTTa:

κακῶς ἄμοιρον Zc, κακῶς κἄμοιρον Zn.

OT 263 xpar’ LG&Z?ZbZd”ZgZkZn”TTa: κάρτ᾽ Tzetzes (in schol. GMR apud De Marco, De scholiis p. 149), Zc!?ZZd"ZnR (glossa Thomana erat λίαν). OT 337 σὴν δ' LGR£ZdPZgZkZnT'Ta: σοὶ 5° ZcZZbZd*?T*. OT 369 σθένος LGREZcZgZkTTa: κράτος ZZbZdZn. OT 411 προστάτου LGR, Hesychius s.v., Suda (sub Γ 94), {ZgZkTTa: προστάτης ZCZZbZdZn. OT 419 viv μὲν LREZcZdZg, Zk (viv 5.1. scripto), TTa, viv με G: μὲν νῦν ZZbZn. OT 442 γε μέντοι σ᾽ LZcZgZkZnTTa, γε ul Oxyrh. Pap. 2180: γε μὲν (-roı om.) σ᾽ GR: σε μέντοι γ᾽ ZZbZd. OT 445 σύ τ᾽ L!: ob γ᾽ GREZ*ZkTTa: τά γ᾽ ZcZiZbZdZg!ZkrrZn. OT 549 κτῆμα LGR, Suda (sub Ex 339), £ZcZrZbrZdrZkZnrTTa: χρῆμα ZcrZZbZdZkrZn. OT 550 τι LGR, Suda (sub Ex 339), EZcZgZkTTa: om. ZZbZdZn (probably a simple unintentional omission in the source of these mss.).®! OT 571 οἷδά γ' LGR£ZcZ*ZgTTa: οἶδ᾽ (γ᾽ om.) ZPeZbZdZkZn. OT 625 ws οὐχ LGREZcZdZgTTa: οὐχ ὡς ZZbZkZn. OT 628 ξυνίεις LGR£ZcZdZk (sed cf. schol. Thom.): ξυνίης ZZbZgZn TTa. Scholia Thomana praesens intellegunt: ἤγουν εἰ ψευδῶς τοῦτο νοεῖς Zb et (el om.) Zc. OT 637 ob τ' ἐς οἴκους --- κατὰ στέγας LIGRZcZdZn”, (-σιτ' és, scil. εἴσιτ᾽ ἐς κτλ.) Zg: σύ τ' olxovs — κατὰ στέγας E: ob τ᾽ ἐς olxovs — [κατὰ om.) στέγας ZZbZgZn, (— els — ) TTa. OT 717 δὲ LREZdZgZkTTa: om. G: re ZcZZbZn. OT 729 ὁ LGR&ZcZbZgZkZnTTa: om. ZZd. OT 786 ἀεὶ LGR£ZcZZdZg: αἰεὶ ZbZkZnTTa. OT 800 σοι G£, L? (versum om. L!), ZdZgZkTTa: σὺ R: o’ ὦ Ze ZerZn (glossa Thomana hic σ᾽ = σοι intellegebat). 8! zı om. also in F. Cf. above, p. 55 note 40, on some Thoman on the chronological significance of such occurrences.

readings in F and



OT 830 ἁγνὸν LGREZcZ*ZbZdZnTTa: ἀγνῶν Z'Zg: om. Zk. OT 926 κἀάτοισθ' LGREZc“Z™ZgZk © κἀτισθ' Zc (cf. γινώσκετε Zen), ZrZbZdZnTTa. OT 994 sort LGREZcZZdZgZkZn#'T7: πάλαι ZrZbZnT Ta. OT 1032 ἂν LGR£ZcZ*ZdZg:: δ᾽ ἂν ZeZbZkZnTTa. OT 1178 ὡς LGREZcZ'ZbZd'ZgZk'Zn: els Zee!ZZd'Zk"TTa. (In Tho-

manis codd. est cum dubites num glossa supra lineam an varia lectio exstet). OT 1212 ἐδυνάσθησαν LGR£ZcZd: ἐδυνάθησαν ZZbZn, ἐδυνήθησαν ZgZkre: ἐσθενάσθησαν Zk. OT 1246 ὧν LGREZcZZbZdZgZkZnTTa: etiam ἧς testantur scholia Thomana. OT 1253 ἐκθεάσασθαι LGREZCZET": ἐνθεάσασθαι ZZbZdZkZnT'Ta. OT 1271 τοιαῦϑ' LGREZcZgZkZn’T Ta: γε ταῦθ᾽ ZZbZdZn.® OT 1282 5’ LGR£ZcZdrZg, Zn (an p.c.?), TTa: om. ZbZd™"ZkZn™? OT 1311 ἐξήλου LGREZcZdZgZkiZn'TTa: ἐξήλω ZZbZfZk*Zn!. OT 1314 ἐπιπλώμενον LGRZrZbr’ZdZg'TTa: ἐπιπλόμενον EZcZ{Zg*Zk: ἐπίπλημον 27, ZZbZdrZn. OT 1320 φορεῖν LGREZcZn: φέρειν Z, Zd (ex φορεῖν ab ipso scriba factum), ZfZgZn”TTa: φρονεῖν Zk. OT 1326 τὴν ye LGR£ZcZgTTa: τήνδε ZZb, Zd (ex -γε ab ipso scriba factum), ZfZk, Zn (ex -ye ab ipso scriba factum). OT 1343 ὀλέθριον μέγαν LGREZgZk: ὀλέθριον μέγα ZcZZbZd, Zftme (v. 1342-3 om. Zf!), ZnTTa.

OT 1347 ἴσον LGR£ZgTTa: tows ZcZZbZdZf!Zn (non liquet Zk). OT 1387 ἀνεσχόμην LGREZcZgZk: ἠνεσχόμην ZZbZdZfZnTTa. OT 1432 ἐλπίδος u’ LGREZcZdZfZgTTa: u’ ἐλπίδος ZZbZn (ordine traiecto ἐλπίδος ἐπείπερ u’ Zk). OT 1443 δραστέον LGR£ZcZZbZfZgZKT : πρακτέον ZdZkr’ZnTa. OT 1446 προστρέψομαι LZc: προτρέψομαι GREZgT™"™Ta: προτρέπομαι ZZbZdZfZkZn. OT 1487 τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ πικροῦ βίου LGRETTa, τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ [{πικροῇ]] βίου Zc: τὰ πικρὰ τοῦ λοιποῦ βίου ZZbZdZfZgZn: τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ λοιποῦ βίου Zk’, τὰ πικρὰ τοῦ πικροῦ βίου Zk. OT 1518 ἀπ’ οἴκων L!GR£ZcZk*Zkr, ἀποίκων ΖίγνΡ: dx’ οἴκου L?: ἄποικον ZZbZdZfZgZk”’ZnT Ta. OT 1522 ἕλῃ LGEZcTTa: ἕλῃς ZZbZdZfZgZkZn, @dns R. Antigone 5 οὐχὶ L!'ARZcZZbZfZg'Zh: οὐ ZdZoZpTTa. Ant. 15 ἀργείων LIRZCZZbZfZh®: ἀργεῖος ZdZgZh'ZoZpTTa. ® Cf. Ludovicus


Anecdota graeca II (Lipsiae, 1828) p. 358.20: οἷσθε ἐπὶ

δευτέρου προσώπου ypadea ὁ Σοφοκλῇτ'. .. οὕτως τὸ οἷσθε dd τοῦ οἴδατε.

s This change was made meiri causa, Thomas failing to acknowledge the correption of ro-.

On similar cases Aesch.

Turyn, Aeschylus p. 77.


237 and 952 in Thoman

mss. of Aeschylus, cf.





Ant. 27 φησὶν L'ARZc!: φασὶν ZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa, φασὶ Zd. Ant. 34 xpoxnptocovra L'R: προκηρύξαντα ZcZZbZfZhZoT!: xpoxnpttovra ZdZgZpT'Ta. Ant. 34 ἄγειν LRZcZZbZfZgr’ZhrTas; ἔχειν ZdZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 58 ἐλελειμμένα L“, λελειμμένα LP°ZcZZdZoZp, λελειμέναι Zb: edeλείμμεθα R, λελείμμεθα ZfIZh : λελείμμεθον Zf Ze TTa. Ant. 69 θέλοις LRZcZo: θέλεις ZZbZfZgZhZpT, θέλει Ta. Ant. 84 προμηνύσῃς LRZfZgZo: προμηνύσεις ZcZZbZhZpTTa. Ant. 93 ἐχθρανῇ L'ARZcZZbZhZoTTa, &xApavel ex ἐχθρὰ Zi: ἐχθαιρῇ Zg, ἐχθαρῇ Zp. Ant. 97 μὴ ob LRZcZf*?: μὴ (ob om.) ZZbZfrZgZhZoTTa: unv Zo. (Cf. supra, OT 13.) Ant. 104 διρκαίων LRZZbZgZhZpTTa: διρκέων Zc*ZfZo, διρκέαν Zc. Ant. 105 ῥεέθρων LRZcZZbZ{ZhTTa: ῥείθρων ZgZoZp. Ant. 114 λευκῆς LRZcZZbZfZgZhZpr-T Ta: λεπτῆς ZoZp. Ant. 134 y& LRZc: γᾶν ZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 135 πυρφόρος LRZcZfZhZoZpTTa: πυροφόρος ZgZoZp. Ant. 138/9 ἄλλᾳ τὰ μὲν, ἄλλα δ᾽ Ex’ ἄλλοις] ἄλλα (-aı LP) τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα (-aı LP°) τὰ δ’ ἐπ’ ἄλλους L!, -οις R, ἄλλαι τία]δ’ ἄλλ[η]ν rad’ ἐπ’ ἄλλοις A: ἄλλα τάδ᾽ ἐπ’ ἄλλοις ZcZZbZgZo,

-ους ΖίΖρ:


745’ ἄλλα δ᾽ Ex’ ἄλλοις

TTa: ἀλλὰ δεινὰ τάδ᾽ ἐπ’ ἄλλους Zh (etiam V). Ant. 152 παννύχοις LARZhTTa: παννυχίοις ZcZZbZfZgZoZp. Ant. 210 & γ᾽ ἐμοῦ LAR: ἐξ ἐμοῦ ZcZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 225 ἔσχον 1,ἈΖ.ΖΌνΡ: εὗρον ZcrZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 235 πεπραγμένος LA: πεφραγμένος RZcZZbZgr’ZoZp”r?: δεδραγμένος ZrZbrZfZgZhZp, scholia Thomana, TTa. Cf. Suda (sub A 162) δεδραγμένος: xexpaypuévos. The reading δεδραγμένος may be an ancient variant preserved by Thomas. Ant. 238 πρῶτα LRZcZZbZhZpr: πάντα ZfZgZoZpTTa. Ant. 242 σημαίνων LR, Pap. Oxyrh. 875: σημανῶν ZcZZbZfZgZoZpTTa: σημαινῶν Zh. Ant. 247 χρή LR: χρῆν ZcZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 249 γενῆιδος L, γενηΐδος R, yerfios ZoZp: γένιδος ZcZZbZg“TTa, Ὑγένυδος Zg™, γένειδος Zh, γέν[.] δος Zf. Ant. 266 in versus initio rd LRZcZZb: καὶ ZfZgTTa: τῷ ZoZp™™ (non liquet Zp**). Legi nequit Zh. Ant. 267 τὸ LRZZbZgZpTTa, τὸ γὰρ Zo: τῷ ZcZf. Legi nequit Zh. Ant. 308 ᾷδης μοῦνος LRZcZZbZoZpTTa: μοῦνος &5ns ZgZh, μόνος ἄδης Zf. Ant. 330 γνώμης τ' LRZcZ*ZhZp™, γνώμης γ᾽ Zo: καὶ γνώμης Z*°Zb ΖίΖεττα." Ant. 345 καὶ θηρῶν LRZcZgZh: καὶ θηρίων ZZbZfZoZp: θηρίων τ᾽ TTa. “ Triclinius relied on the corrupted Thoman defect. Cf. above, p. 50.

reading without noticing its metrical

















ἑλὼν ἄγετ᾽ Ta. T

Ant. 357 δυσαύλων πάγων LRZhZoZpTTa, (δυλαύ-) Zc: δυσαύλων ψυχρὰ πάγων ZZbZfZg. Ant. 379 δύστηνος LRZcZhTTa: δύστηνε ZZbZfZgZoZp. Ant. 384 robpyov ἐξειργασμένη LRZcZfZgZoTTa, τοὔργου &£- Zh: τοὖργον ἡ ᾿ξειργασμένη ZZbZp. Ant. 386 εἰς μέσον LRZc: els (vel ἐς) δέον ZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa. (Primitus haec erat glossa Thomana, velut Zc*'.) Ant. 390 ποθ’ LRZcZZbZhZoZp: γ’ ἂν ZgTTa, γὰρ Zf. Ant. 403 ξυνίεις LRZcZhZoZp: ξυνίης ZZbZfZhTTa. Ant. 405 dp’ L: ὡς dp R: ὥς ῥ᾽ Zc'?ZZbZi™-ZgZoZp: ws Zc?Zf*e?ZhTTa. Ant. 420 &0' LR: ἐν δ’ ZcZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 444 ἡ LRZcZZbZfZhTTa: ol ZgZoZp. Ant. 446 συντόμως LRZc!: σύντομον ZeZZb: σύντομα ZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 462 abr’ LRZcZZbZh (at cf. glossam Thomanam): αὔτ᾽ ZfZgZoZp TTa.

Glossa Thomana

erat αὐτὸ τὸ προαπελθεῖν ZeelZeiZbel.

Ant. 467 ἠισχόμην L ἠσχόμην RZp!: loxdunv ZeIZZbZfZgTTa: ἠνεσχόμην ZlZoZh®, ἠνειχόμην Zh!: ἠνσχόμην AUYZc™£Zp?. Ant. 486 ὁμαιμονεστέρα LP (-ραις L**), RZh*: ὁμαιμονεστέρας ZcZZbZf ZgZhrZoZpTTa. Ant. 493 κλοπεὺς LRZp”’: κλοπαῖς ZcZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 515 κατθανὼν LZc? (καθανὼν Zc'), ZZbZg, κθανὼν R, κτανὼν Zh: κατὰ χθονὸς ZiZoZpT Ta (videtur errore e v. 512 repetitum). Ant. 518 δὲ LRZcZZb: γε ZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 520 λαχεῖν LRZcZZbZgZh: λαβεῖν ZfZoZpTTa. Ant. 520 ἴσος LR: ἴσον ZcZZbZfZgZh'ZoZpTTa: ἴσων Zh’. Ant. 557 μέντοι L: μὲν τ᾽ ob R: μέν τ᾽ οἵου ZcZh (cf. schol. Thom. ἤγουν ἄριστα



ἐν μόνῳ


καὶ οὐκ





ZcZZb): μὲν θοῦ ZZbZfZgZoZpTTa. Ant. 571 viäcı(v) LARZcZZbZEZh: νἱέσι ZgZoZpTTa. Ant. 627,79 ἀχνύμενος τῆς μελλογάμου νύμφης τάλιδος LRZfZgZh, (ἀχλύ-)} Zc: ἀχνύμενος τῆς μελλογάμου (νύμφης om.) τάλιδος Pollux III.45 (I p. 169 Bethe): ἀχνύμενος (τῆς μελλογάμου νύμφης om.) τάλιδος ZZbZoZpT Ta. Ant. 635 μου LR: μοι ZcZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 637 ἀξίως ἔσται LRZZbZfZgZh'ZoZpTTa: ἄξιος ἔσται ZcZh*. Ant. 648 γ᾽ om. LRZcZZbZfZh: y’ ZgZoZpTTa. Ant. 660 τοὺς LRZcZf: τούς γ᾽ ZZgZhZoZpTTa, τούς τ᾽ Zb. % The text of Pollux is to be followed, i.e., τῆς μελλογάμον has to be preserved (cf. Hesychius s.v. rads; Photius s.v. rd\dos; Eustathius pp. 962.54, 699.27), and only viudns is a gloss to be ejected from the text. Thus, an anapaestic dimeter τῆς μελλογάμου τάλιδος ἥκει will be followed in the usual way by a monometer (μόρον ᾿Αντιγόνη:) and a

paroemiac at the end. of inadvertence.

I think that the omission in Thoman mss. was simply a matter


Ant. Ant. Ant. TTa. Ant. Ant. φρενῶν Ant.



673 7’ RL?Zf, θ᾽ L}: om. ZcZZbZgZhZoZpTTa. 680 γυναικῶν LRZcZbZ{ZhZoZpTTa: γυναικὸς ZZg. 725 αὐτοῦ δ᾽ LZc!Zf, αὐτοῦ (δ' om.) R: αὖ τοῦδ’ ZZbZgZhZoZp 727 bx’ LR: πρὸς ZcZZbZgZhZoZpTTa: παρ’ Zf. 754 φρενῶν αὐτὸς LRZc'ZgZhZpTTa, φρενὸς αὐτὸς Ζο"Ζί: αὐτὸς ZZbZo. 759 ψόγοισι LRZcZf: ψόφοισι(ν) ZZbZgZhZoZpTTa (glossa Tho-

mana paravodoylais).

Ant. 763 οὐδαμὰ (-ᾷ, -ἃ) LRZfZpTTa: οὐδαμοῦ ZcZZbZo, Zg (ex -ä correctum?), οὐδαμῶς Zh. Ant. 769 μόρου LRZcZfZg*: μόρων ZZbZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 806 πατρίας LRZcTTa: πατρῴας ZZbZfZgZhZoZp.© Ant. 835 βροτοὶ LRZcZfZg'TTa: θνητοὶ ZZbZg*ZhZoZp (haec primitus erat glossa Thomana, velut Zce!).

Ant. 840 ὀλομέναν LRZgZhZp: ὀλλομέναν ZcZZbZo, Zf (ὀλλυ- incipiebat scriba) : ὀλλυμέναν TTa. Ant. 848 νόμοις LRZcZfZgTTa: νόμοισι ZZbZhZo, -ow Zp. Ant. 855 προσέπεσες LZcZh, προσέπες Zf: προσέπαισας ZZbZgZoZpTTa, προσέκεσας Zh’. Ant. 855 post τέκνον] πολὺν LZcZZbZh: πολεὰ R: πολὺ ZfZgZoZpTTa. Ant. 863 πατρῷαι LRZc: ματρῷαι ZZbZhZoZpTTa, u(nr) pga ZfZg. Ant. 874 οὐδαμᾷ LR: οὐδαμί[. .]] Zc, οὐδαμῶς ZZb: οὐδαμῇ ZherZoZpTTa: οὐδαμοῦ ZfZg. Ant. 887 ἀφεῖτε LRZfTTa: ἀφῆτε ZcZZbZg'Zh: ἄφετε Zg*ZoZp.™ Ant. 907 ἀνηρόμην LRZcZZbZoZpTTa, ἀνηλόμην Zh: ἂν ἠρόμην ZiZg. Ant. 918 παιδίου LRZcZZbZh: παιδείον Zf-"ZgZoZpTTa. Ant. 926 £uyyvoinev LZfZh, ξυγνοῖμεν RZc*: ξυγνῶμεν Zc!, ξυγγνῶμεν ZZbZg""ZoZpTTa. Ant. 932 ὕπερ LRZcZhTTa: ὕπο ZZbZfZgZoZp. Ant. 943 oeßloaca LRZcZfZgTTa, σεβήσασα Zh: τιμήσασα ZZbZoZp (haec erat glossa vetus L#! et Thomana Zc*').8 Ant. 948 γενεᾷ LRZfZgZhTTa, γεναιᾶ ZoZp: yéva ZcZ™, γέννα Z*Zb. Ant. 951 δύνασις LRZ@ZZbZgZpT:: δύναμις Zc'ZfZhZoTa. Ant. 952 ἄνιν L*RZc? (an &[[p]] νιν Zc?): ἄν νιν LeeLimzZgZoZp: ἄρ νιν Zc!?ZbZfZhTTa (glossa δὴ Zc#'Zbe'T#!), Ant. 955 ὁ LRZcZfZhTTa: om. ZZbZgZoZp. “Cf. above, p. 50. * Triclinius argues against ἄφετε in a scholium p. 320.6 Dind.

(T fol. 99, Ta fol.

215”): ἀφεῖτε χρὴ γράφειν, οὐκ ἄφετε. This is one more proof that Triclinius had a copy of the later Thoman edition before his eyes. On similar cases, cf. above, pp. 49 f.

“ Triclinius attacks this reading in a scholium p. 320.34 Dind. (T fol. 100”, Ta fol. 216°): ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σεβίσασα ἀπὸ τοῦ σεβίζω ὀφείλεις λέγειν" οὕτω γὰρ ἁρμόζει τῷ μέτρφ.

above, p. 50.









Ant. 956 κερτομίοις LRZg', Zh (an p.c.?), TTa: xeproulns ZcZZb: xeproulats ZfZg*ZoZp. Ant. 976 χείρεσσι LRZg, xelpeot ZhZo, χείραισι ZfZp: χερσὶ ZcZZb: χεροῖν re Ta. T Ant. 993 σῆς LZcZZbZfZg'!Zh: om. R: τῆσδ᾽ ZoZpTTa. Ant. 1025 οὐκ ἔστ᾽ LARZZbZf: οὐκέτ᾽ ἐστιν Zc, οὐκέτ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ZgZhZoZpTTa. Ant. 1027 ἀΐνητος L ἄινητος A: ἀνίητος RZh: αἰκίνητος Zc, ἀκίνητος ZZb ZfZgZoZpTTa. Ant. 1032 λέγοι LRZcZh: λέγει ZcerZfi?zg!: φέρει ZIZPZg’ZhrrZoZp TTa, φέροι Z*Zb. Ant. 1040 θέλουσ᾽ of LRZcZbZgTTa, (— οἱ ex εἰ} Z, θέλουσ᾽ εἰ Zf: θέλουσι (of om.) ZhZoZp. Ant. 1048 alt. ἄρα LZc, & ῥα R: &p’ ἃ ZZoZpTTa, (ex dpa) Zf, ἄρ᾽ ἃ ZbZgZh. Ant. 1060 pe τἀκίνητα LZcZrrZbrZfZhZ0TTa, peélly]] τἀκίνητα R: μέγ᾽ ἀκίνητα ZZbZgZp. (Cf. schol. Thom. καταπολὺ ἄρρητα in ZcZ.) Ant. 1103 y’ LZcZZbZgTTa: r’ R: om. ZfZhZoZp. Ant. 1105 καρδίᾳ LRZg©Zh'!ZoZpTTa: καρδίας ZcZZbZg™’Zh!*: καρδίαν ΖΙ. Ant. 1114 τὸν βίον σῴζοντα LARZcZZbZfZh: σῴζοντα τὸν βίον ZgZoZp TTa. Ant. 1119 παγκοίνους LZCZf : xayxolvov RI“Zh: παγκοίνοις ZUZc'ZZbZg ZoZpTTa. Ant. 1134 ἀμβρότῳ LRZfZgZoZp: ἀβρότων ZCZZbZhTTa. Ant. 1222 καθημμένην LRZgZoZpTTa: καθειμένην Z°Zb, καθειμμένην Zc Z“Zf (glossa Thomana ἀπῃωρημένην). Ant. 1224 τῆς LRZZb, Zf* (om. Zf!), ZgTTa: rots ZcZoZp. Ant. 1236 és δ' LRZcZZbZfZg: ἐν δ' ZoZpTTa.

Ant. 1238 ῥοὴν LARZZbZg (om. Zc): πνοὴν ZfZoZpTTa. Ant. 1246 δὲ LRZcZZbZgTTa: re ZfZoZp. Ant. 1249 στένειν LRZPZfZgZoZpTTa: στέγειν ZcZ™. Ant. 1266 ξυμμόρῳ LZcZf, ξυνμόρῳ R (scholia vetera unam



tellegere videntur) : ξὺν μόρῳ ZZbZgZoZpTTa. Ant. 1273 μ' LRZcZZb: om. ZfZgZoZpTTa. Ant. 1280 τάχ’ LZf: 745’ RZcZZbZg: τά γ᾽ ZoZpTTa. Ant.









ἀθλίω φεῦ τέκνω ZoZp. Ant. 1313 μόρῳ LRZfZoZp: μόρων ZcZZbZgZhTTa. (Cf. schol. Thom. τὸ τῶνδε καὶ ἐκείνων πρὸς τὸ μόρων συναπτέον Zc; fere idem Z, nisi καὶ τὸ κἀκείνων.) Ant. 1327 βράχιστα γὰρ κράτιστα LRZcZbZfZgZh (periit Z): κράτιστα γὰρ τάχιστα LY: βράχιστα γὰρ κάκιστα ZoZpT Ta. Ant. 1337 προσεύχου LRZfZgZhZoZpTTa: κατεύχου ZcZb (periit Z).




1343 κλιθῶ] καὶ 06 LRZfZgZhZoZpTTa:


καὶ τεθήσομαι Zc, καὶ τι

θήσομαι Zb. (Thomas hic duas lectiones videtur consideravisse: cf. schol. πᾶ καὶ τεθνήξομαι, ἤγουν ri[[v]] ποιήσω in Zc. Altera interpretatio ad τεθήσομαι, altera ad τί θήσομαι spectat.) At the end of this chapter, I list some mss. that are just apographs of extant Thoman mss., and some less important Thoman mss. APOGRAPHS









of extant Thoman

(Arsenius of Monembasia).

I list them below:

77 (cf. Recension pp. 155 f.; cf. mainly by Aristobulus Apostolides. Electra (fol. 65'-94") and Antigone 156). (cf. below, p. 162). The Sophocles the same Aristobulus Apostolides

Only Oed.

Tyr. was copied from Zc (for

proofs, cf. loc. cit.). Milan, Ambros. E 77 sup. (cf. Recension pp. the Sophocles portion, Atax is Moschopulean. and Antigone are Thoman in text and scholia, Ze. Cf.: El. 36 re om. Zc Ambr.; 300 νυμφίος

θαρσύς Zc Ambr.;


mss., there are several direct

copies (entire or partial) of Vatic. 1333 (Zc). Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, below, p. 188). a.p. 1496. Written In the Sophocles portion, the latter are copied from Zc (cf. Recension p. Vatican Library, Palatin. gr. 319 portion in this ms. was written by



159 f.). XV* cent.” In Then, Electra, Oed. Tyr., and are transcribed from ταῦτα Zc Ambr.; OT 89

1487 τὰ λοιπὰ rod [{πικρρῇ]] βίου Zc: τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ βίον

Ambr.; Antig. 18 ἥδειν Zc?: om. Zc!? om. Ambr.; 25 versum om. Zc“ (litteris minoribus scripsit Zc®): om. Ambr.; 51 αὐτοφόρων Zc Ambr.; 52 ἀρέξας Zc Ambr.; 65 οὖν] αὖ Zc! Ambr.; 74 πανουργήσας τ᾽ Zc Ambr. — Cf. Recension p. 160. Naples II.F.36 (cf. Recension pp. 162 f.). XV‘ cent. In the Sophocles portion, Antigone is Thoman in text and scholia, and copied from Zc. — Cf. loc. cit.; above, p. 28.

Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2805 (cf. Recension p. 165).

XV* cent. Atax

and Electra 1-204 are Moschopulean. The portion Electra 205-end and Oed. Tyr. 12-1489 (fol. 200-287”) is Thoman in text and scholia, and

is transcribed from Zc.

The scholia of the Paris 2805 are copied from

Zc already beginning with fol. 198" (from schol. Εἰ. 119 on). For common significant readings and errors of the two mss., cf.: El. 361 σοὶ] σὺ Zc Par.; 939 λύσης Zc Par.; OT 89 θαρσὺς Zc and Par. (although the scribe of Paris was starting @p-); 135 ξύμμαχον Zc Par.; 248 κακῶς ἄμοιρον Zc Par.; 1487 τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ [[πικρρῇ]} βίου Zc: τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ βίου Par. Ὁ] owe to Professor Raffaele Cantarella (Milan) a collation of several readings from

this ms.





Vatican Library, Palatin. gr. 99. Paper, late XVtk cent., 201 x 131 mm., 152 foll., 24 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. The ms. is written, to judge from the handwriting, by Georgius Gregoropulus II (cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber p. 72; specimen in Henri Omont, Fac-similés de manuscrits grecs des XV° et XVI* siécles [Paris, 1887] plate 21). — Fol. Ir Aiax; 29° Electra; 60° Oed. Tyr.; 927-119" Antigone. No scholia or glosses. This ms. was transcribed from Zc already after Zc was supplemented at the beginning (cf. above, p. 40) with fol. 17-7" (Aiax 1-227). The Palat. 99 agrees with Zc, both with its supplemented portion and with the main body of Zc: cf. At. 127 post ixépxorov] glossa ἀλαζονικὸν λόγον ab alia manu in Zc in linea scripta: eadem scripta in Palat. 99 et expuncta post correctionem ; Ai. 187 φάτην Zc: φάτὴν Pal. 99; 219 xopoddixra Zc et Pal. 991; 241 ῥιτῆρα Zc et Pal. 99; El. 361 gol] σὺ Zc et Pal. 99; OT 135 ξύμμαχον Zc et Pal. 99; 1487 τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ [{πικρρῇ]] βίου Zc: τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ βίου Pal. 99; Antig. 52 ἀρέξας Zc et Pal. 99; 74 πανουργήσας τ᾽ Zc et Pal. 99. It is likely that apographs of Zc made in the XV*tk century were written

in Crete (cf. below, p. 189). We continue with apographs of other Thoman mss. Milan, Ambros. C 24 sup. (cf. Recension p. 159). Paper, late XV‘ cent., 220 x 165 mm., m1 + 214 foll. In the Sophocles portion, only Oed. Tyr. and Antigone are Thoman in text and scholia, and are transcribed from Venice 472 (Z): cf. OT 1529 ὀλβιάζειν ZZbZdZn and Ambros. ; Antig. 46 δὴ om. Z and Ambr.; Ant. 133 ἀλλαλάξαι Z and Ambr.*; also cf. loc. cit.; above, p. 28. London, British Museum, Burney 106 (cf. Recension p. 158). Paper, XVI* cent., 293 x 203 mm., 111 foll., 28 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. This ms. is a direct apograph of Paris 2884, whose Thoman portion is marked Zf (cf. above, pp. 28, 41). The text character of Burney 106 is thus the same as that of Paris 2884. Accordingly, in Burney 106 the portion comprising Oed. Tyr. 1302-end and Antigone is Thoman. Zs = Florence, Laur. 31, 1. Paper, XVtk cent., 412 x 285 mm., 147 foll., in 2 columns to a page, 45 lines to a column for the text of Soph® On Crete as an important center of manuscript copying in the XV

century, cf.:

Bernardus de Montfaucon, Palaeographia graeca, sive de ortu et progressu literarum graecarum (Parisiis, 1708) pp. 111 f.; Ambroise Firmin-Didot, Alde Manuce et l’hellénisme

4 Venise (Paris, 1875)

pp. 579 ff.; Herman


‘Die Handschriften der Argo-

nautika des Apollonios von Rhodos,’ Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen 1929, Philol.-Hist. Kl., pp. 178 ff., 190; J. Enoch Powell, “The Cretan

Manuscripts of Thucydides,”

Classical Quarterly 32 (1938)

103 ff.; J. A. Spranger,

“A Preliminary Skeleton List of the Manuscripts of Euripides,” Classical Quarterly 33 (1939) 98; Paul Henry, Etudes Plotiniennes 11. Les manuscrits des Ennéades. (Museum Lessianum, Section Philosophique No. 21. Bruxelles, 1941) p. xxx; B. Aaotpéas, Κρητικὰ Χρονικά 4 (1950) 240 ff.





ocles. Written by θύτης “Ayyedos for Francesco Filelfo (according to a subscription on fol. 130: = 123: of the old numbering). Fol. 84'-130° (77*-123" of the old numbering) Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Philoct., Antig., Trachin. This ms. is a direct apograph of the Thoman ms. Laur. 32, 2 (Zg, cf. above, p. 41). (Laur. 31, 1 copies the ms. Laur. 32, 2 also in Aeschylus and Euripides.) These errors, e.g., appear in Zg (Laur. 32, 2) and in Zs (Laur. 31, 1): Atax 52 ἀνηκάστου; 222 ἀγγελίην; 257 ἄτερ] ἅτε; 301/2 τινὶ Alsyllous [λόγους Zg: τινίλους | λόγους Zs. The ms. Zs has many more mistakes which resulted from its misreading the ms. Zg. Zr = Venice gr. 616 (No. di collocazione 663). Cf. Recension pp. 171 f. Parchment, XV* cent., 320 x 215 mm., 123 foll., 2 columns to a page, 30 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. This ms. is most probably an apograph of Venice 617 (Zp) and, accordingly, has — in the same way as Zp — a Thoman text in Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil. Cf. loc. ctt.; above, pp. 29, 43. Some unimportant listed below.


mss., or Thoman

portions of mss., are

Florence, Riccardi 34 (cf. Recenston p. 149; above, p. 27; below, pp. 92, 190). Paper, end of the XV* or early XVI“ cent., 283 x 208 mm., 269 foll., 20 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. Written by

Zacharias Kallierges.

In the Sophocles portion, the beginning of Oed.

Tyr. ca. 1-76 is Thoman: cf. Recension, loc. cit. Zu = Kosinitsa or Εἰκοσιφοίνισσα (near Drama), Mov} τῆς Θεοτόκου, unnumbered ms. described by ’A. Παπαδόπουλος- Κεραμεύς, «"ExOeois παλαιογραφικῶν καὶ φιλολογικῶν ἐρευνῶν ἐν Θράκῃ




διὰ τὴν Μαυρογορδάτειον Φιλολογικὸς


καὶ Μακεδονίᾳ,



γενομένων κατὰ τὸ

ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει




it’ τόμου (1886) pp. 42 f. The present location of the ms. is unknown (cf. Manuscripis p. 20). XIV* cent., in 8vo, 245 foll. — Fol. 104: Vita; 106" Atax; 146" Electra; 186" arg. II to Oed. Tyr.; 187" Oed. Tyr.; 226'245° Antigone (1-752). Thoman scholia. The samples of the scholia quoted by Papadopulos-Kerameus show that the scholia of the ms. are Thoman (not Triclinian). Here is the proof. The inedited scholium on Electra 881 ἑστία ὄνομα θεᾶς --- δοκοῦσι λέγειν, quoted from the Kosinitsa ms. by Papadopulos (p. 43), appears in Thoman mss. (Zc fol. 61”, Z fol. 137”), but is missing in the Triclinian ms. Ta (and likewise missing in T, but T does not carry the complete Triclinian commentary, so that this does not mean anything). Anyway, the scholium is to be considered Thoman and, in view of its omission by Triclinius, it is to be considered exclusively Thoman. Then, the Kosinitsa ms. shares with Thoman mss. an error schol. El. 977 p. 374.1/2 Dind. σάλπιγγος κλύων ZZcZu against the correct Triclinian reading κλύων σάλπιγγος Ta.








Munich graec. 313. Paper, XV/XVI* cent., 105 foll., 160 Χ 125 mm. Written by Adolphus Probus Phrisius (cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber p. 8), who also wrote the Munich 500 (ΖΡ, cf. above, p. 41). (I owe to Dr. Paul Ruf, director of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, a detailed description of this ms.) In the Munich 313, there are selections from Sophocles on four pages: fol. 11" selected lines from Aiax; fol. 101%-102', from Antigone. The copyist used for Aiax a Moschopulean source (cf. At. 524 γένοιτό ποθ᾽ οὗτος), and for Antigone — a Thoman source (cf. Ant. 493 κλοκαῖς, 673 τ᾽ om.). Munich graec. 334. Paper, XV“ cent., 214 x 133 mm., 171 foll. — Fol. 17 Atax (Ai. 1-24 supplemented by a different hand); 37: arg. to El.; 37-68" Electra; 69" arg. II, I, to Oed. Tyr.; 695-08" Oed. Tyr. No scholia. This is the ms. quoted by Ludovicus Doederlein, Spectmen novae editionis tragoediarum Sophoclearum (Erlangae, 1814) pp. 51 ff.; quoted as Monac. in Dindorf, Annotationes, and in Pearson. The text of this ms. is Thoman: cf. At. 328 εἵνεκ᾽, 801 θεστορίδου, El. 56 θνήσκοντες, 890 λοιπὸν ἢ, OT 337 σοὶ δ᾽, 442 σε μέντοι γ᾽, 549 χρῆμα. Vienna philos. philol. gr. 253. Paper, XV/XVI* cent., 210 x 145 mm., 253 foll., 21 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. The handwriting of the Sophocles portion in this ms. is that of Aristobulus Apostolides, the later Arsenius of Monembasia." Fol. 57" arg. I to Oed. Tyr.; 57-64”, . 817-88", 73*-80", 655-727, 97*-100": Oed. Tyr. ; 89°-96" Electra (142-494). Separately from the poetic text, there are fol. 101"-135” ancient scholia on Aiax; 136-137” on Electra (1-52). The poetic text of the ms. is Thoman: cf. El. 210 παθεῖν πάθεα, 373 κοὐδ' ἂν, OT 13 μὴ (ob om.) 18 of δ᾽ ἠιθέων, 81 ὄμμασιν, 1311 ἐξήλω, 1326 τήνδε. The scholia of this ms. are quite obviously transcribed from L, with some additions from other sources (e.g., a Byzantine scholium on Atax 14, like that published from Ambros. E 103 sup. [our symbol Wa, cf. below, p. 160] by Dindorf, Scholia p. x11: τέσσαρες εὐθεῖαι εἰσὶ τῆς ἀθηνᾶς ---- προβολὴ ἡ φρόνησι5). Modena, Biblioteca Estense, a.T.9.4 (once II.B.4; no. 41 in Puntoni). Cf. below, p. 104. Paper, XV** cent. This volume, after the valuable ancient scholia (symbol M), contains, on fol. 1517-197", by a hand different from that of M, Thoman scholia on Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. (1-1111). a Franz Pichler, “Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Sophoklesscholien,” Festschrift des deutschen akademischen Philologen-Vereins in Gras (Graz, 1896) p. 34, stated that fol. 57-137



of this






of Monembasia.


Josef Bick, Die Schreiber der Wiener griechischen Handschriften (Museion I. WienPrag-Leipzig, 1920) pp. 103 f., wrongly questioned Pichler’s assertion, which is correct. I have compared, with a positive result, the writing of the Sophocles portion with Apostolides’ handwriting in Henri Omont, Fac-similes de manuscrits grecs des XV" et XVI stacles reproduits en photolithographie d’apres les originaux de la Bibliothöque Nationale (Paris, 1887), plates 5 and 6. Cf. Marie Vogel und Victor Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Beihefte sum Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, 33. Leipzig, 1909) p. 44.






Among the famous and most prominent Byzantine editions of Sophocles, the recension of Demetrius Triclinius was the latest one, made by an ingenious scholar who also was in a position to use fully the contri-

butions of his predecessors. Some essential features of the Triclinian

edition have



tioned and discussed by me previously.” I wish to restate a few points. The main representatives of the Triclinian edition are the mss.: T (Paris 2711) and Ta (Venice 470). Triclinius composed a new edition of the

seven plays. He edited in his own way the poetic text of Sophocles. His immediate working copy was a Thoman edition of the seven plays, of which four were supplied with Thoman scholia, and he used also a Moschopulean copy of the triad and an “old” edition of the seven plays, or — to speak more correctly — two “old” editions, for there is no doubt that he used a Laurentian copy of the class A, but knew also a Roman copy of the class p. With regard to Triclinius’ textual criticism, we have to distinguish between his work in trimeters and in lyrics.* In the trimeters, he acted eclectically. While he adopted quite many interpolations of Moschopulus in the triad or of Thomas Magistros in the seven plays, he sometimes reverted to ancient readings or invented some interpolations of his own. Still in trimeters there were relatively few of his interpolations and they did not show any too violent character, since Triclinius knew well the metrical and prosodical structure of the trimeter.“ The fact that he

had “old” editions of Sophocles at his disposal is proved by his including in his edition the ancient scholia on Oed. Col., Trach., Phil. Sometimes Triclinius shows in the poetic text striking coincidences with some errors of L: e.g., cf. OT 166 καὶ om. LTTa.




or Thomas

appears clearly in our lists of Moschopulean and Thoman

readings (cf.


reacted pp.








18 ff., 55 ff.)



Triclinian readings are recorded. Thus the reader can see whether a new reading of a predecessor was accepted or rejected by Triclinius and how in some cases Triclinius was prompted by the intervention of a prede-

cessor to attempt an innovation of his own.

Triclinius himself made

many innovations both in trimeters and in lyrics. And this touches upon the essential difference between Triclinius and his forerunners: he was ® Cf. Turyn, Recension pp. 107 ff. Now cf. also Aubreton, Démétrius Triclinius. ® Cf. Eduard Fraenkel, Aeschylus Agamemnon (Oxford, 1950) I pp. 12 ff. “On Triclinius’ prosody, cf. Fridericus Kuhn, Symbolae ad doctrinae περι διχρονων

historiam pertinentes (Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen VI, 3. pp. 98-115.


Vratislaviae, 1892)








the first Byzantine philologist to devote attention and intense work to the lyrical lines in Attic plays, to try to discover the strophic responsion and to straighten out those readings which — actually, or in his imagination only — infringed upon the responsion. A few innovations of Triclinius in the lyrics were really good corrections, but most of them were false. Nonetheless, he created the basis for the analysis of lyrical stanzas and for the determination of their extents. As is well known, the Triclinian text was adopted by Turnebus mainly in the lyrics and became the Sophocles vulgate for the time from Turnebus up to Brunck. As a result of that development in the history of Sophocles editions, Triclinian readings were familiar in the past, and still are known from the older editions of Sophocles. The correct identification of T as a representative of the Triclinian recension allowed scholars of the XIX! and XX“ centuries to identify easily Triclinian readings. As to the scholia of the Triclinian recension, I wish to repeat what I said before.“ Triclinius took over the Thoman scholia on the tetrad and the Moschopulean scholia on the triad, and amalgamated them into a joint commentary. He retouched them occasionally and added his metrical analyses, and also metrical scholia dealing with textual problems on metrical grounds. He also inserted special scholia which explained points of textual criticism, as the occasion warranted it. He supplied short notes of miscellaneous character called Σχήματα in one ms. (cf. below, pp. 81 ff.) and in Turnebus (cf. Dindorf, Scholia p. 389). For the three remaining plays, Oed. Col., Trach., Phil., he used ancient scholia, which should be consulted as they appear in T and Ta as additional witnesses for the constitution of the text of those ancient scholia. To reconstruct the shape of the original Triclinian edition, we should use jointly the two complete Triclinian mss.: T and Ta. They supple-


each other in certain




to the Triclinian

commentary, especially to the joint Moschopuleo-Thoman scholia, the ms. Ta is a much better witness. But there are certain features which appear better preserved in T, viz., the so-called Σχήματα ---- e.g., marks of rhetorical analysis of dialogues (like πρότασις, κατασκενή, βάσις, προοίμιον προσφωνητικόν, xTd.),—prosodical marks of length and shortness, and those special metrical signs, as κορωνίς, διπλῆ, παράγραφος, etc. But in the scholia on the tetrad the ms. T gives mostly only original Triclinian scholia; only in Antigone the ms. T reproduces the basic set of Thoman scholia. Of course, in Oed. Col., Trach., Phil., we have to use both T and Ta for the ancient scholia. @ Cf. Recension pp. 112 f. “Cf. W. I. W. Koster, Scholia in Aristophanis Plutum et Nubes vetera, Thomae Magistri, Demetris Triclinii nec non anonyma recentiora partim inedita (Lugduni Batavorum,

1927) pp. 51 ff.; Aubreton, op. cst. pp. 189 ff.; Fraenkel, op. cit. I pp. 18 ff.






At its beginning, the Triclinian edition included, as was customary with Triclinius,” metrical matter from Hephaestion and by Triclinius himself (T beginning: see below, p. 74). In the Vita, the characteristic reading of Triclinius is (p. 2.10 Dindorf) ἰσχνοφωνίαν. On the setup of

the Moschopuleo-Thomano-Triclinian scholia, cf. Recension pp. 109 ff. I note that Triclinius used to soften Thomas’ sharpness of tone in some

polemic statements, e.g.: schol. At. 32 (p. 330.9-10 Dindorf) ψεύδονται Z: ob καλῶς λέγουσιν Ta. There are cases where Triclinius takes over a Thoman scholium, but subjoins an addition directed even against Thomas: e.g., schol. Ai. 154 p. 334.10 Dind. μὴ λάβῃς ἔξωθεν τὸ κατά els τὸ μεγάλων (els τὸ u. habet Ta: om. Z), ὥς τινες τῶν ἀμαθῶν (this is directed against Moschopulus)-® ἀλλ᾽ οὕτω λέγε: ob γάρ τις δηλονότι ἁμάρτοι τῶν μεγάλων ψυχῶν ἱεὶς καὶ πέμπων κατ᾽ αὐτῶν λόγους δηλονότι (ita Ta: 5. om. Ζ) ἐχθίστους: εἴρηται δὲ ἐκ μεταφορᾶς τῶν τοξευόντων: ὅταν γὰρ μείζων ὁ σκοπὸς 7,

ἥκιστα τούτου ἀποτύγχανουσιν ZTa. Then Triclinius continues, as we read in Ta (not in Z) and in T, the latter exhibiting only this addition, which was actually Triclinian: of προστιθέντες τῷ κώλῳ τούτῳ τὸ "'λόγους,᾽᾽ ἤγουν lels λόγους,

ἁμαρτάνουσι μὴ εἰδότες τὰ μέτρα τῶν στίχων"

νοεῖται δὲ τὸ λόγουε

κατὰ συνεκδοχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ λέγων. This polemic of Triclinius is directed against Thomas’ faulty reading At. 154 iels λόγους. --- The scholium Ai. 160 p. 334.19-26 Dind. is entirely Triclinian (Ta fol. 122”, T fol. 85) and deals with textual problems on metrical basis. It is interesting to note

that the basic procedure of the scribe

T — to judge from these two ex-

amples — was to include, in the tetrad, only original contributions of Triclinius to the scholia. I quote this scholium on Ai. 160 from T and Ta: of προστιθέντες els τὸ “ἄριστ᾽ δράσῃ,᾽᾽ ἀγνοοῦντες τὰ μέτρα τοῦτο λέγε. ὁμοίως “καὶ μέγας ὀρθοῖθ᾽ ὑπὸ γὰρ ὀφείλει εἶναι τὸ τοιοῦτο κῶλον σοῦ xwpls’’ τοιοῦτον ὀφείλει εἶναι

ἐξεβλήθη wap’ ἐμοῦ. “ἀκαλλάξασθαι᾽"

ἄν᾽᾽ τὸ “'δράσῃ᾽᾽ καὶ λέγοντες “ἄριστ᾽ ἂν προστιθέασι. σὺ δὲ τὸ “'ὀρθοῖτο᾽᾽ ἀπὸ κοινοῦ μικρῶν᾽᾽ λέγε, οὗ ““uxporkpwv'’- ἐφθημιμερὲς ὡς ἀποθετικόν. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ "᾿ἀπαλέξασθαι ἐφθημιμερὲς ὡς ἀποθετικόν- διὸ τὸ “᾿ἄναξ᾽᾽

(Then, as a separate scholium, in TTa:) οἱ γράφοντες

ἀμαθεῖς τῶν μέτρων.

χρὴ οὖν "᾿ἀπαλέξασθαι᾽᾽ γράφειν, ἵν᾿ ἔχῃ

ὀρθῶς. This scholium is quite typical for Triclinius. He invokes metrical rules to justify his textual changes in lyrics. The condemnation of ἄριστ᾽ ἂν δράσῃ (At. 160) is directed mainly against the later veteres or detertores which adopted that interpolation (ἄριστ᾽ ἂν δράσῃ or -o1)® — even Gv? recorded that interpolation, which was also embraced by Thomas. The blunder At. 166 ἀπαλλάξασθαι, which Triclinius attacks, appears in Thoman mss. Triclinius explains, quite wrongly, his interpolation Ai. 161 © Cf. Herbert Weir Smyth, Codex




Commentary on Aeschylus’ Prometheus







Aeschylus p. 105; Aubreton, op. cit. pp. 30 ff.; Fraenkel, op. οἱ". I p. 19. @ Cf. Recension p. 122.

Φ Cf. below, p. 141.

in the

1; Turyn,








μικρῶν and the ejection Ai. 166 of ἄναξ. These Triclinian changes, as indicated in his scholia, actually appear in the poetic text of Triclinian

mss. The metrical explanations of Triclinius” are a well-known feature of Triclinian mss.; they are to be found in T and Ta and other Triclinian mss. The ms. T is particularly careful in reproducing prosodical marks and metrical signs used by Triclinius. Asto Triclinian readings in Sophocles, I have to remark that in my previous discussions of the Moschopulean and the Thoman readings we had the opportunity to see what attitude Triclinius took in textual situations raised by his predecessors. We saw how strongly Triclinius relied on Thomas, even to the point of taking over some faults or blunders of the Thoman editions — faults which may simply have escaped his attention.’! On some occasions, in places which had already been affected by interpolations of his predecessors and thus were attracting special attention of scholars, Triclinius would come up with new interpolations of his own. Apart from his following the ancient mss. or the Thoman or the Moschopulean mss., as the case might be, apart from this satellite role, Triclinius introduced many interpolations — exclusively Triclinian — in the Sophocles text, especially in the lyrics. And that marked a new spirit in the philology of the Palaeologean era, for prior to Triclinius Byzantine scholars seem to have been afraid of touching the lyrical lines of Attic plays with textual interventions.” It would be perhaps too cumbersome to enumerate here all original readings or interpolations of Triclinius. I shall content myself with a very small selection from the vast array of Triclinian readings. This will provide a few identification criteria for Triclinian mss. and will also give samples of his textual criticism. There is nothing new in the Triclinian text that has not been disclosed by Turnebus. Future editors of Sophocles can collate T and Ta in order to have a systematic picture of

the Triclinian text recension and to explore it for usable corrections or conjectures.

Only what deserves special consideration as a good conjec-

ture or correction should be quoted in the critical apparatuses of future editions. As I said before, T and Ta are valuable witnesses for the ancient scholia on Oed. Col., Trachiniae, Philoctetes. The Triclinian recension is extremely well-disciplined, even slightly more than the Moschopulean recension, and in that respect the Triclinian uniform consistency or stability is entirely different from the laxity of varying constellations in the Thoman recension. Of course, this tight Cf. Turyn, Aeschylus pp. 111 f.; Fraenkel, op. cit. I pp. 16 ff. rı Cf. above, p. 50.

™ Cf. E. Bruhn, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Supplem. 15 (1887) 244; Pasquali, Storia della tradizione p. 116; Aubreton, op. cit. pp. 165 ff.; Fraenkel, op. cit. I pp. 12 ff.






uniformity of the Triclinian text conforms to the general discipline of most Byzantine editions. Below I quote a few representative Triclinian readings — exclusively Triclinian, which are not shared by any ms. outside the Triclinian recension. The reader may find also in my lists of Moschopulean and of Thoman readings, in the manuscript evidence quoted there, many orig-

inal Triclinian readings different from those of other recensions; they may be used also as significant criteria. In my short list below, ancient readings are covered by the essential manuscripts LGQR. The symbol £ represents the Moschopulean recension; in case of a split within the Moschopulean recension, readings of the two classes £m and ép are indicated. The symbol f represents the Thoman recension; symbols beginning with Z also pertain to Thoman mss. The agreement of T and Ta is indicative of a Triclinian reading. Ai. 161 (σ)μικροτέρων LGQRES: μικρῶν TTa. Ai. 166 ἄναξ LGOR, Suda (sub A 2881), &: om. TTa. Ai. 185 ποίμναισι LGQR, Suda (-αισι vel -εσι sub Φ 704), Ef: ποίμναις Ai. Ai. Ai. Ai. Ai. El. El. ΕἸ. EI.

256 ἴσχει LGQR, Suda (sub A 3224), &: ἔχει TTa. 295 πάθας LGQR, Suda (sub I 20), ξζ: τύχας TTa. 322 βρυχώμενος LGREt, βρνχόμενος Q: μυκώμενος TTa. 372/3 χερσὶ μὲν μεθῆκα LGQRES: χεροῖν μεθῆκα TTa. 1211 μὲν ἐννυχίου LGORES: μὲν οὖν ἐννυχίου TTa. 145 ὃς LGR, Suda (sub A 4397 et Oc 90), Ef: ὅστις TTa. 166 ἀνύμφευτος LGREC: ἄνυμφος TTa. 831 ἀπολεῖς LGREC: ἀπολεῖς pe TTa. 838 γυναικῶν] γυναικῶν ἀπάταις LGREE: (γυναικῶν om.) ἀπάταισιν TTa.

El. 856 post τί φής] αὐδᾷς δὲ ποῖον LGREt: om. TTa. El. 866 ἐμᾶν χερῶν Lt, ἐμᾶν (aut ἐμῶν) χερῶν ζ, ἐμῶν χειρῶν GR: ἐμαῖν χεροῖν TTa. ΕἸ. 1065 δαρὸν οὐκ LGR£t: δαρὸν γὰρ οὐκ TTa. ΕἸ. 1244 versum habent LGR£éf: om. TTa. OT 50 στάντες (τ᾽ om.) L'GRE: στάντες τ᾽ ξ: στάντες γ᾽ TTa. OT 507 ἐπ’ αὐτῷ {(Ε ξξ: om. TTa. OT 630 μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ οὐχὶ σοὶ LGREpf: μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ ob σοὶ Em: μέτεστιν οὐχὶ σοὶ TTa.

OT 1157 τῇδ᾽ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ 1(ΟΕξζ: τῇδ’ ἡμέρᾳ TTa.

Ant. 106/7 ἀργόθεν φῶτα 1, ζ: ἀργόθε πρὶν φῶτα TTa. Ant. 122 τε οπι. Εζ: τε habent TTa. OC 28 μὴν LOR: μὲν ζ: μέν y’ TTa. OC 134 ἄζονθ' LORE: λιάζοντα 1,0}: ἄγονθ᾽ TTa. Trach. 76 δῆτ᾽ ὦ τέκνον 1Εζ: δῆτα τέκνον TTa.



Trach. λόλυξον




ἀνολολύξετε LR:



ἀνολολύξατε ZgZn:


ἀνολολύζετε ZoZp:


TT a.

Trach. 336 r’ om. LR£: r’ habent TTa. Phil. 116 @nparéa γίγνοιτ᾽ LR, 0. γίνοιτ᾽ G, 6. γίγνοιντ᾽ Q: θηρατέα γένοιτ᾽ ZgZnZp!: Onparéa γοῦν γένοιτ᾽ ZoZp*: Onparé’ οὖν γένοιτ᾽ TTa. Phil. 135 δέσποτά u’ L, A (teste Vürtheim), GQR¢: με δέσποτ᾽ TTa. Now, I shall proceed with a list and description of Triclinian mss. First of all, I list the famous Paris 2711 (T), which was used (along with another ms.) by Turnebus” and collated by many others. T = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2711. Paper, XIV‘ cent., 292 x 190 mm., 262 foll., 20 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles.” See below, plate xv. — Fol. 1° ᾿Επιτομὴ τῶν ἐννέα μέτρων ἐκ τοῦ tyxepidlov ἠφαιστίωνος ;7 1. Ἡμέτερον δημητρίον τοῦ τρικλινίου (inc. Ἰστέον ὅτι πάντα τὰ μέτρα); 2° only the headline Περὶ κοινῆς σνλλαβῆς, but no text follows here, and there was blank space left (cf. fol. 3%); 2: γένος σοφοκλέους καὶ βίος : διωρθώθη δὲ παρὰ τοῦ σοφωτάτου μαγίστρου (Triclinian Vita, p. 2.10 ἰσχνοφωνίαν) ; 3* Ὑχόθεσις τοῦ δράματος (arg. to Atax, Triclinian: p. 25.13 Dind. ποιμνίων καὶ réuvewv) ; 3” Περὶ σημείων τῆς κοινῆς συλλαβῆς τῶν ἐντὸς κειμένων τῆς βίβλου:

Ἡμέτερον δημητρίου τοῦ τρικλινίου ; 4" personae dramatis to Atax; 4” Atax, with original Triclinian scholia and a few Thoman scholia. The metrical scholium on At. 1 is headlined ‘Hyérepov δημητρίου τοῦ rpırkıwlov. On fol.

6", the Triclinian scholia on At. 58 p. 330.33-34 Dind. and on Ai. 75 p. 331.5-15 Dind. have, at the top of the column, a headline ἡμέτερον.75

On fol. 23*, a Planudean scholium on Ai. 733 p. 347.6-19 Dind. (which is marked

accordingly in the Planudean

ms. D fol. 155") appears here

78 Σοφοκλεους Τραγωδιαι. Δημητριου τον Τρικλισιου Περὶ μέτρων ols ἐχρήσατο Σοφοκλῆς, Περὶ σχημάτων, Σχόλια. (Parisiis, M.D.L.11: Apud Adrianum Turnebum). Apart from this

text edition dated 1552 (which I am using), there was also a printing dated 1553.


scholia (1553) are printed in an appendix: Anunrpiov του Τρικλινιου, Eıs ra rou Σοφοκλεους exra ὄραματα, Περὶ μέτρων ols ἐχρήσατο Σοφοκλῆς, Περὶ σχημάτων, καὶ σχόλια. (Parisiis, M.D.L.11: Apud Adrianum Turnebum) — hereafter quoted Turnebus, Scholia. Cf. Recension p. 97 note 17. In his dedicatory epistle to Aimar de Ranconet (1498-1559), Turnebus referred to a Triclinian ms. of Ranconet which he had used (Σοφοκλέους Tpayosıar fol. *2r): βιβλίον γὰρ παρὰ σοῦ εὐτυχήσαντες Δημητρίου τοῦ Τρικλινίου σημειώσεσι, στιχογραφίαις,



εἰς εὔρυθμον

καὶ ἐμμελὲς

εὖ μάλα



probably the Paris ms. T (Paris 2711) is the same Triclinian ms. of Ranconet which Turnebus used for the poetic text (especially in lyrics), for the Triclinian metrical scholia, for the so-called schemata, and for the ancient scholia on Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct. But for the scholia on the tetrad, Turnebus used another source. I have proved (below, pp. 83 ff.) that Turnebus printed his exegetic scholia on Aiax, Electra, Oecd.

Tyr., and Antig., from the ms. Cambridge Dd.XI.70 (= Tg). As to Ranconet’s mss., another (not Triclinian) Sophocles ms. of Ranconet is now in Vienna (philos. philol. gr. 48; our symbol Y): cf. below, pp. 173 f.

τ Cf. Aubreton, op. cit. pp. 29 ff. % Cf. above, p. 71 note 67. % Cf. the Triclinian marking of his own

Aeschylus 106).

scholia with ἡμέτερον in Aeschylus







with a headline παλαιόν. Fol. 40° ὑπόθεσις ἠλέκτρατ: διωρθώθη δὲ παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μαγίστρου (inc. Ὑπόκειται ὧδε τροφεὺς πρεσβύτης ἤτοι παιδαγωγός) ; 40° Electra, with Triclinian scholia only; 76” ὑπόθεσις ἀντιγόνης : διωρθώθη δὲ παρὰ τοῦ αὑτοῦ μαγίστρου (arg. III, and arg. I p. 18.23-19.10 Dind., to Antig.; peculiar reading p. 19.1 μετὰ τοῦ Αἵμονος] αἵμονι T); 77° Antigone, with Thoman and Triclinian scholia ;” 110° arg. I, III, to Oed. Tyr.

(peculiar reading p. 12.1 Dind. ἐξετύφλωσεν) ; in the margin, opposite the headline of arg. I ὑπόθεσις oldlxodos διὰ στίχων, ἀριστοφάνους γραμματικοῦ, there is a note διωρθώθη καὶ ταῦτα παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μαγίστρου; 110” Oed. Tyr., with Triclinian metrical and critical scholia, and a few Thoman scholia; 148°


τοῦ ἐπὶ κολωνῶ οἰδίποδος: διωρθώθη

δὲ καὶ αὕτη παρὰ

τοῦ αὐτοῦ

μαγίστρου (arg. I to Oed. Col.; peculiar reading p. 15.2 Dind. (ἦσαν om.) τῶν yap ἀρσένων αἱ θήλειαι περὶ xrd.); 149° Oed. Col., with Triclinian metrical scholia, and ancient exegetic scholia headlined ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν oxoλίων;

1937 ἐκ τῆς



τοῦ δράματος

ἡ ὑπόθεσις



Trach. from Apollodorus) ; 194" poem on Labors of Heracles (Anth. Planud. 16.92 [2.544 Diibner]); 194: Trachiniae, with Triclinian metrical scholia, and ancient exegetic scholia headlined ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν σχολίων ; 226: υπόθεσις τοῦ δράματος (inc. ἀπαγωγὴ) and ἡ ὑπόθεσις ἔμμετρος (the prose and the metrical arguments to Philoct.); 226-262" Philoctetes, with Triclinian metrical scholia, and ancient exegetic scholia headlined ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν σχολίων. As a rule, only in the tetrad (A:., El., Ant., OT)Thoman scholia are marked by red initial capitals, while Triclinian scholia in the same plays have black initial capitals 76 but many departures from this arrangement happened in this ms., by mistake of the copyist. Ta = Venice gr. 470 (No. di collocazione 824). Cf. Recension pp. 107 ff. See below, plate x11. Parchment, XV“ cent., 35 x 24 cm., 303 foll. — Fol. 119: Triclinian Vita; 119” arg. to Atax (incomplete); 120° Aiax; 140° arg. to El. (ὑπόκειται ὧδε τροφεὺς πρεσβύτης ἤτοι παιδαγωγός) ; 140° Electra; 159” arg. I, III, to Oed. Tyr.; 160° Oed. Tyr.; 180° arg. I to OC; 180: Oed. Col.; 203” arg. III, part of I, to Antig.; 204: Antagone; 221” arg. to Trach. (from Apollodorus) ; 222" poem on Labors of Heracles; 222% Trachiniae; 239” prose arg. to Phil.; 240° metrical arg. to Phil.; 240'-258" Philoctetes. The headlines of Ta agree with those of T (cf. my detailed description of Ta in Recension, loc. cit.). Triclinian commentary, i.e., Moschopuleo-Thomano-Triclinian scholia, on Atax, 7 The text of Antigone was copied from T in the ms. Modena a.T.9.2 (cf. below, p. 79). % This was observed in T by Aubreton, op. cif. pp. 36 ff. On this practice, cf. Recenston p.


copyist of T.



in the color distinction






For this reason, Aubreton’s list of Triclinian scholia in T (op. cit. pp.

118 f.), based only on the color of their initials in T, is in some cases erroneous, for it

attributes to Triclinius some scholia which actually are Thoman.

For example, schol.

inedit. As. 127 ὑπέρκομπον ἔδει γράφειν" διὰ τὸ μέτρον ἐξεβλήθη τὸ A, and schol. Ai. p. 335.4-20 Dindorf appear in Z and, therefore, are Thoman (not Triclinian).









Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antigone. As to the remaining plays, there are Triclinian metrical scholia on Oed. Col. and Phul., — and ancient scholia on Oed. Col., Trach., Phil. The ms. reproduces carefully Triclinian colometrical signs and it is the best representative of the Triclinian

collection of scholia. The poetic text of Ta is Triclinian as evidenced by the constant concurrent attestation of peculiar Triclinian interpolations by TTa — except for a part of Philoctetes. The ms. Ta, beginning with fol. 246”, from Phil. 472 to the end of the play, transcribed, both in text and scholia, the ms. Venice 468 (V, cf. below, p. 153). These are, e.g., some mistakes of V repeated by Ta: Phil. 488 οἴκτον, 501 ἥκω[ν] V ἥκων Ta; 546 ὁρμισθεὶς] σνγκύρσας, 565 ταῦτα] τάχα, 734 versus omissus. — It seems that Ta and Te = Naples II.F.34 (cf. below), which is Triclinian in Antig., OC, Tr., Phil., had a common source that was mutilated in Phtloct. This would explain the fact why Te ended in Phil. 472 (lines Phil. 473-476 being added by another hand) and why Ta shifted from Phil. 472 on to another source. For common origin of Ta and Te, cf. OC 348 repavraywyei Ta γερανταγωγεῖ Te. I do not quote here any particular evidence for the Triclinian text character of Ta, since many significant agreements of TTa have been quoted before (cf. Recension pp. 131-138) and throughout this book (especially cf. above, pp. 73 f.). This ms. Ta is, next to T, the most essential element in our presentation of the Triclinian text evidence. Te = Naples




in Cyrillus).





Paper, XV“ cent., 280 x 183 mm., 255 foll., 19 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. Azax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct. (1-472 by first hand, 473-476 added by the scholiast); Triclinian Vita. Some Moschopulean (and some Thoman) scholia on Atax, El., Oed. Tyr., written by a later hand. These three plays are Moschopulean (cf. Recenston p. 162). Then, Antigone, Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct. (1-472), are Triclinian (but they have no scholia) and agree completely with the text of T and Ta. The agreement of Te with T and the Triclinian text character of Te were established, for Oed. Col., by Elmsley (Sophoclis Oedipus Coloneus [Oxonii, 1823] p. IV), who quoted it with the symbol Farn(estanus). A few examples will show the affiliation of Te with TTa in exclusively Triclinian readings — e.g., these readings are shared by TTaTe: Antig. 106/7 ἀργόθε πρὶν φῶτα, 122 re exstat, OC 28 μέν γ᾽, 134 &yor6’, Trach. 76 δῆτα réxvov, 205 ἀνολόλυξον, Phil. 116 Onpart’ οὖν, 135 με δέσποτ᾽. Tb = Dresden Da.21 (cf. Recension pp. 113 f.). This ms., presumably damaged during the last war, subsequently disappeared and is not extant now in the Dresden library. Paper, XIV! cent. It contained Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antig., in this sequence, with Triclinian commentary (i.e., Moschopuleo-Thomano-Triclinian scholia). Its readings were re-


corded (with the symbol Dresd.a) in Erfurdt-Hermann.


The Triclinian

character of the Dresden text appears, e.g., in these readings of recorded in Erfurdt-Hermann): Ai. 166 ἄναξ om., 372/3 χεροῖν OT 630 μέτεστιν οὐχὶ σοὶ. Tc = Vienna philos. philol. gr. 163 (cf. Recension p. 114). XIV“ cent., 222 x 145 mm., 341 foll. — Fol. 109° Atax; 160”

Tb (as μεθῆκα, Paper, arg. to

El.; 161" Electra (1-1017); 193*-237" Oed. Tyr. (60-123; 174-557; 590-

end). Moschopuleo-Thomano-Triclinian scholia on the three plays. The ms. is Triclinian in text and scholia: cf. As. 161 μικρῶν, 166 ἄναξ om., 295 τύχας, El. 166 &vupdos, OT 507 ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ om. Td = Vienna philos. philol. gr. 209 (cf. Recension p. 114). See below, plate xıv. Paper, XV‘ cent., 221 x 145 mm., 75 foll., 19-20 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1: Aiax; 36" arg. to El.; 37'-75’ Electra. Moschopuleo-Thomano-Triclinian scholia on both plays (they end on fol. 42" and extend through schol. Εἰ. 221). The ms. is Triclinian in text and scholia: cf. At. 161 μικρῶν, 166 ἄναξ om., El. 145 ὅστις, 166 ἄνυμφος.

Bologna, Biblioteca Comunale dell’Archiginnasio, A 20. Paper, XV/ XVI cent., 229 x 168 mm., 90 foll., 18 lines to a page-for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1r Vita; 5” arg. to Atax; 8" Aiax; 48" arg. to El.; 49-89 Electra. Latin interlinear glosses. The Greek text seems to be a Western humanistic writing. The text is basically Triclinian: cf. Ai. 161 μικρῶν, 185 ποίμναις. Yet, At. 166 ἄναξ om. Tricl.: habet Bonon. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2755. Paper, XVI‘ cent. for the Sophocles portion, 208 x 140 mm., 357 foll., 12 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles.” — Fol. 248-303" Electra (1-1418). No scholia. The text is Triclinian: cf. El. 145 ὅστις, 166 ἄνυμφος. Vatican Library, Vatic. gr. 16. Paper, XIV/XV* cent., 220 x 145 mm., V + 404 foll., 21 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 331: Vita (Triclinian) ; 3325 arg. to Atax; 333'-346" Atax (1-597). No scholia. The text is Triclinian: cf. At. 161 μικρῶν, 185 ποίμναις, 295 τύχας, 322 puxdpevos. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2797 (cf. Recension p. 164). Paper, XVI*

cent., 220 x 167 mm., 152 foll., 16 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. Fol. 1-94" Vita, Aiax, Electra. No scholia. Atax and Electra 1-639 are Moschopulean. From fol. 68: on, the text of Electra 640-end

is Triclinian (though it is not entirely consistent).

This ms. shares with

TTa, e.g., such Triclinian readings as: El. 831 ἀπολεῖς με, 1065 δαρὸν γὰρ obx. Yet, some essential Triclinian readings were disregarded in this ms. Contrary to Triclinius, this ms. follows the old text in reading El. 838 Ὁ The Sophocles portion of this ms. was not written by Michael Apostolis or Michael Suliardus.






des manuscrits

grecs de la Biblio-

théque Nationale III (Paris, 1888) pp. 35 f.; Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber pp. 308, 320.







γυναικῶν ἀπάταις Paris 2797: (γυναικῶν omisso) ἀπάταισιν TTa; 856 post dhs] αὐδᾷς δὲ ποῖον habet Paris 2797: om. TTa. Vatic. gr. 46. Paper, XIV* cent., 288 x 145 mm., 1 + 146 foll., 17 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles in Azax 1-766, 15 lines in Atax 767-end, El., OT. — Fol. 1° arg. to Atax; 2" Atax; 45" arg. to El.; 45” Electra; 951 arg. I, II, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 96"-146" Oed. Tyr. Moschopulean scholia on Atax 769 through Electra 889 (on fol. 25'-73"). The

main hand appears from fol. 25" on (from Atax 767 on).

It seems that the

preceding part of the original body of the ms. was missing and, therefore, folios 1’-24r (f. 24” is blank) were supplemented by another hand of one Σύρος (there is a note by him on fol. 145”). He used a Triclinian source for the argument to Atax and for the first section Atax 1-766. The same Syrus also supplemented on fol. 45: a Triclinian argument to El.; on fol. 45”, the lines El. 1-7; on fol. 146”, the lines OT 1526-1530. As to the poetic text of the whole ms., it divides into four sections. Aiax 1-766 (fol. 2-24) is Triclinian (cf. At. 161 μικρῶν, 166 ἄναξ om., 295 τύχας, 322 puxwpevos). Then, Aiax 767-951 (fol. 25-30) is Moschopulean (cf. At. 877 οὐδ' ἐμοὶ δὴ, 951 ἄγαν γ᾽). Next, Aiax 952-end (fol. 30°44") is Thoman (cf. Ai. 1011 ἴδιον). After the Triclinian argument to El. and El. 1-7 (fol. 45"-) by that later hand of Syrus, we find Electra 8-end and Oed. Tyr. 1-1525 (fol. 46-145”) with a Moschopulean text (OT 1526-1530 is supplemented by Syrus). For this Moschopulean section, cf.: El. 123 äxöperov, 314 ἢ κἂν, OT 50 στάντες τ᾽, 130 τὰ, 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἐμοῦ συνειδότος. This Moschopulean text belongs to the class ἐπι: El. 454 els ἐχθροὺς αὐτὸν. Vatic. gr. 47. Paper, XIV cent., 215 x 141 mm., 11 + 156 foll. Written by two hands: one in Atax and Electra, 14 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles, the scribe being one Μανουήλ (according to a note on fol. 35); another one in Oed. Tyr., 13-15 lines to a page. Fol. 1° γένος σοφοκλέους καὶ Blos- διωρθὠθη δὲ παρὰ τοῦ σοφωτάτου naylorpov (Triclinian Vita); 2: arg. to Aiax (Triclinian) ; 35 Τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτον κυροῦ θωμᾶ τοῦ μαγίστρου: καὶ τοῦ μοσχοποὔύλου κυροῦ μανουὴλ [[rod μοσχοπούλου]], σχόλια" ἴσθι δὲ ἔνθά ἐστι σταυρὸς, εἰσὶ τοῦ μοσχοπούλου" ἔνθα δέ ἐστι κεφάλαιον,

εἰσὶ τοῦ paylorpov:+™ (next line:) + μανονήλ + © As it might be expected,

the notation of scholia authorship as indicated here was in many cases subject to mistakes of the copyist. Fol. 3” Aiax; 50° arg. to El. (ὑπόκειται ὧδε τροφεὺς πρεσβύτης ἤγουν παιδαγωγὸς), Triclinian; 507 Electra; 103” © While the distinction of Moschopulean scholia by cross goes back to the original Triclinian edition (cf. Recenston Ὁ. 109), the use of initial capitals for Thoman


must have been applied in Sophocles manuscripts by later scribes, possibly in accordance with an original practice of Thomas himself, and in accordance with the Triclinian practice employed, e.g., in his Aeschylus edition within the Aeschylean Aeschylus p. 106).

© This must be simply the name of the scribe, one Manuel.

triad (cf. Turyn,

He cannot be Manuel






arg. I (Triclinian version), III,to Oed. Tyr. ; 104'-156" Oed. Tyr. Triclinian commentary, i.e., Moschopuleo-Thomano-Triclinian scholia, on the three plays.

But the poetic text of this ms. is composite.

Aiax 1-169 is Moscho-

pulean (At. 58 ἐμπιτνῶν, 112 ἔγώ a’ ἐφίεμαι) ; Atax 170-end and Electra are Triclinian (At. 185 ποίμναις, 256 ἔχει, 295 τύχας; El. 145 ὅστις, 166 &vuudos); Oed. Tyr. 1-227 is Moschopulean (OT 34 ξυναλλαγαῖς, 50 στάντες τ᾽); Oed. Tyr. 228-end is Thoman and quite related to the first Thoman recension as represented by Zc (OT 248 κακῶς ἄμοιρον, 337 σοὶ δ᾽, 411 προστάτης, 800 σ᾽ ὦ i.l.: σοι s.l.; a significant Laurentian error which appears also in Zc is shared by this ms.: OT 349 εἶναι om. L!A

PPaZc, Vat. 47). Vienna philos. philol. gr. 147. Parchment, 1489 a.p., 228 x 146 mm., 151 foll., 15 lines to a page. Written and subscribed (fol. 151") by Ioannes Rhosus of Crete in Venice on Jan. 23, 1488 (of the Venice calendar: i.e., 1489). — Fol. 1" Atax; 48" ancient arg. to El.; 49" Electra; 99 arg. I (Triclinian version), III, to Oed. Tyr.; 100°-150" Oed. Tyr. No scholia. The copyist used alternately a Triclinian and a Moschopulean source: Atax 1-1275 (fol. 1"-42r) is Triclinian (At. 161 μικρῶν, 295 τύχας, 322 μυκώμενος, 1211 μὲν οὖν ἐννυχίου) ; Atax 1276 — Electra 863 (fol. 42"--765) is Moschopulean (Ai. 1339 οὔκουν ἀτιμάσαιμ᾽, El. 42 μακρῷ χρόνῳ, 528 εἷλεν οὐκ, 713 ἐκ); Electra 864 — Oed. Tyr. 188 (fol. 77-1067) is Triclinian (El. 866 ἐμαῖν χεροῖν, OT 50 στάντες γ᾽); Oed. Tyr. 189-end (fol. 107-150") is Moschopulean (OT 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἐμοῦ συνειδότος, 297 οὐξελέγξων, 630 μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ ob col, 1422 οὐχ). Modena, Biblioteca Estense, a.T.9.2 (once II.B.2; no. 39 in Puntoni). Paper, XV‘ and XVI‘ cent. (the Sophocles portion was written in the XV" cent.), 239 x 168 mm., 177 foll., 15 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 132-177" Antigone. This text was copied from T with which it agrees not only in text but also in some marginal remarks. The copyist was a humanist who even tried to improve the text by writing Ant. 5 ὁποῖα δὴ, instead of ὁποῖον οὐ T. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct.T.2.15. Paper, XVI* cent., 182 x 130

mm., 257 foll., 24 lines to a page for the Sophocles Vita.

Fol. 253"-255”

Sophoclean Vita in the Triclinian version (cf. p. 2.10 ἰσχνοφωνίαν). Moschopulus, as was suggested by Ioannes Mercati et Pius Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Codices Vaticani graect I (Romae, 1928) p. 43 (cf. Turyn, Manuscripts pp. 2 f., 36). Since the ms. is partly based on Triclinius, it is later than Triclinius and still later than

Moschopulus. 5 Cf. Vienna philos. philol. gr. 147 fol. 98”: μετεγράφη, δεκεβρίω, πεντεκαιδεκάτη" χιλιοστῶ» τετρακοσιοστῶ' ὀγδοηκοστῶ, ὀγδόω" obeverlas. Then, fol. 151°: Tuereyp&sr τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον τοῦ σοφοκλέουτ' διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ ἰω(άνν)ου πρεσβυτέρου ῥώσου τοῦ κρητότ' χιλιοστῶ" τετρακοσιοστῶ" ὀγδοηκοστῶ, ὀγδόω: μηνὸς, ἰαννοναρίου, εἰκοστὴ τρίτη" οὐενετίαις. The dates are Dec. 15, 1488, and Jan. 23, 1488; the latter date in the Venice calendar corresponds to Jan. 23, 1489.

Rhosus also supplemented the ms. Paris 2805 (cf. Recension p. 165).





I have reserved for the end of our discussion of the Triclinian recension

the treatment of a few manuscripts with scholia excerpted from the Triclinian commentary — manuscripts which solve in a definitive way the mystery of the Turnebus scholia. The problem of their setup has plagued Sophoclean scholars for a long time, and attempts were made to discover the provenience of the Turnebian scholia, without any positive result.® At last, we have succeeded in identifying the manuscript from which Turnebus took his exegetic scholia on Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antigone. I wish to remind the reader that the scholia ἤγουν πειραθῆναι on those four plays as printed by Brunck and, after Brunck, by Dindorf (Scholta pp. 278 ff.), are Thoman scholia, though in their Triclinian version. Popularly, they are identified with the Turnebus scholia on the four plays, but we have to bear in mind that what we read now in Dindorf is

actually an expurgated version of the Turnebus scholia, expurgated by Brunck and slightly retouched by Dindorf. To see the actual wording of the Turnebus scholia, one has to look up the Turnebus edition of 1553. There, we find that the Turnebus scholia, while being predominantly Thomano-Triclinian, contain some scholia also from Moschopulus and, occasionally, some other Byzantine comments which are not known from any established recension. At the same time, we shall miss in Turnebus some Thomano-Triclinian scholia (i.e., Thoman scholia repeated in the Triclinian commentary) which have been simply omitted. Brunck did a quite thorough job on the Turnebian exegetic scholia (which he reprinted under Triclinian headlines). He removed Moschopulean and

other additaments in reprinting the Thomano-Triclinian scholia from Turnebus, and on the other hand he also supplemented some Thoman scholia which were missing in Turnebus. For example, the Thoman scholia on Ant. 4 and Ant. 6 (p. 308.2-11 Dindorf) are missing in Turnebus, but printed in Brunck, with a dagger prefixed; Brunck could find them in T. The result of such vicissitudes of Turnebian scholia is that their setup

in Dindorf in many respects looks different from what is to be seen in Turnebus. A certain convenience in the study of this aspect is provided by a collation of Turnebian scholia offered by Dindorf at the end of his scholia volume (pp. 383 ff.). After these preliminary remarks, I wish to draw the attention of the

reader to three manuscripts presenting a mixture of scholia from the Triclinian




8 Cf. Aubreton, Démétrius Trichnius p. 45.




the Turnebus




scholia. An essential common feature of these scholia mss. is their sequence of the four plays commented on: Aiax, Electra, Antigone, Oed. Tyr., which we have encountered in T (but neither in Ta nor in Tb). This seems to indicate that the source of the mss. in question was somehow more closely related to T. Here is the description of these mss. : Tf = Modena, Biblioteca Estense, a.Q.5.20 (once III.C.8; no. 87 in Puntoni).“ Paper, XV‘ cent., 235 x 170 mm., 181 foll., 29 lines to a

page for the Sophocles scholia.

The ms. contains exegetic scholia on

Atax, Electra, Antig., Oed. Tyr., mainly Thoman and Triclinian, and also some Moschopulean scholia and other comments, taken basically from the Triclinian commentary; then, Triclinian metrical scholia on Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. (a few leaves with the metrical scholia on the end of Electra, on Antigone,® andon the beginning of Oed. Tyr., obviously were lost), and Σχήματα on At., El., OT. The titling in this ms. is most

interesting if we compare it with the headlines in the Turnebus scholia. This is the distribution of the several items: fol. 1" exegetic scholia headlined σχόλια els τὸ σοφοκλέους alas μαστιγοφόρος, δράμα; 19° σχόλια ἀπὸ τοῦ, ἠλέκτρας



34") σχόλια

ἐκ τοῦ,




κλέους; 467 σχόλια εἰς τὸ, οἰδίπους τύραννος, σοφοκλέους δράμα; 65" Triclinian metrical scholia headlined önunrplov τοῦ τρικλινίου, περὶ μέτρων οἷς ἐχρήσατο σοφοκλῆς ἐν τῶ, αἴας μαστιγοφόρος, δράματι; 715"--75} τοῦ αὐτοῦ δημητρίου τοῦ τρικλινίου









δράματι ---

metrical scholia on Electra (1--1384); 76"-80” Triclinian metrical scholia on Oed. Tyr. (151-end). Then follow ‘‘schemata”’ on Ai., El., OT, headlined in this way: fol. 81: ἐκ τοῦ alavros; 81° ἐκ τῆς ἠλέκτρας; 82°-83" ἐκ τοῦ οἰδίποδος. Subjoined is fol. 8.3"--85: περὶ ἐγκλιτικῶν, a grammatical frag-

ment from Ioannes Charax (Bekker, Anecdota graeca Ὁ. 1149.9 'Iortov — 1152.12 ἐγένετο). Tg = Cambridge, University Library, Dd.XI.70. See below, plate xvi. Composite volume, paper and parchment, XV/XVI* cent., 25 + 203 + 15 + 32 foll. In part 2, paper, XVI‘ cent., 225 x 162 mm., 203 foll., 22 lines to a page for the Sophocles scholia. — Fol. 89” of the ink marked numbering within this part of the volume (1137 of the pencil marked numbering from the beginning of the entire volume): metrical % It is worth


to note an

interesting detail.


in the XV‘



present Modena ms. Tf, which at that time was in Venice in the library of Giorgio Valla (cf. V. Puntoni, Studs Italiani di filologta classica 4 [1896] 444; Giovanni Card. Mercati, Codici latins Pico Grimani Pio e i codict greci Pio di Modena [Studi e Tests,


Citta del Vaticano, 1938] pp. 59, 218), attracted the attention of Ianus Lascaris,

the future editor of the Laurentian scholia, who recorded the title of the volume in his

notes (cf. K. K. Müller, ‘‘Neue Mitteilungen Ober Janos Laskaris und die Mediceische Bibliothek,’’ Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 1 [1884] 383).

s In the listing of metrical scholia in the Latin table of contents facing fol. 1", Antigone is listed between Electra and Oed. Tyr.








scholia dnunrplov τοῦ τρικλινίον, περὶ μέτρων ols ἐχρήσατο σοφοκλῆς" ἐν τῷ alas μαστιγοφόρος :-- δράματι; 97"-08: “schemata” on Aiax, headlined ἐκ τοῦ αἴαντος ; 99° τοῦ αὐτοῦ δημητρίου rod τρικλινίον περὶ μέτρων, οἷς ἐχρήσατο σοφοκλῆς ἐν τῷ, ἠλέκτρα, δράματι; 106:--1067 ἐκ τῆς ἠλέκτρας (schemata); 107'1147 τοῦ αὐτοῦ δημητρίου τρικλινίου περὶ μέτρων οἷς ἐχρήσατο σοφοκλῆς ἐν ἀντιγόνη; 1167-122" τοῦ αὐτοῦ δημητρίου τρικλινίον περὶ μέτρων οἷς ἐχρήσατο σοφοκλῆς ἐν τῶ οἰδίπους δράματι; 122"--123: περὶ τῶν ἐν τῶ οἰδίποδι δράματος

σχημάτων; 124-1257 περὶ ἔγκλητικῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων (by Ioannes Charax: Bekker, Anecdota graeca pp. 1149.9— 1152.12) ; 126:--146: exegetic scholia σχόλαια, els τὸ σοφοκλέους alas μαστιγοφόρος δράμα; 147° σχόλια ἀπὸ τοῦ ἠλέκτράς δράματος σοφοκλέους; 167" σχόλια ἐκ τοῦ ἀντιγόνης δράματος σοφοκλέους; 183*-204" σχόλια εἰς τὸ, οἰδίπους τύραννος σοφοκλέους δράμα.

Th = Paris, Supplement grec 310. Paper, XVI* cent., 203 x 147 mm., 208 foll., 22 lines to a page for the Sophocles scholia.® Exegetic scholia: fol. 56" Σχόλια els τὸ Σοφοκλέους alas μαστιγοφόρος, δράμα; 82" Σχόλια ἀπὸ τοῦ, ἡλέκτρας δράματος σοφοκλέους ; 103: Σχόλια" ἐκ τοῦ, ἀντιγόνης δράματος Σοφοκλέους; 1217-146" Σχόλια εἰς τὸ, οἰδίπους τύραννος, Σοφοκλέους δράμα.

The three mss. TfTgTh show the same sequence of plays commented on, the same setup of exegetic scholia, which I shall exemplify below ; and TfTg

agree in their metrical scholia and notes on schemata.


Tf and Tg exhibit the same grammatical fragment from Ioannes Charax. It is obvious from many minute details that these three mss. are most closely related, and it appears that Tf is the source from which Tg on the one hand and Th on the other hand were transcribed. The copying of Tf by Tg took place at a time when Tf still was complete and had the leaves with metrical scholia on Antigone, which subsequently were lost. The identity of the peculiar selection of exegetic scholia proves that Tg and Th must descend from Tf. Obviously, Tf is a scholia selection compiled by some scribe from a fully commented Triclinian manuscript. That the source of Tf was actually Triclinian, is demonstrated by the Triclinian metrical scholia, by the Σχήματα, by the Triclinian version of Thoman scholia (not a Thoman version) visible in some minute details, % The Sophocles scholia are not copied by Andreas Darmarius, who wrote only the grammatical texts on foll. 152'-208" (cf. Omont, Inventaire sommaire III Ὁ. 247; VogelGardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber Ὁ. 26; Aubreton, Démétrius Trichinius pn. 59). For Darmarius’ handwriting, cf. Omont, Fac-similés de manuscrits grecs des XV" et ΧΡ].

siécles plate 1. This part of the volume, according to a note on fol. 151’, was presented by Petrus Pantinus to Andreas Schott in Madrid, in 1592. On Pierre Pantin (15561611), cf. Biographie Nationale de Belgique XV (Bruxelles, 1899) cols. 567-571; on

Andreas Schott (1552-1629), cf. Biographie Nationale de Belgique XXII cols. 1-14.


On Darmarius, Pantin, Schott, cf. also Charles Graux, Essas sur les origines

du fonds grec de l’Escurial (Bibliotheque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes. Sciences philologiques et historiques, 46. Paris, 1880), passim. The volume seems to have passed from Schott to the Jesuits of Antwerp.







by some purely Triclinian exegetic scholia or Triclinian additaments to Thoman scholia, and by the quite natural presence of some Moschopulean scholia in the selection Tf. For the source of Tf was a full Triclinian ms. and, of course, it included Moschopulean scholia, too, according to the well-known setup of the Triclinian commentary. It seems that the compiler Tf tended to omit Moschopulean scholia originally

marked with a cross prefix, but in the general confusion prevailing in those signs in later copies he necessarily did a very inconsistent selection. Significant errors of Tf are repeated in its copies Tg and Th: cf. schol. p. 330.16 Dind. prius ἐπεπίπτει TfTgTh*; schol. Ai. 42 (Moschop.) p. 198.20 Dind. κυκλοῦντα βάσιν] κυκλοῦν τὰ βασίλεια T£Th, κυκλοῦντα βασίλεια Tg and also Turnebus. I should say that Tg was even more careful than Th in transcribing Tf: cf. schol. p. 329.2 πεπειρανθῆναι TfTg: πειραγνθῆναι Th; p. 329.22 ἠχοῦσαν TfTg: ἠχοῦσαν Th. However, it should be noted that the scribe Tg made some rearrangement in the sequence

of scholia groups while transcribing the ms. Tf, as appears from the above descriptions of the two mss. I shall quote below a sample of the scholia from these mss., or strictly speaking from Tg, but I wish to indicate at once my main thesis in this connection: Turnebus relied on Tg for his exegetic scholia on the four plays: At., El., OT, Antig. He changed the sequence of the plays (against T and against Tg) into that of the printed vulgate of his time. For metrical scholia, he preferred those of T, which are entirely complete In many instances, Turnebus agrees in his Triclinian metrical scholia with T and differs in some details from Tg. As for Σχήματα, they were written in T where they are exhibited also to Antigone (there are no schemata to Antigone in Tg). It is certain that Turnebus took schemata from T, because he agrees in that category with T against Tg ;7 he made some very slight changes against T in very minute details. Turnebus was so impressed by the headlines of Tg that he followed their peculiar wording in his headlines.* The dependence of Turnebus in exegetic scholia on Tg is evidenced by the very fact of the unusual setup of those scholia (in such a selection, they appear only in TfTgTh and Turnebus), then by the fact that Turnebus follows some errors of Tg (cf. above on schol. p. 198.20 Dind.). © A few examples will prove this point.

Schem. As. 125 (p. 390 Dind.) γνωμικὸν T

and Turnebus: om. Tg; 131 γνωμικὸν T : γνωμικὸν καὶ τοῦτο Turnebus: om. Tg. — Schem. Ai. 285 κεῖνος γὰρ) ἸΙροκατάστασις καὶ διήγησις τοῦ πραχθέντος ἔργου τῷ Αἴαντι Turnebus;

this schema actually begins on the level of line 285 in T and is written there so (without lemma). But in Tg we read: ἅπαν μαθήση) xpoxardcracts — αἴαντι with correct lemma reference to the line As. 284, which begins the διήγησις of Tecmessa. ® Cf. the headline of the scholia on Aiax in Turnebus: Anunrpiov του TpuxdAwiov εἰς τὸ Asas Μαστιγοφορος


περὶ μέτρων ols ἐχρήσατο Σοφοκλῆς,

καὶ περὶ σχημάτων,

καὶ σχόλια.

Scholia headlines to the other plays follow the same pattern, and the titles of Turnebus’

text edition and of the scholia volume were suggested by Tg.








There is one more striking confirmation of that dependence: the famous use by Turnebus of fws (resulting from a misreading of an abbreviated ἤγουν), which was blamed already by Henricus Stephanus,® appears as a feature of Tg which was followed (though not always) by Turnebus. Here is just one of the innumerable examples. After schol. p. 361.27 Dind., there is in Tg and Turnebus the following scholium on Εἰ. 140: ἐπ’ ἀμήχανον


ἀνίκητον καὶ ἀθεράπευτον:

πρὸς ὃ οὐκ ἔστι τὶ μηχανήσασθαι


and Turnebus.® Also see below, plate xvı: Tg fol. 167” (1915) lines 14 and 15 (Turnebus, Scholia p. 81 line 9). A comparison of Tg with Turnebus or with the collation of Turnebus scholia by Dindorf (Dindorf, Scholia pp. 391 ff.) shows conclusively the close agreement of Turnebus with Tg. I even suspect that Turnebus possibly owned the ms. Tg or, at least, had it at his disposal. There are some peculiar features which point to his directly using Tg as a basis for his scholia on the four plays. To be sure, he had to arrange properly the material for his edition in three groups (METP., ZXHM., ZXOA.), and Tg was used by him only for the exegetic scholia of the group ZXOA. Lemmata in Tg begin with an initial capital and originally were in Tg closed by the Greek colon (point above the line). But on fol. 126"128”, in the schol. At. 2-131, at the end of a lemma a later hand wrote everywhere a parenthesis. (Sometimes, if there is not enough space, a parenthesis assumes the shape almost of a vertical stroke.) This reminds us of the fact that a parenthesis closes a lemma in Turnebus, which was a very characteristic innovation (in Lascaris, in both Junta editions and in Brubach, lemmata were closed by a period). Would it mean that Turnebus had Tg in his hands and started marking the scholia as the printer’s copy?

In the metrical scholium on Ai. 1 (p. 383 Dindorf), we read in Tg: H εἴσθεσις τοῦ δράματος ἐκ συστηματικῶν ἐστὶ περιόδων" ol δὲ στίχοι εἰσὶν laußırol

τρίμετροι dxarédnxrou v8 (pry. man. post. in marg.)- ὧν τελευτὴ, θεοὶ φιλοῦσι καὶ στυγοῦσι τοὺς κακοὺς" ἑξῆς xopwrls ἐξιόντων τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. The number

written by the first hand vß appears also in Tf.


ςβ' was

meant originally, and so we read in T and Td. Somehow, it was a slip of Triclinius, for the initial εἴσθεσις counts 133 lines (Aiax 1-133), not 92, as also indicated by the mention of the concluding line. Now, in the ® Cf. Henricus Stephanus, Σοφοκλέους al ἑπτὰ τραγωδίαι (1568) fol. “11"; Dindorf, Scholia p. 390; Aubreton, Démétrius Triclinius Ὁ. 43. — A. Dain, L’ «Extratt Tactique»

tiré de Léon VI le Sage (Biblioth2que de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes.

Sciences historiques

et philologiques, 284. Paris, 1942) p. 39, observed the same mistake (fws or ἥως instead of ἤγουν) in the ms. Vatic. gr. 1393, fol. 1317-133" (early XVI century, tactical ex-

cerpt). I have examined the handwriting of these pages in the Vatic. 1393: it is different from that of Tg. ®% The practice of Turnebus is inconsistent. Mostly he repeats ἥως if he finds ἥως in Tg; sometimes he prints ἤγουν even if there is 4ws in Tg; sometimes he prints ἥως if there is ἤγουν in Tg.







text edition where Turnebus marked short metrical notes on the margin, he added to Ai. 1 a note indicating ςβ trimeters (a misprint anyway, or perhaps he lacked a proper character for koppa). But in the metrical scholium on Ai. 1 (Turnebus, Scholia p. 1) Turnebus printed pAy. And in Tg, some later hand in the margin, opposite the line in question (with v8), wrote pAy. Was it perhaps Turnebus himself? Here I give a sample of the exegetic scholia in Tg. They agree, naturally, with Tf and Th and, what matters most, with Turnebus (cf. Turnebus, Scholia pp. 1 f.; Dindorf, Scholia pp. 329 f., 396f.; Turyn, Recension pp. 110 ff.). I disregard slight differences between Tg and Turnebus in lemmata (they are sometimes shorter in Turnebus) and in trifles of spellings or meaningless blunders. Scholia are indicated below as they appear in Tg and, to save space, they are referred to the Dindorf edition. In a few cases the reader will notice a parenthesis after the lemma, as it is marked by a later hand in Tg (see above). These are the exegetic scholia on Atax 1-42 in Tg: 2. Πεῖραν ---- μηχανῶνται (p. 1 Turnebus; p. 329.2-5 Dindorf). Thoman scholium. 4. Τάξιν — στρατηγοί (p. 329.6-9 Dind.). Thoman. 10.

Στάζων ---- ξιφοκτόνους (πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα λῆρος καὶ οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς om.


p. 329.10-13. Thoman scholium in the Triclinian version. 14. Φιλτάτης --- οὖσαν (p. 329.15-17). Thoman.


‘Qs τυρσηνικῆς) --- δηλονότι (p. 329.18-26).


19. T& σακεσφόρω,) ---- σάκος (p. 329.27-28). Moschopulean. 21. “Ασκοπον) --- ἐποίησεν (p. 329.29-30). Thoman. 23. Tpavés) ἀληθὲς, σαφὲς ( = Z, Thoman), φανερὸν ( = X, Moschopulean). Cf. p. 197.27 Dindorf. 23. ἀλλ’ ἀλώμεθα) τῇ διανοία, οἰόμενοι ---- σώφροσιν (pp. 329.31 — 330.3). Thoman.* 24. Τῶδ᾽ ---- δουλενόντων (p. 330.4-5). Moschopulean. 32. καὶ τὰ μὲν σημαίνομαι) κατά τινα --- λέγουσιν (p. 330.6-10). Thoman.™ 39. Τἄργα ταῦτἀ σοι) Τὸ σοί --- προϊών (ρ. 330.11-15). Thoman (= Z).% 42.

ἐπεκίπτει βάσιν) of Neyorres — πορείαν, τὸ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν ἐνταῦθα καλλίστην

" The scholium is continued in Thomas by the words (p. 329.13-14) πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα Agpos καὶ οὐδὲν ὑγιές Z.

But this is omitted in Triclinian mss. TcTd

(the whole scholium

is missing in Ta). Lines 18-19 τούτων — εὗρον are Thoman; 19-20 βέλτιον δὲ τὸ πρῶτον is an interpolation of TfTg; 20-26 αἱ yap — δηλονότι is continued by Triclinius. Cf. Recenston Ὁ. 11. Ὁ In the Thoman ms. Z, this scholium (without lemma) begins πλανώμεθα τῆ διαροία, οἰόμενοι ταῦτα τοῦτον ποιῆσαι κτλ. But the above wording is Triclinian and can be seen

in Tc. % In the Triclinian version (cf. Recension p. 112). pn. 330.12 ὅστις

Z (= Thomas) and Ta (= Triclinius): 8 Tg and Turnebus.








πορείαν λέγω, οὕτω καὶ viv — ὁρμὴν τήνδε (p. 330.16-20),


τὸ διαφθεῖραι λέγω


"“AdAws: Ταῖς ποίμναις ἐπεμπίπτει. ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ ταῖς ποίμναις, τουτέστι κατὰ τῶν ποιμνίων: βάσιν δὲ ἐποιήσατο ὥφειλεν εἰπεῖν: ὁ δὲ καὶ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν αὐτοῦ θέλων δηλῶσαι, ἐπεμπίπτει λέγει: τοιοῦτο καὶ τὸ ἔκειρε φόνον, καὶ τὸ, κυκλοῦντα

βασίλεια (p. 198.16-20 Dindorf).


This sample will suffice. Moreover, the reader who is more interested in Turnebian scholia may conveniently look up Dindorf’s collation (Scholia pp. 391 ff.). The above analysis illustrates clearly the situation. Turnebus agrees in his exegetic scholia with Tg, even in some mistakes and in the notable use of 4ws, which he uses even more abundantly than Tg, instead of ἤγουν. The most important aspect of the question concerns the selection of the scholia of Tg and, by the same token, of Turnebus. At some time in the XV“ century, the compiler of Tf, which is the immediate source of Tg, transcribed selected scholia from a Triclinian ms. that had a full Triclinian commentary, i.e., Moschopuleo-ThomanoTriclinian scholia. Tf was intent upon transcribing Thoman and Triclinian scholia and rather disinterested in Moschopulean scholia. Yet, the distinction of the separate groups of scholia according to their respective origin (with the help of cross prefix for Moschopulus) was obviously inadequate and confused. Thus Tf made rather a confused selection in which many Moschopulean scholia were included. The setup of Tf was repeated by Tg — and, through Tg, by Turnebus. This is how it came about that Turnebus printed a confused conglomeration of exegetic scholia, predominantly Thomano-Triclinian, but including also many Moschopulean scholia. The metrical scholia of Triclinius and the Σχήματα were taken by Turnebus from T, which was also used by him as the main basis for the poetic text of the seven plays and for the ancient and Triclinian scholia on Oedipus Coloneus, Trachintae, and Philoctetes. The secret of Turnebus’ work is solved: he used for his edition T (Paris 2711), i.e., most probably the Triclinian ms. of Ranconet mentioned by him in his preface, and the present Cambridge ms. Dd.X1.70




There is a special group of Sophocles manuscripts, a representative of which, the Jena ms. Bosius q.7 (our symbol J), was disclosed by L. Purgold® in 1802. Because of the fact that the Jena ms. became known through Purgold, I shall call the whole class, of which the Jena ms. is just one representative, the Jena recension, though the Jena ms. does not show any special importance or prominence within the whole class. It is hard to determine when this recension originate@— apart from the fact that it is interpolated with many readings of the Palaeologean editors and is, therefore, a post-Palaeologean product. Thus its earliest possible date would be the second quarter of the XIV“ century. It is of interest to note that the Paris 2794, written around the middle of the XIV* century (cf. below, p. 163 note 177), already contains a portion of the Sophocles text in the Jena form (though without the Jena scholia). On the other hand, it is a striking phenomenon that most mss. of the Jena class were written in the XV“ century and reflect a great uniformity in the makeup of their pages — a feature which would point rather to a shorter chronological distance between those copies and their class prototype. It is just possible that the poetic text which appears in the Jena recension originated earlier in some manuscript of the XIV“ century, but only later was supplied with the so-called Jena scholia. This is how the Jena recension might have been formed. The Jena recension comprised only two plays, Atax and Electra, with scholia made up mostly of Moschopulean scholia, with some admixture of ancient and Thoman scholia, and with some special scholia written by the author of the Jena recension. The Jena scholia were first published from the Jena ms. by Purgold” and then reprinted by Erfurdt.® There are many mss. of this class listed below. But for the purpose of exemplifying the characteristics of the poetic text of the Jena recension, I shall use as a representative of this class a manuscript of which I happen to have at hand a complete reproduction, namely: Ja = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2598. Paper, XV“ cent., 215 x 155 mm., 400 foll., 11 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. See below, plate xvi1. — Fol. 265: Vita; 267" arg. to Aitax; 268% Prophecy (see * Cf. Ludovicus Purgold, Observationes criticae in Sophoclem, Euripidem, Anthologiam

Graecam et Ciceronem: adiuncta est e Sophoclis codice Ienensi varietas lectionts et scholia maximam partem inedita (Ienae-Lipsiae, 1802) pp. 3 ff. Cf. Dindorf, Scholta pp. xvut f.; Turyn, Recension pp. 110 f.

" Cf. Purgold, op. cit. pp. 61-116; 147-203. ® Carolus










(Lipsiae, 1811) pp. 137 ff.; vol. II: Electra (1803) pp. 125 ff. The Jena scholia are printed there in smaller type than the other scholia.









below) ; 269: Atax; 330" arg. to El., and the ancient scholium p. 97.2-12 Papag. ; 331'-397% Electra. Jena scholia on both plays. The Vita, as in many mss. of this class, has in this ms. a characteristic reading: p. 1.14 Dindorf ἐν πολιτείᾳ ζυγῶν.9 After the Vita and the argument to Atax, follows the Prophecy, which is a characteristic feature of the Jena manuscripts: προφητεία σοφοκλέους περὶ τοῦ χ(ριστ)οῦ : Σοφοκλῆς ἔφη" ὅσα μὲν πρὸς

ἀρετὴν καὶ κόσμον ὄρωρε,

ποιεῖτε: ἔγὼ δ᾽ ἐφετμέω

τρεῖν ἕνα

μοῦνον ὑψιμέδοντα θ(εὀ)ν: οὗ λόγος ἄφθιτος ἐν ἀδαεῖ κόρη Eyyvos ἔσται" οὗτος ὥσπερ τόξον πυροφόρον μέσον διαδραμὼν, ἅπαντα κόσμον ζωγρήσας, π(ατλ)ρὶ προσάγει δῶρον: οὗτος ἕσται δόμος: μαρία δὲ τοὔνομα αὐτῆς.

Scholia in Ja begin with a large capital initial projected to the left, and this arrangement goes for most mss. of the class: they seem to have been written in one learned center, or close to it, and to imitate closely

the setup of the archetype of the class. I am going to quote below a few scholia from the beginning of Aiax in Ja. In making reference to the scholia printed by Dindorf, I disregard slight and minute differences. Schol. Ja on Atax 1. κειμένου


’Ael μὲν ὦ παῖ: ἀναρμοστίαν ἐμφαίνει μετὰ τοῦ παρατὸ








This characteristic beginning appears in most mss. of the Jena class, though it does not appear in the Jena ms. J. I have called, therefore, the scholia of the Jena recension scholta dvappocriav.!© οἰκείως — ἐποιησάμην (from Moschopulus: p. 196.9-16 Dind.). 2. Πειρῶμαι --- ἐνταῦθα (from Moschopulus: p. 196.17-22 Dind.). 3. Σκηναῖς: σκηνὴ — ὑπουλότης ( = Moschop.: p. 196.23-26 Dind.). 8. Κυνὸς λακαίνης" φασὶν ὅτι αἱ ἰχνηλατικαὶ (-οἱ Ja) κύνες τῶν λακεδαιμονίων ἄρισται ἦσαν πολὺ τῶν ἄλλων κυνῶν τῶν ἑλληνικῶν. ἐκφέρεται δέ τι καὶ τοιοῦτον. yn ἄργους, καλλίστη γῇ πάσης πελοποννήσου. ἄνδρες δὲ σπαρτιᾶται. γυναῖκες

δὲ καὶ κύνες λακεδαιμόνιαι (-lwy p.c.). Jena class.

This is an original scholium

of the

10. Ξιφοκτόνους: ὥσπερ ἀνθρωπόκτονος ἀνθρωποκτόνου διαφέρει, οὕτω καὶ ξιφόκτονος ξιφοκτόνου- ξιφόκτονος μὲν γάρ ἔστιν, ὁ ὑπὸ ξίφους φονευθεὶς- ξιφοκτόνος δὲ ὁ ξίφος φονεύσας: ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄχρηστον σημαινόμενον- οὐδὲ γὰρ ξίφος φονεύει Tis: ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπον ἢ ζῷον ἕτερον. ἐνταῦθα οὖν ξιφοκτόνους φησὶ χεῖρας, οὐδετέρῳ τῶν εἰρημένων χρώμενος σημαινομένῳ, ἀλλὰ τὰς διὰ ξίφους ἐργασαμένας λέγων

τὸν φόνον (cf. Moschop.: p. 197.3-8 Dind.). 12. "Er’ &pyov- ἔργον ἡ πρᾶξις καὶ ἡ δυσκολία καὶ ἡ χρεία καὶ τὸ παρανάλωμα. ἐνταῦθα τὸ ἔργον ἀντὶ τοῦ χρεία λαμβάνεται" οὐκ ἔστιν ἔργον, φησίν, ἤτοι χρεία,

ἀτενίζειν σὲ εἴσω τῆς πύλης (cf. Moschop.: p. 197.13-18 Dind.). % (ἐν om.) πολιτείᾳ GR: ἐν πολιτείᾳ FWTTa, ἐν πολίταις V. The Jena reading may be a corruption of the Byzantine reading ἐν rodcrelg συζῶν which appears, e.g., in Ambros.

L 39 sup., Vatic. gr. 2221 (on these Moschopulean mss., cf. Recension pp. 160, 171; above, pp. 28, 29). 10 Cf. Recension Ὁ. 101.



°Q φθέγμ᾽ ᾿Αθάνας-- ἱστορεῖται ᾽Οδυσσεὺς εἶναι τῶν συνετωτάτων ἀνθρώπων.

ὡς καὶ Ὅμηρος δείκνυσιν αὑτὸ τοῦτο πολλαχοῦ λέγων. ἡ δὲ ᾿Αθηνᾶ εἰς τὴν γνῶσιν ἀλληγορεῖται. εἰκότως οὖν φησιν ᾽Οδυσσεὺς φιλτάτην αὐτῷ εἶναι τὴν ᾿Αθηνᾶν,

fro. τὴν γνῶσιν μᾶλλον τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν. This scholium was inspired by a Thoman scholium: cf. p. 329.15-17 Dind. These samples show that the Jena editor drew for his scholia mostly from Moschopulus, but used also Thomas, and wrote some original scholia. The text of the Jena recension will prove as worthless in its eclecticism as the scholia. For the discussion of the poetic text of this recension, I am again using, in a representative way, the readings of Ja.

Its poetic text shows that the basic stock of the Jena text was Moschopulean, though some Thoman readings were also adopted and also some peculiarities of the Venice text (class %) were taken over. There was no consistency in adhering to one or another recension, and some new interpolations and errors were also introduced into the archetype of the Jena class. During the XIX* century scholars became well acquainted with most readings of the Jena recension through the collations of Jena Bos.q.7 (our symbol J; formerly common symbol Jen.) collated by Purgold and of Moscow 505 (our symbol Jb, formerly common symbol Mosq. b) collated by Matthaei and belonging quite obviously to the Jena class. Readings of both mss. were recorded in Erfurdt-Hermann and in Dindorf, Annotationes. Some of those readings gained undeserved notoriety and attention — we know that they are just Byzantine interpolations without any authority. First, for practical purposes of identifying related mss. of the Jena class, I shall quote some characteristic readings from Ja (which reappear in most mss. of the Jena recension): Atax 178 ἐλαφηβολίας, 527 κάρτ᾽ ἂν &ralvov, 534 πρέπον γ᾽ ἂν ἦν, 554" γὰρ] δὲ, 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 964 τἀγάθ᾽ ἐν, 1416 θνητῶν] βροτῶν, 1419 πρὶν δ᾽ ἂν ἰδεῖν οὐδεὶς, Electra 73 νυν om. (also om. G), 76 ἐπιστάτης] ἐργάτης, 293 τινὸς om., 450 μὲν om., 1011 λεγόμενα, 1385 ἅρμα.

There are in many mss. of the Jena class peculiar readings which, however, do not reappear in all mss. of this class: e.g., At. 295 λέγειν) φράζειν JJa; El. 28 καὐτός r’ JdJeJpJqJrJu (but not Ja); El. 44 ὅτι] ὡς JdJeJmJpJqJrJu (but not Ja); El. 583 θάνοις γ᾽ ἂν JJbJdJo (but not Ja). This is evidence which

I happen

to have, and

no conclusions ex silentio

are to be drawn as to other mss. of the Jena class that are not quoted here. As a matter of fact, the readings just cited from El. 28, 44, 583, are so frequent in mss. of the Jena recension that they should be presumed significant Jena readings, which the ms. Ja somehow discarded in spite of their acceptance by the class archetype. Ja as a representative of the Jena recension carries quite many Mos-








chopulean readings: e.g., At. 112 byw σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι, 259 φρόνιμον, 717 pereγνώσθη, 951 ἄγαν γ᾽, 994 πασῶν, 1081 πάρα, El. 433 ἀπὸ exstat, 454 els ἐχθροὺς αὑτὸν (this is a Moschopulean reading of the class £m), 809 οἴχῃ φρενὸς, 1124 ἐπαιτεῖται. Atax 519 πᾶσα is actually a concept different from that of Moschopulus, who read πᾶσ᾽ but understood it πᾶσι; therefore, the Jena editor must be credited here with the proper correction. There are in Ja also some Thoman readings: At. 82 ὄκνῳ] ἰδεῖν, 546 που τόνδε, Electra 973 μὲν οὖν. Also Triclinian readings are used, e.g.: At. 236 τὰ (= TTa). It seems that also the Venice class y (cf. below, p. 156) was used by the Jena editor: cf. El. 1375 ὅσοιπερ προπύλαια VWJaJjd, 1453 ἀλλ’ ἀπέδειξαν V'WJaJd. Of course, quite many “‘old’’ readings are preserved in Ja, as At. 1070 λόγων τ΄. But on the whole, I should say that the influence of the Moschopulean recension was predominant in the Jena recension, both in text and in scholia, to a degree to make us assume that the Jena edition was made on a Moschopulean basis. I shall list below manuscripts of the Jena class. To the listing of each ms. I shall add proofs of its affiliation with the Jena class in the form of some Jena readings which appear in a given ms. The selection of characteristic readings depends in each case on the extent of the material which I have at hand. No conclusions ex silentio should be made. Many mss. of the Jena class show 11 lines to a page for the poetic text. It seems that this was the number of lines to a page in the archetype of this recension. I wish to point to the Byzantine recension ¢ in Aeschylus containing likewise the first two plays only (not three) of Aeschylus, Prometheus and Septem. It is interesting to see that there are a few mss. which contain at the same time the recension { of Aeschylus and the Jena recension of Sophocles, e.g.: Athens 1056, Bologna Univ. 2700, Moscow 505. It seems that also in Aeschylus of the class ¢ the line number 11 was prevalent. It must have been one and the same Byzantine scholar who edited a collection of tragic dyads: the f recension of the two Aeschylus plays, the Jena recension of the two Sophocles plays, and also a similar recension of the first two plays of the Euripidean triad, Hecuba and Orestes, which appears in some later manuscripts. Quite obviously, the Jena text lacks any genuine authority and should be completely disregarded by students of the Sophocles text. The description of other mss. of the Jena class follows. J = Jena, Universitäts-Bibliothek, pp. 3 ff.). Paper, XV“ cent., 224 x for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1: (see above) ; 5-89" Aiax; 90" arg. to (published by Purgold). I have only ται Cf, Turyn, Aeschylus pp. 93 ff.

cod. Bos.q.7 (cf. Purgold, op. cit. 160 mm., 184 foll., 8 lines to a page Vita; 3" arg. to Atax; 4" Prophecy EI. ; 91*-183" Electra. Jena scholia a photographic sample of At. 1-103;



for the rest, I rely on Purgold’s collation. The ms. has all the characteristics of the class: cf. Prophecy; At. 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 1416 βροτῶν, ΕἸ. 76 ἐργάτης, 1011 λεγόμενα. Symbol Jen. in Erfurdt-Hermann and in Dindorf, Annotationes. Jb = Moscow, Gosudarstvennyl Istoricheski! Muzel, from the former Moskovskaia Sinodal’naia Biblioteka gr. 505. Paper, XV“ cent., 211 x 145 mm., 210 foll. (In the Aeschylus portion, there are 11 lines to a page for the poetic text.) — Fol. 17 Atax; 58'-126' arg. to El.; Electra. Scholia. I have no photographic samples of the Sophocles portion, and have to rely on Matthaei’s collation quoted in Erfurdt-Hermann (with the symbol Mosg. δ). The text of Jb belongs clearly to the Jena class: cf. As. 527 κἀρτ᾽ ἂν ἐπαίνου, 534 πρέπον γ᾽ ἂν ἦν, 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 964 τἀγάθ᾽ ἐν, Εἰ. 583 θάνοις γ᾽ ἂν. Jc = Vatican Library, Palatin. gr. 151. Paper, XV“ cent., 209 x 155 mm., Iv + 322 foll., 13 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 123* Vita; 125: arg. to Ai.; 126% Prophecy; 127: Atax; 179 arg. to El., and scholium p. 97.2-12 Papag. ; 180-236: Electra. Jena scholia on both plays (inc. ἀναρμοστίαν). Readings: At. 178 ἐλαφηβολίας, 527 xäpr’ ἂν ἐπαίνου, 534 πρέπον γ᾽ ἂν ἦν, 554> δὲ, 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 964 τἀγάθ᾽ ἐν, 1416 βροτῶν, El. 76 ἐργάτης, 293 τινὸς om. Jd = Vatican Library, Barberini gr. 125. Paper, XV“ cent., 220 x 145 mm., Iv + 144 foll., 11-12 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. Written by one Μιχαήλ: fol. 57 θ(εο)ῦ τὸ δῶρον καὶ πόνος μιχαήλ. Former owners: (Marcus) Mamounas (fol. 71" βίβλος μαμουνᾶ ἦν, εὖτε τάδ᾽ ἐγράφετο: cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber p. 289); Antonius Kalosynas (fol. 71: τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον ἐστὶν ἀντ(ω)νί(ον) καλοσυνᾷ καὶ τῶν φίλων : cf. VogelGardthausen p. 37; Β. Λαούρδας, Κρητικὰ Χρονικά 4 [1950] 245 ff.) ; Carolus Strozza Thomae filius, 1635 (cf. fol. 1"). — Fol. 7: Vita; 87 arg. to Atax; 9° Prophecy; 10° Atax; 71° arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papag.); 72'-135% Electra (1-1501). Scholia Barocci (cf. below, p. 96) on Atax 1-377 (on fol. 10-26), copied directly from Barocci 61 (B). The poetic text throughout the codex is that of the Jena class: cf. Ai. 178 ἔλαφηβολίας, 534 πρέπον γ᾽ ἂν ἦν, 554" δὲ, 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 964 τἀγάθ᾽ ἐν, 1416 βροτῶν, El. 28 καὐτός τ᾽, 44 ὡς, 76 ἐργάτης, 293 τινὸς om.,

1011 λεγόμενα.

Je = Vienna philos. philol. gr. 270.

Paper, a.p. 1491, 208 x 142 mm.,

143 foll., 12 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles.

Written and sub-

scribed (on fol. 143”) in Venice on Aug. 9, 1491, by Bartolomeo Zamberti of Venice. — Fol. 1: Vita; 3: arg. to Atax; 4° Prophecy; 5:-61: Atax; 74 arg. to El., and scholium p. 97.2-12 Papageorg.; 75'-137' Electra. Jena scholia on Electra. The ms. belongs to the Jena recension: cf. Vita p. 1.14 Dind. ἐν πολιτεία ζυγῶν, At. 178 ἐλαφηβολίας, 527 κάρτ᾽ ἂν ἐπαίνου, 534 πρέπον γ᾽ ἂν ἦν, 554" δὲ, 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 964 raya’ ἐν, 1416 βροτῶν, El. 28 xatrés τ᾽, 44 ὡς, 293 τινὸς om., 1011 λεγόμενα.








Jf = Athens, ᾿Εϑνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 1056. Paper, XV cent., 213 x 160 mm., 174 foll., 14 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles.’ — Fol. 17 arg. to Atax; 3" Atax; 51: arg. to El.; 515-101. Electra. Jena scholia. The text belongs to the Jena class: cf. At. 178 ἐλαφηβολίας, 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 1416 βροτῶν, El. 76 ἐργάτης, 293 τινὸς om. In Aeschylus, this ms. belongs to the recension ¢ (see above; cf. Turyn, Aeschylus p. 93). Jg = Athens, ᾿Εθνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, 1059. Paper, XV*> cent., 212 x 163 mm., 181 foll., 8 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 2: Vita (beginning lost); 2% arg. to Atax; 4" Aiax; 88: arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papag.) ; 89'-180" Electra. Jena scholia (inc. ἀναρμοστίαν). The poetic text is that of the Jena recension: At. 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 1416 βροτῶν, El. 76 ἐργάτης, 293 τινὸς om. Jh = Perugia, Biblioteca Augusta del Comune di Perugia, 1.107 (the first component of the call number being a letter, not a numeral). Paper, XV* cent., 210 x 142 mm., 134 foll., 11 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1* Vita; 3" arg. to Atax; 4” Prophecy; 5" Azax; 66° arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον; 67'-131" Electra. Jena scholia. For the Jena character of the text, cf. El. 76 ἐργάτης. Jk = Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, gr. 615 (No. di collocazione 687). Paper, XV* cent., 203 x 140 mm., 135 foll., 11 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1. Vita; 35 arg. to Aiax; 4” Prophecy; 5'-66* Aiax; 67" arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον ; 687-135" Electra. Jena scholia (ἀναρμοστίαν). For the Jena character of the codex, cf.: Vita p. 1.14 ἐν πολιτεία ζυγῶν, At. 1416 βροτῶν, 1419 πρὶν 5’ ἂν ἰδεῖν οὐδεὶς, El. 28 καὑτός τ᾽, 44 ὡς, 76 ἐργάτης a.c. (ἐπιστάτης p.c.). Jm = Berlin, Oeffentliche Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek (formerly Preussische Staatsbibliothek), Phillipps 1604. Paper, XV*> cent., 205 x 156 mm., 131 foll., 11 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1’ arg. to Atax; 2'-63* Azax; 64" arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον ; 65'-131" Electra. Jena scholia (ἀναρμοστίαν). For the Jena character of this ms., cf.: At. 178 ἐλαφηβολίας, 1416 βροτῶν, 1419 πρὶν δ᾽ ἂν ἰδεῖν οὐδεὶς, ΕἸ. 44 ὡς, 76 ἐργάτης.

Jn = Oxford, Bodleian Library, D’Orville 73. Paper, XV“ cent., 209 x 152 mm., xvım + 490 pages, 10-13 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles in Atax, 12 lines in Electra. — Pages 239-357 Atax; p. 359 arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papag.); pp. 361-490 Electra. Irregular compilation of scholia, mainly from the Jena scholia and from Moschopulus. For the Jena character of the text, cf.: Atax 178 ἐλαφηβολίας, 1416 βροτῶν, 1419 πρὶν 5’ ἂν ἰδεῖν οὐδεὶς, Electra 76 ἐργάτης. Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, 34. Cf. Recension p. 149. As I 12} owe to Dr. Georgios


of the National Library in Athens, additional

details on the Athens mss. 1056 and 1059, and a collation of several readings from these mss.



pointed out there, Aiax and Electra in this ms. belong to the Jena recension: cf. Atax 534 πρέπον γ᾽ ἂν ἦν, 1416 βροτῶν i.l., 1419 πρὶν δ' ἂν ἰδεῖν οὐδεὶς, Electra 73 νυν om., 16 ἐργάτης Cf. above, pp. 27, 67; below, p. 190.

Jo = Athens, Μουσεῖον Διονυσίου AoBépdov, ms. Kolyvas 108. Paper, XV* cent., 230 x 155 mm., 264 foll., 12 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. Written by a monk Maximus. — Fol. 139° Vita; arg. to

Aiax; 140° Atax (1-563) ; 163"-208” Electra (363-511, 537-657, 670-end). Scholia on both plays are a paraphrase of scholia from different sources, ancient and Byzantine. As to the poetic text, the beginning (fol. 140°1515), Atax 1-288, is Thoman: cf. At. 82 ὄκνω οἷ: ἰδεῖν Jo'?; 84 ὀφθαλμοῖσι (γε om.) ; 148/9 πλάσσων del els, 154 leis λόγος, 233 ἐκεῖθεν ἐκεῖθεν. Beginning with fol. 152", from Aiax 289 on, throughout the rest of Aiax and Electra, the text belongs to the Jena class: cf. Ai. 304 ὕβριν om. JoJb; 560 τις σ᾽ ὑβρίσει JoJbJd; 561 λώβοισι JoJb, AwBarow JaJd; El. 450 μὲν om. JoJa JdJr; 583 θάνοις γ᾽ ἂν JoJJbJd. Jp = Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, 2700. The ms. consists of two parts, 39 + 237 foll. The second part: paper, XV/XVI* cent., 209 x 148 mm., 237 foll., 11 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 133" a few Moschopulean scholia on the beginning of Electra; 133” arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papag.); 134-197” Electra. Jena scholia. Readings: El. 28 xabrös τ᾽, 44 ὡς, 76 ἐργάτης (yp. ἐπιστάτης). ]ᾳ = Paris, Supplément grec 500. Paper, XVI* cent., 205 x 153 mm., 102 foll., 8 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 21: arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papag.); 22:-51" Electra (1579). Jena scholia. Readings: El. 28 καὐτός r’, 44 ὡς, 76 ἐργάτης, 293 τινὸς OM.

Jr = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2812 A (cf. Recenston p. 104; above, p. 41). Paper, XVI* cent. Atax, Electra. The portions Aiex 1-1355 and Electra 489-end are Thoman, and symbolized Ze. But the portion Aiax 1356-end and Electra 1-488 (fol. 142*-159") belongs to the Jena class and has Jena scholia on El. 137-484. This portion is designated with the symbol Jr. For its Jena readings, cf.: At. 1416 βροτῶν, El. 28 xabrös τ᾽, 44 ὡς, 76 ἐργάτης, 293 τινὸς om. There are two mss., Js and Jt, which seem to be gemelli in their Jena portions. Js cent., ocles. Some

= Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canonici Greek 86. Paper, XVI‘ 285 x 190 mm., 214 foll., 13 lines to a page for the text of Soph— Fol. 118%-170* Aiax; 171%-177" Oed. Tyr. (1-166 xhyaros). Moschopulean scholia on Atax. The Azax text is discussed below.

The fragment of Oed. Tyr. is Thoman: OT 18 of δ᾽ ἠιθέων, 30 ἀΐδας.




Jt = Paris, Ancien



fonds grec 2790.



Paper, XVI“

cent., 205 x 143

mm., 93 foll., 20 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 24'-57" Atax. Some Moschopulean scholia. These two mss., Js and Jt, seem to be gemelli, for they have, e.g., such peculiarities in common: Atax 85 καὶ δεδορκότα] καδδεδορκότα, 40 fie, 94 φρᾶσον. There are also many agreements in scholia. Yet, they cannot

be copied one from the other, for they have blunders of their own: cf. Aiax 535 ἐγὼ om. Js (habet Jt); Az. 83 the Moschopulean scholium ἀλλ’ ob μή σε ἴδη νῦν καὶ παρόντα πέλας is written instead of the poetic line (which is omitted) in Jt: both the poetic line As. 83 and the Moschopulean scholium above the line appear in Js. The Aiax text in both mss. is that of the Jena class. I can quote, e.g., these readings of Js and Jt: At. 527 κάρτ᾽ ἂν kralvov, 534 πρέπον γ᾽ ἂν ἦν, 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 1416 βροτῶν, 1419 πρὶν 3° ἂν ἰδεῖν οὐδεὶς. I have noticed in the Aiax text of Js some Thoman influence: At. 801 θεστορίδου Js (θεστορίου Jt). Ju = Milan, Ambros. C 11 sup. (No. 169 in Martini-Bassi). Paper, XVI* cent., 210 x 143 mm., 181 foll., 14 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles.'* — Fol. 1: Atax; 50" arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papag.); 517-103" Electra. In the beginning of Atax, I have seen sparse excerpts from the Jena set of scholia. Aiax and the beginning of Electra (ca. 1-200) belong to the Jena recension: cf. Atax 527 κάρτ' ἂν éxalvov, 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 964 τἀγάθ' ἐν χεροῖν, 1416 βροτῶν, 1419 πρὶν δ᾽ ἂν ἰδεῖν οὐδεὶς, Electra 28 καὐτός τ᾽, 44 ὡς, 73 νυν om. But, in the rest of Electra (ca. 200-end), this ms. does not share in characteristic readings

of the Jena recension and seems to be simply Moschopulean: cf. El. 528 εἷλεν οὐκ, 890 λοιπὸν ἵνα ἢ (this word s.l.).. This Moschopulean portion belongs to the class tm: El. 454 els ἐχθροὺς αὐτὸν. Jv = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 216. Parchment and paper, late XV‘ cent., 220 x 145 mm. for the Sophocles portion, 379 foll., 21 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 163" Vita (incomplete, pp. 7.6 ἢ — 8.4 xaréuitev) ; arg. to Atax; 163% Prophecy; 164:---166" Atax (1-42; 128-216). Moschopulean scholia on Atax 1-23. The text of the Aiax fragment follows the Jena recension: cf. Ai. 178 ἐλαφηβολίας. Mount Athos, Mov? ᾿Ιβήρων, 132 (No. 4252 in Σπυριδὼν Π. Λάμπρος, Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τοῦ ᾿Αγίου “Opous ἑλληνικῶν κωδίκων II [ἐν Κανταβριγίᾳ τῆς ᾿Αγγλίας, 1900] pp. 25 f.). I do not have any photographic samples of this ms. and rely solely on Lampros. Paper, XV‘ cent., 127 foll. Written or owned by ᾿Ιωάννης 'Aodvns. — Fol. 3: Vita; 5’ argument (in the Jena version) to Atax; 6” Aiax; 65" arg. (in the 15] owe to Professor Raffaele Cantarella and to Dr. Agostino collation of several readings from this ms.

Pertusi (Milan)


THE JENA RECENSION Triclinian version) to El.; 65'*-127" Electra.

95 A Triclinian metrical note

to the beginning of Electra is quoted by Lampros. The argument to Atax, according to the information reported by Lampros II p. 26, represents obviously the Jena version: cf. arg. to Atax (Dindorf, Scholia p. 27.2) ἀποτυχὼν ἐμάνη καὶ els συναίσθησιν ἐλθὼν ἔγνω Athos ms. and J; 27.2 φιλονεικίαι) νῖκαι vulgo codd.: om. Athos ms. and J; 27.15 θεοῦ λοιπὸν ἦν Athos ms. and J. The argument to Electra of the Athos ms., to judge from its beginning and end as reported by Lampros, represents the Triclinian version. To the Triclinian recension points also the metrical note on the beginning of Electra which Lampros quoted. The few readings from Atax which Lampros quotes give us no specific clue as to the text character of this ms. But the character of Electra is much clearer. The joint incidence of such readings as El. 49 πυθικοῖς, 73 μὲν (νυν om.) ταῦτα, 76 ἐργάτης (Jena class only), 1453 ἀλλ’ ἀπέδειξαν (class y and Jena class), points clearly to the Jena tradition. And this, in connection with the fact that the argument to Aiax was taken from the Jena tradition, makes us surmise that perhaps both plays in the Athos ms. were taken from the Jena recension. The ms. shows in the text some Triclinian influence: cf. El. 10 πολύφϑορον δὲ (some Thoman mss. and Triclinius), 505 #ovAbrovos (only Triclinius). These interpolations may stem from the source which provided the scribe with the argument to Electra and some Triclinian metrical

notes. We have to content ourselves with

this tentative analysis,

until we

obtain direct and more exhaustive information on this Athos ms.

Jw = Kalavryta, Mov} τοῦ Μεγάλου Σπηλαίου, 64. Karddoyos

Cf. Νῖκος ᾿Α.

τῶν ἑλληνικῶν χειρογράφων κωδίκων τῆς ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ


Μονῆς τοῦ

Μεγάλου Σπηλαίον I (ἐν ᾿Αθήναις — Leipzig, 1915) p. 64; Βέης, Revue de philologie 35 (1911) 338 f.; Turyn, Manuscripts p. 8. Paper, XV“ cent. Atax, Electra. This ms. was destroyed by fire in 1934. Since there was in the ms., just before Atax, a Προφητεία, which is a telltale feature of the Jena family, we may venture to assume with great probability that this destroyed ms. Kalavryta 64 which contained Aiax and Electra was a member of the Jena class.



There is a rather unimportant group of Byzantine interpolated mss. represented essentially by the ms. Oxford Barocci 61 (our symbol B), which is the direct source of the other mss. of this class. This Barocct recension or class B (as I shall call it) was disclosed by Johnson who, in his edition, quoted text readings of Barocci 61 and Barocci 66 as Bar. 1 and Bar. 2,respectively, and printed their scholia under Schol(ta) Ined (ita) with the symbol Bar. This class 8 comprises Aiax and Electra only. Its text is basically Moschopulean and was made up by some scholar of the XV“ century (there is not any earlier ms. of the class 8 in existence so far as I know). He took a Moschopulean text of the two plays, made a few changes in the text, selected some Moschopulean scholia, added a few ancient scholia and wrote a few scholia of his own. Let us consider more carefully the principal ms. B which exemplifies the features of the recension B. B = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 61. Paper, XV*k cent., 21 x 16 cm., IV + 155 foll., 10 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. See below, plate xvii. — Fol. 1" Vita; 5'-6" arg. to Aiax, personae dramatis; 12" Aiax; 81" arg. to El.; 81Y-155” Electra. Scholia ‘“Barocci” on the two plays (inc. ὦ υἱὲ τοῦ λαερτίου). The poetic text of B is virtually Moschopulean: cf. At. 58 ἐμπιτνῶν, 75 ἀρεῖς, 112 byw σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι, 227 οἵμοι, 259 φρόνιμον, 301 ὑπαΐξας, 519 zac’, 565 ἐνάλιος, 727 σύναιμον, 951 ἄγαν γ᾽, Εἰ. 42 μακρῷ χρόνῳ, 123 dxdperov, 528 εἷλεν οὐκ. The Moschopulean source of the class 8 belonged to the class tp: Ai. 1369 πανταχοῦ, El. 238 ἐβλαστ᾽; there are also some Planudean scholia in B. Occasionally, B adopted also some Thoman readings: cf. Ai. 148/9 πλάσσων del els, 154 ἱεὶς λόγους. But the editor 8 did not shy away from making interpolations of his own: cf. At. 1116 τοῦ δὲ σοῦ L, καὶ τοῦ σοῦ GQR] τοῦ σοῦ γὰρ; El. 524 κακῶς κλύουσα] κλύουσ᾽ ἄτιμα; 1200 ποτέ] με ob. There are in B also some characteristic mistakes: At. 243/4 δαίμων τις κοὐδεὶς ἀν(θρώπ)ων; 245 καλύμμασι om. in textu (supra lineam scriptum tamquam glossa) ; 300 πιτνῶν BY’: φοιτῶν B; 855 ξυνών] μολών (scil. e versu 854 repetitum); El. 602 βίον τρίβων; 848 ἦν ὥχετο δὴ φροῦδος.

As to the scholia of Β, which we call scholia Barocci, they are marked

in a characteristic way (which is reproduced in apographs of B). Original scholia of the Barocci editor himself mostly have a cross prefix +, while other scholia (predominantly Moschopulean) in most cases have a prefix ~. Some ancient scholia have no special mark prefixed. Of course, the reader may find the evidence on Barocci scholia and even their text in Johnson. The original Barocci scholia are reprinted, without any dis-


THE BAROCCI RECENSION β crimination, along Just as a sample, I am reproducing the punctuation apographs.


with the Moschopulean scholia, in Dindorf, Scholia. I quote below the scholia B on the beginning of Atax. the prefixes, the spellings, with all the mistakes, and of B, for this is important for the recognition of

Scholia B on Aiax 1 ὦ υἱὲ τοῦ λαερτίου: del ὁρῶ σε μετιέντα τοὺς ἐχθροὺς, πείρᾳ

καὶ βλάβῃ:

ἐπὶ τοὺς τρῶας.


δὲ, καλῶς


ὅτι καὶ διομήδους



(From the ancient scholia.)

ἱστέον ὅτι δι᾽ οὐδὲν ἄλλο δυσχεραίνει ἡ ἀθηνᾶ κατὰ τοῦ alavros, ἢ διότι ἀπώσατο

τὴν συμμαχίαν αὐτῆς, ὡς προϊὼν ὁ λόγος δηλώσοι. (From the ancient scholia.) + dépxw- ὁ μξλλ(ων) δέρξω" ὁ παρακ(είμενος), δέδερχα-: ὁ μέ(σος), δέδορκα: λαμβάνεται δὲ ὡς πλατὺς ἐνεστώς. (Cf. Moschop.) 2.

7 πεῖραν τινὰ, τουτέστι προσβολὴν

καὶ ἐπιχείρησιν.



3. = ἐπὶ σκηναῖς, ἀντὶ τοῦ παρὰ ταῖς σκηναῖς. 4. διαμέσου, τὸ ἔνθα τάξιν ἐσχάτην ἔχει. 6. + ἴχνος γί(νεται), ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴω τὸ πορεύομαι, καὶ τοῦ χνοῦςτ' ἤγουν, κινήσει καὶ xvot γινόμενον καὶ τνπούμενον. 9. = δεικνύει ἐνταῦθα, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ ὁ alas, ἀλλὰ ἄρτι ἦλθε.


+ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄπτω τὸ βλέπω, γί(νεται) παπταίνω ποιητικῶς.

τὸ ἐπιτηρῶ καὶ στοχάζομαι καὶ περισκοκῶ. 12. τὸ ἔργον, τρία δηλοῖ- τὴν χρείαν:

τὴν δυσκολίαν:

τὸ ἐν

καὶ ση(μαίνει)

καὶ τὴν ἐνόχλησιν.

(From Moschop.) These samples show sufficiently the quality of the original scholia of 8 (those with a prefix + ) and the procedure of their author in making up the scholia. Of course, the whole class 8 is valueless, both in text and in scholia. Below I list other representatives of this class. Ba = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 66. Paper, XV‘ cent., 205 x 150 mm., 312 foll.; 9 lines to a page for the text of Atax and Electra, 10 lines for Oed. Tyr. — Fol. 1" Vita; 3: arg. to Atax; 5" Atax; 82'-164" Electra; 165” oracle, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 251'-312” Oed. Tyr. (1480; 502-802; 1064-end). Selected scholia Barocci on Aiax and Electra. These two plays, Atax and Electra, are copied from B, but only those scholia that have a cross prefix in B are transcribed in Ba. The agreement in Ba with B is so obvious that I need not quote many proofs: cf. At. 245 καλύμμασι om. BBa; El. 524 κακῶς κλύουσα] κλύουσ᾽ ἀτίμως BBa (for the readings of Ba in these two cases I rely on Johnson’s apparatus). Then, the text of Oed. Tyr. in this ms., written by a different hand, without scholia, is Moschopulean: cf. OT 50 στάντες τ᾽. Bb = London, British Museum, Harley 5744. Paper, XV cent., 219 x 150 mm., 179 foll., 10 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 22: Vita; 25" arg. to Aiax; 21: Aiax; 96'-179" Electra. There are








some scholia Barocci, but only those marked with a cross prefix in B. In this regard, Bb closely resembles Ba, yet Ba and Bb are not transcribed one from another, but both derive directly from B and were probably transcribed in one scriptorium according to the same principle of copying from B only the original scholia of B. Bb reproduces on each page of poetic text the corresponding page of B. For common errors of BBb, cf.: Ai. 101 Aaprlov BBb, 117 παριστᾶναι BBb, 153 ἄχθεσι BBb. Bc = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2798. Paper, 1558 a.p., 151 foll.; 208 x 157 mm. for fol. 1-88; 235 x 170 mm. for fol. 87-151; 9 lines toa

page for the text of Sophocles.

The Sophoclean part of the ms. was

written and subscribed by Πέτρος ὁ Δακλώζαος ὁ Ῥηθυμναῖος on Nov. 8, 1558 (fol. 87° ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ πέτρου τοῦ δακλωζάου τοῦ ῥηθυμναίου ἐν ἔτει αὖ

ὁσίας wapasxevjs).


v* m“ μηνὶ νοεμβρίω εἰς η' ἐν τῷ ἐσπερινῶ τῆς

— Fol. 4* Vita; 7: arg. to Atax; 9--87: Aiax.


scholia Barocci. Bc is copied directly from B: cf. At. 243/4 δαίμων τις κοὐδεὶς ἀν(θρὠπ)ων BBc; 245 καλύμμασι om. BBc.

Bd = Venice graec. XI 20 (No. di collocazione 1475).

Paper, XVI

and XVII cent. (the Sophocles portion being of the XVI* cent.), 21 x 14 cm., 402 foll., 10 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. —

Fol. 234-297’ Azax (1-1332).

Scholia Barocci on Atax 162-1329.


the beginning of the Sophocles portion, a few original folios were lost and replaced by another hand which wrote, on fol. 234-241”, the missing lines Atax 1-157, without scholia, from a Moschopulean source (cf. At. 58 ἐμπιτνῶν, 80 ἐν δόμοις, 112 byw σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι). Beginning with fol. 242r, from Aiax 158 on, the original ms. Bd appears to be a direct apograph of B, with full scholia Barocci: cf. At. 201 ἀρωγοὶ B® ἀρρωγοὶ BrBd; 1331 φίλων BBd.

For a transcript of the scholia Barocci on a part of Aiax copied from B by the Vatic. Barber. 125, see above, p. 9i.








THE LAURENTIAN FAMILY ἃ AND THE ROMAN FAMILY p After we have dealt in former:chapters with various Byzantine recensions, it is time to approach now the main task of examining the genuine

ancient tradition of Sophocles carried in the Middle Ages by several witnesses which we call veteres. Our detailed study of the Byzantine interpolated texts was a necessary prerequisite to the proper investigation of the veteres. As I pointed out previously,’ the veteres, with the exception of LAG, were written in the time after ca. 1290 A.D. and, therefore, were subject almost automatically to the influence of the Byzantine interpolations. Indeed, many of those later veteres show so many readings alien to their genuine character that without knowing the Byzantine character of those alien readings we should be embarrassingly puzzled over the inconsistency of the texts of those manuscripts. The unexpected ingredients in the text of the later veteres would disturb any attempt to arrange a stemmatic relationship of those mss. Only if we realize that those alien readings are Byzantine interpolations and that they were widely and wildly caught by the genuine mss. as a result of the horizontal or transversal transmission which originated in the interpolated recensions, only then can we dismiss them as interpolations that have no bearing on the original interrelationship of the veteres. As a matter of convenience, in order to get a clearer picture of basic interrelationships, I shall first deal with those veferes which I consider to be codices vetustiores. They differ from the codices deteriores: these belong to special classes of veteres descending from later or younger medieval subarchetypes & or ¥, respectively, and were subject singly and sporadically to Byzantine influences. Those codices vetustiores are the manuscripts LAGQMR. Their stemma is given below, p. 119. Here is their essential description (cf. also Manuscripts, passim). The Laurentian class X is represented by LA. L = Florence, Laur. plut. 32, 9. See below, plates 1 and 11. Parchment, late X* or early ΧΙ cent., 309 x 212 mm., 264 foll., 36-48 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1" Atax; 17" arg. I, II, to El.; Electra; 33: arg. I, II, to Oed. Tyr.; 33” Oed. Tyr.; 495 oracle, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; arg. I to Antig.; 50: Antigone; 64° arg. III, II, to Antig.; 64” arg. to Trachin. (from Apollodorus) ; 65" Trachiniae; 79” poem Labors of Heracles (Dindorf p. 24; Anth. Planud. XVI.92 Diibner); metrical and prose arguments to Philoct.; 80" Philoctetes; 96" arg. I to Oed. Col.; m4 Cf. Recension pp. 94 f.; cf. above, p. 15.




96” poem εἰπὲ, ποῦ ἡ χθὲς ἔβη (Anth. Gr. append. IV.92 Cougny) ; 977-117" Oedipus Coloneus; 118: arg. II, III, IV, to Oed. Col. Ancient (Laurentian) scholia on the seven plays. Complete reproduction of the Sophoclean part of this ms.: Facsimile of the Laurentian Manuscript of Sophocles With an Introduction of E. M. Thompson and R. C. Jebb (London: Printed for the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, 1885).

I have used also a photostat of the ms.

This is the famous Laurentian

ms. of Sophocles. It is the oldest preserved ms. of Sophocles and the most valuable and important witness of the Sophoclean text tradition. The scribe of A (Paris 2712) himself made in L several corrections; in the triad, they represent mostly Moschopulean readings (cf. Recension p. 140; see below, plates 11 and 111). A = Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijks-Universiteit, Bibl. Publ. Graec. 60 A (scriptura inferior). Cf. J. Vürtheim, Der Leidener Sophoklespalimpsest

zum ersten Male vollständig untersucht (Leiden, 1926); H. J. Scheltema, “De codice Sophocleo Lugdunensi,’’ Mnemosyne ser. IV, 2 (1949) 132-137 (collation, on which I rely in quoting readings of this ms.). I have also used Professor Scheltema’s handwritten study of the palimpsest deposited at the Leiden Library (marked there ms. B.P.G. 60 A!"), and copies of some ultraviolet pictures of the ms. made by Scheltema and likewise deposited at the Library. This is the valuable Leiden palimpsest. Parchment, X/XI* cent. for the Sophoclean scriptura inferior (XIII* cent. for the scriptura superior: Anastasius Sinaita and Sophronius of Jerusalem), 21 x 16cm., 147 foll., ca. 24 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles.

The new writer took only a part of the old leaves which had formed the original volume. The leaves were used for the scriptura superior without any regard for their original order so that Sophoclean remnants in the palimpsest volume, as it is bound now, do not appear in their natural sequence and are quite disarrayed. There are in the present palimpsest remnants of the seven plays of Sophocles, with ancient scholia which agree most closely with the Laurentian scholia. The original sequence of plays seems to have been the same in A asin L. Altogether, these are the present Sophoclean contents of the palimpsest (according to Schel-

tema): Atax (355-706, 751-794, 839-927, 975-1014, 1104-1192, 12821370, 1415-end); Electra (arg. I, II, 1-20, 61-227, 270-309, 358-406, 451-649, 746-841, 941-1034, 1129-1409, 1450-1494); Oedipus Tyrannus (32-128, 219-267, 316-605, 744-940, 1039-end); Antigone (arg., 1-698, 753-803, 912-963, 1016-1164, 1216-1307); Trachiniae (arg. from Apollodorus, 1-8, 150-243, 385-1126, 1175-end, poem Labors of Heracles);

Philoctetes (arg., 1-145, 194-239, 528-1121, 1226-1370, 1468-end) ; Oedipus Coloneus (arg., 1-152, 246-653, 745-835, 917-964, 1012-1059, 13881435, 1481-1576, 1624-1671). of an ultraviolet lamp. The

The palimpsest is to be read with the aid poetic text of Sophocles is legible (not



always) with considerable difficulty; marginal scholia can be read much more easily. These two manuscripts LA represent the Laurentian class ἃ of the ancient tradition. Of course, the respectable age of LA vouches for the pure character of their text. I ought to remark that some peculiar blunders of LA which can be attributed to the most immediate source of LA (e.g., El. 1168 κατεῖχον L!A) might be assigned to a hyparchetype of a lower level, Xa. The other branch of the Sophoclean genuine tradition appears in the Roman class p represented by four valuable witnesses: GRMQ. G = Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Conventi below, plates ıv-v. Parchment palimpsest, A.D. 1282 scriptura superior, 184 x 124 mm., 184 foll. Written ἱερεὺς Abyoborıos!® on July 15, 1282 (fol. 181") : &yp&($)n σοφοκλέους διὰ χειρὸς ἱερέως atryovorlov ἐν μηνὶ ἰουλ(ίῳ)

lvö(ıxrıavos) dexär(ns).

Soppressi 152. See for the Sophoclean and subscribed by τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον τοῦ els τ᾽ le er(ous) ‚cc

On the provenience of the ms., see below,


110 ff. — Fol. 1" Vita; 2” arg. to Atax; 37 Aiax; 56” arg. I, II, oracle, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 57" Oed. Tyr.; 1007 arguments to El. (ὑπόκειται, and καὶ ἄλλως); 101° Electra; 143” prose and metrical arguments to Philoct.; 144-181" Philoctetes. Ancient scholia on the four plays. Collation of the scholia in: Vittorio De Marco, ‘‘De scholiis in Sophoclis tragoedias veteribus,’’ Memorie della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche. Anno cccxxxIv (1937).

Serie VI, vol. VI, fasc. II = pp. 105-228 (Roma, 1937). R = Vatic. gr. 2291 (olim Chigi R VIII 59).1% See below, plate vr. Paper, XV* cent., 312 x 215 mm., v + 283 foll. — Fol. 2r Vita; 2” arg. to Aiax; 3" Atax; 38” arg. I, II, oracle, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 39” Oed. Tyr.; 83% prose argument to Philoct.; Philoctetes; 124” arguments to El. 1% The same scribe wrote the ms.

Milan, Ambros.


87 sup.

(No. 533 in Aemilius

Martini et Dominicus Bassi, Cotalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecoe Ambrostanae II [Mediolani, 1906] pp. 644 f.; cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber p. 47). I have checked photographic samples of this ms.: it shows the same handwriting as the Laur. Conv. Soppr. 152. The Milan Ambros. M 87 sup. was subscribed on July 21, 1307 (fol. 90°): ἐγρά(φ)η τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον τοῦ ἁγίου διονυσίου τοῦ Apeoraylr(ov) διὰ χειρὸς ἱερέως

abyov + εἴληφε δὲ τέλ(οτ) ἐν μηνὶ ἰουλ(ίῳ) εἰς τ' xa ἡμερ' €: ἕτ(ουτ) ,ξῶϊε: ἱνδ(ικτιῶνοτ) ξ: The name of the scribe, written


in an




be in the




αὐγουστίου or αὐγούστου. On the same fol. 90", line 7, it is written τοῦ ἀγ᾽ βασι for τοῦ ἁγίου βασιλ(είου). Anyway, the scribe of Ambros. M 87 sup. is the same man as Atγούστιος of the Laur. Conv. Soppr. 152. He may have used for his name, 25 years later, the form Αὔγουστος. 18 For an early modern reference to this ms., cf. Nicolaus Schow, Charta papyracea graece scripta Musei Borgiani Velitris qua series incolarum Ptolemaidts Arsinoiticae in aggeribus ef fossis operantium exhibetur (Romae, 1788) p. 142 note 2: “‘cod. Chigianus,

summae in emendando Sophocle auctoritatis.”








(ὑπόκειται, and καὶ ἄλλως); 125" Electra; 160° arg. III, II, part of I, to Antig.; 160% Antigone; 191" arg. I to Oed. Col.; 191% Oedipus Coloneus; 230” arg. to Trachin. (from Apollodorus) ; 2317-238” Trachiniae (1-372). Ancient scholia (ending schol. Trach. 360 p. 301.16 Papag.); collated by De Marco, De scholits. Cf. Aristide Colonna, ‘De codice quodam Sophoclis antiquissimo,’’ Athenaeum N.S. 18 (1940) 270-280 (with a collation of R for the text of Antigone and Trachiniae). M = Modena, Biblioteca Estense, a.T.9.4. (once II.B.4; No. 41 in Puntoni). Paper, XV‘ cent., 223 x 160 mm., Iv + 199 foll., 21 lines to a page for the Sophocles scholia. — Ancient scholia on Sophocles (no poetic text). Fol. 1’ arg. to Azax; 2" ancient scholia on Aiax; 32” arg. II, oracle, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 33” ancient scholia on Oed. Tyr.; 56” prose argument to Philoct.; 57" ancient scholia on Philoctetes; 70° arguments to EI. (ὑπόκειται, and καὶ ἄλλως) ; 717 ancient scholia on Electra; 93" arg.

III, II, part of I, to Antig.; 94" ancient scholia on Antigone; 117" arg. I to Oed. Col.; 118: ancient scholia on Oedipus Coloneus ; 138” arg. to Trachin. (from Apollodorus) ; 140%-143" ancient scholia on Trachiniae (1112). After the final scholium on Trach. 112, there is the following note by the scribe of the codex (fol. 143%): ἐνταῦθα λείπουσ(ι) τὰ σχόλ(ια), ὅτι παλαιὸν καὶ σχεδὸν σεσηπωμένων (-ov p.c.) ἦν τὸ βιβλίον ἤγουν τὸ προτότυπον. (This explains also the incompleteness of the Trachiniae in the codex R, which descended from the same source.) The scholia of M are collated by De Marco, op. cit. As to the Thoman scholia contained in this same volume, see above, p. 68. Q = Paris, Supplément grec 109. Paper, XVI*> cent., 214 x 155 mm., 268 foll. — Fol.

2" arg. to Atax;

3% Aiax;

49: prose and

ments to Philoct.; Philoctetes; 95% arg. I to Oed. Coloneus. No scholia.

metrical argu-

Col.; 96%-155" Oedipus

Among the witnesses of the Roman class p, G is very important on account of its date A.D. 1282, which guarantees that its ancient text is not affected by the Palaeologean interpolations that began pullulating shortly afterwards. In view of the chronological character of LAG, we can establish the obvious and fundamental fact that their agreement certifies the ancient genuine character of their concurrent readings. R is very valuable as the most complete ms. of the class p. In scholia, M isa gemellus of R. Then, Q clearly reveals its close affinity with the class p. The proof of the relationship just indicated will be given below in due course. But, first of all, we have to mention a problem: was there ever an archetype of the Sophoclean manuscripts (i.e., of the veteres) in existence? This question should be answered, and the answer should be supported by proofs, since in the case of some classical texts it is a controversial issue.” With regard to Sophocles, the question can be solved 17 Cf. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione pp. 15 ff.



positively with the aid of the usual means: there are many common errors in the text of Sophocles which prove that there was from the ancient times down one copy of the seven plays with scholia which was transmitted into the Middle Ages and from which ultimately all the medieval mss. (i.e., the veteres of the genuine tradition) descended. There are plenty of examples of such common corruptions in the poetic text of the veteres. Whoever will have a look, e.g., at my list of Moschopulean readings, where so many erroneous ancient readings were quoted with essential manuscript coverage (cf. Recenston pp. 131 ff.; above, pp. 18 ff.), will find even there quite a number of common corruptions in the triad. It is only natural that metrical defects are per se the best examples of actual corruptions or significant errors. Below I quote, from the seven plays, some corruptions which are covered by the vetustiores LAGOR (or most of them). In the evidence given below I am disregarding L? because it represents a later alien element and has nothing to do with the original tradition evidenced by L!; mostly L? represents, in the triad, Moschopulean readings (cf. Recension pp. 140 ff.). Likewise, I disregard later corrections in other velustiores. As to X, I rely only on the collation of Scheltema (Mnemosyne ser. IV, 2 [1949] 132-137). In some cases listed below, the corresponding leaves of A are lost and missing in the present state of the palimpsest volume. In a few other cases, we should like to have an explicit statement on some readings in the preserved portions of A which are likely to be of interest (e.g., for Atax 1369, Electra 1193, 1362, Oed. Tyr. 874, Antig. 648, Philoct. 222). Of course, we have to take into account the difficult legibility of A which may have prevented the deciphering of the passages in question. At any rate, no conclusions ex silentio are allowed on readings not recorded explicitly. I should also remind the reader that the manuscript coverage in single plays changes because of the varying contents of the

manuscripts in question.

In connection with the corruptions listed, also

pertinent corrections are quoted, mainly Byzantine ones, most of which we have analyzed in previous discussions. Of course, in such a case I quote the name only of the earliest Byzantine originator of a given correction, without naming the later recensions which followed him. Here is a selection of a few common errors of the ancient tradition as evidenced by concurrent readings of the essential vetustiores : Aitax 58 At. 519 recension. Ai. 565 At. 579

ἐμπίπτων L!GQ, ἐμπίπτειν R: ἐμπιτνῶν Moschop. xéow L'AGOR: πᾶσ᾽ (= πᾶσι) Moschop., πᾶσ᾽ (= πᾶσα) Jena εἰνάλιος LAGOR: ἐνάλιος Moschop. δῶμ' ἀπάκτου LAGQR, Suda (sub A 2875) : δῶμα πάκτου Eustathi-

us pp. 742.43, 1532.59, 1937.62.



Ai. 994 ἁπασῶν L'!AGQR: πασῶν Moschop. Ai. 1230 ἐφρόνεις L'GOR, Suda (sub T 747): ἐκόμπεις Schol. Aristoph.

Acharn. 638 (p. 18.27 Dibner). Ai. 1369 γ᾽ om. L'GOR: γ᾽ habet Moschop. Ai. 1419 πρὶν δ' Wety AGOQR: πρὶν ἰδεῖν 5’ L, Moschop. This is a peculiar setup. It would mean that πρὶν δ᾽ ἰδεῖν was a general corruption

of the old tradition, and that the copyist of L corrected the metrical flaw by himself. The same correction was made by Moschopulus (cf. above, p. 20). Electra 61 μὲν ὡς οὐδὲν LAG'R, Suda (sub A 843 et T 557): μὲν οὐδὲν Moschop.

El. 422 τῷ L'G'R:

ὦ Moschop.

El. 433 ἐχθρᾶς γυναικὸς L'GR: ἐχθρᾶς ἀπὸ γυναικὸς Moschop.!® El. 809 φρενὸς οἴχῃ L'AGR: οἴχῃ φρενὸς Moschop. El, 1124 ἐπαιτεῖ LIGR: ἐπαιτεῖται Moschop. El. 1193 σ᾽ om. L!GR: σ᾽ habet Moschop. El. 1362 μάλιστα ἀνθρώπων L'GR: μάλιστά σ᾽ ἀνθρώπων Moschop.!® Oed. Tyr. 42 ἡμῖν εὑρεῖν L!AGR, ἡμῶν εὑρεῖν Sudae (sub II 2832) cod. V: εὑρεῖν ἡμὶν Moschop., (-ἶν) Sudae cod. 4.119 OT 77 ὅσα δηλοῖ LAGR: ὅσ᾽ ἂν δηλοῖ Moschop. OT 874 μάχαν ἃ L'G!, μάχην ἃ ΟΕ, μηχανᾷ Sudae (sub T 15) codd. AFV: μάτην ἃ ZLORG? (obviously μάταν was corrupted into μαχᾶν). OT 1157 τῇδ᾽ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ LGR: τῇδ᾽ ἡμέρᾳ Triclin. 108 August Nauck (Mélanges gréco-romains tirés du Bulletin de l'Académie Imp£riale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 11 [St.-P&tersbourg, 1866] p. 244) proposed a remedy of the corruption

through a transposition of words

(without any insertion): EJ. 433/434

instead of ἐχθρᾶς γυναικὸς ἱστάναι | xreplopar’ οὐδὰ veteres, Nauck proposed to read ἐχθρᾶς ἱστάναι xreplopara | γυναικὸς οὐδὲ.

1 The missing element in the old reading was supplemented by Moschopulus through the insertion of σ᾽. This pronoun is also implied in the Moschopulean scholium (p. 273.27 Dind.). Cf. above, p. 21. Of course, it may be debated whether the Moschopulean correction is the best one. 10 Suda’s ms. V (Leiden Voss F 2), written before 1205 a.p. (cf. Ada Adler, Suidae Lexicon pars V pp. 230, 234), naturally follows the “old” corruption in the sequence of words. Then, εὑρεῖν ἡμὶν is Moschopulus’ correction, with which Suda’s ms. A (εὑρεῖν

ἡμῖν) agrees (I have checked this reading in a photostat of Suda’s A, Paris 2626, fol. 1665). Suda’s A in the pertinent part is Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2626, in its pars vetusta symbolized A® by J. Bidez, "1.8 tradition manuscrite du Lexique de Suidas,”’ Sitsungs-











(1912) p. 851, and by Adler, Suidae Lexicon V p. 221. The presence of the

above Moschopulean reading in A! indicates that A? is chronologically post-Moschopulean.

This is of some


the end of the XIII" century.

for the dating of A®: it cannot be earlier than

This is rather an interesting element in view of the fact

that A® was generally dated as of the XII" or XIII" century (cf. Bidez, op. ci. p. 852; Adler V p. 221). A systematic study of Palaeologean interpolations in the Sophocles

quotations in some mss. of Suda may contribute, in cases of doubtful chronologies of such mss., some chronological clues to the dating of Suda’s mss. affected by such interpolations.



Antig. 648 γ᾽ om. LR: y’ habet Thomas. Ant. 1114 τὸν βίον σῴζοντα LAR: σῴζοντα τὸν βίον Thomas. Ant. 1167 versum omittunt omnes codices: habent Athenaeus 7.12 p. 280b (et Epitome II 1 p. 121 Peppink), 12.68 p. 547c (et Epitome II 2 p. 96 Peppink); Eustathius p. 957.19; versum respicere videntur scholia vetera. Cf. Michael Psellus, ἐπ Scheraenam 242 (I Ὁ. 198 Kurtz-

Drexel) — probably from Athenaeus. Oed. Col. 320 (in initio) σημαίνει LAQR: σαίνει Thomas. Oed. Col. 1148 ἀγὼν οὗτος LOR: ἁγὼν (οὗτος om.) Heath-Reisig: (ἀγὼν om.) οὗτος Bothe. Trachin. 336 τ' om. LR: 7’ habet Triclin.: γ᾽ habent AUY. Trach. 783 ἄνευ φωνῆς ἐν L, ἀνευφώνησεν AUY: ἀανευφημησεν Oxyrh. Pap. 1805, ἀνευφημήσει Hesychius s.v.!12 Philoct. 135 δέσποτά μ᾽ L, A (teste Vürtheim), GOR: με δέσποτ᾽ Triclin. Phil. 150 ἄναξ τὸ σὸν LGR, τὸ σὸν ἄναξ Q: ἄναξ (τὸ σὸν om.) Triclin. Phil. 222 πάτρας ἂν ὑμᾶς ἢ γένους LGQR: πάτρας ἂν ἢ γένους ὑμᾶς Triclin. : πάτρας ὑμᾶς ἂν ἢ γένους AUY. These common errors point to the existence of an archetype of the genuine old tradition — we shall mark it w. This archetype should be assigned to the IX/X century. It was written most probably in minuscule script, since there is, on the whole, a great uniformity of the text which descended from it subsequently. This could result only from a text definitively converted into minuscule script. From that archetype w two classes descended: the Laurentian class ἃ ( = LA), and the Roman class p (= GQMR). The split into the two classes occurred at any rate before 1000 a.p., i.e., before the time of Suda which used the tradition p, and before the time of the Laurentian ms. L. The existence of those two classes is proved by their significant errors, then by some divergent readings which they adopted, and also by some difference in scholia between the class ἃ and the class p. As for the class X, the collation of A published recently gives us a clear

idea of the close agreement of A with L.

We are in a position to point

out some significant errors of LA, being errors of this Laurentian class (not of the whole ancient tradition). We can do it owing to the fact that our knowledge of the other class p reveals by contrast textual situations in which p is correct and a different reading of X is an error. To be sure, an agreement LA may in some cases cover not the reading of 11 On Eustathius and Athenaeus, and Eustathius as the possible author of the Athenaeus Epitome, cf. Paul Maas, Gnomon 4 (1928) 571; Maas, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 35

(1935) 305. — On Eustathius and Sophocles in general, cf. Harold W. Miller, «Ὃ φιλομηρος ZoboxAns and Eustathius,» Classical Philology 41 (1946) 99-102. nCf. Mauricius Schmidt, Didymi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta (Lipsiae, 1854) p. 96.








X, but that of Aa (cf. above, p. 103; below, p. 109), especially if an agreement LA is followed by Zc (cf. above, p. 47) or by some closely related mss. (cf. below, pp. 158, 159, on parts of P and Pa that show a Aa-like character). Yet, on the whole, it should be presumed that LA or even L alone (if we lack information on A) represent the reading of X. To prove the existence of the class λ, I quote, in the list below, some significant errors of LA (= A) — or of L alone if A is lost or illegible or not reported —, as opposed to genuinely correct readings carried by GOR (= p) or by those of them which cover the play in question. Here is a list of some errors of X: Atax 241 ἱπποδέτην GQR: ἱππολέτην L'L'’™Z", This error had its origin in the uncial script. Perhaps irxoXérns was marked in w as an alternate variant (in a note or scholium written in small uncial letters). Then, it was chosen by X, but disregarded by p. Ai. 538 αὐτὸν GQR: om. LA. At. 546 τοῦτόν ye GQR: τοῦ τόνδε L. Ai. 696 χιονοκτύπον GOR: χιονοτύπτου L (probably the reading of X was χιονοτὑπου). Ai. 1360 δῆτα GQR: δὴ LIA. Electra 182 ἀγαμεμνονίδας GR, -ns Suda (sub A 3046): ἀγαμεμνίδας LA. El. 192 ἐφίσταμαι GR: ἀφίσταμαι L!A. (Cf. below, p. 142 note 156). El. 226 ἂν GR: om. LA, Suda (sub Καὶ 1186), etiam Zc. El. 295 αἰτία GR: αἰτίαι LA. El. 584-586 habent GRLr: om. L**A. ΕἸ. 1168 μετεῖχον GR: κατεῖχον LA. Oed. Tyr. 72 τήνδ᾽ ἐρυσαίμην G τήνδε ῥυσαίμην R: τήνδ᾽ ἐρυσάμην LIA (etiam Pa!). OT 139 ἐκεῖνον GR (etiam scholiis suffragantibus p. 170.24 Papag. ὁ γὰρ ἐκείνῳ ἐπιχειρήσας ZUR): ἐκεῖνος L!, Suda (sub A 3678). OT 349 εἶναι GR: om. L!A (etiam Zc).

OT 397 εἰδὼς GR: οὐδεὶς 1.1, Suda (sub T 828 codd. AV: om.SudaeGM). OT 800 versum habent GR: versum om. L!A. OT 1024 αὐτὸν ἐξέπεισ᾽ LGR: ἐξέπεισ᾽ αὐτὸν L*? (etiam Zc). OT 1151 εἰδὼς οὐδὲν GR: οὐδὲν εἰδὼς L'A. OT 1480 tr’ GR: om. L!A (etiam Zc). Antig. 656 πάσης R: πάσας LA (etiam Zc’). Ant. 757 κλύειν R: λέγειν LA. Ant. 920 θανόντων R: θανάτων L (etiam Zc). Ant. 998 σημεῖα τῆς ἐμῆς R: τῆς ἐμῆς σημεῖα L (etiam Zc). Oed. Col. 278 μωροὺς Q μώρους R :"8 μοίραις L. 113 μώρους was conjectured by Fredericus H. M.

Blaydes, Sophoclis Oedipus


(Halis Saxonum, 1904) p. 21, before this reading became known from the above ms.



OC 426 ἂν GR: om. LA. OC 861 ὡς e Triclinii interpolatione Pearson] καὶ QR: om. L. OC 945 κἄναγνον OR: κἄνανδρον LA. OC 1415 φιλτάτη σὺ ποῖον QR: φιλτάτη ποῖον LA. OC 1474 τοῦτο OR, Suda (sub T 854): om. L. OC 1640 φρενὶ OR: φέρειν LA. Trachin. 7 valovo’ ἐνὶ R: valovo’ ἐν L. Philoct. 288 ἐξεύρισκε GQR: εὕρισκε L. Phil. 414 ἀλλ’ GOR: om. L. The above examples show how in some cases the class X was affected by blunders or blemishes while the other class p preserved the sound text. Of course, our evidence from A is not complete, and at times we may deal with individual errors of L that perhaps did not appear in A. Such cases would concern only L (not the class ἃ or the immediate source of the two mss. which we mark λα). But there are many cases of a joint testimony LA which we can assume to represent the reading of the class λ — though some of them may pertain to the subgroup Aa. As I said, L and A have so many common errors and they look so alike (to judge from the samples which I have at hand) that we should consider them to be gemelli, descending from their immediate source Aa.

For errors that might be conceivably assigned to Aa, cf. above: A. 538, EJ. 182, 295, 584-586, 1168, OT 800. The two mss. L and A certainly are not transcribed one from the other, for they show independent errors which are not shared by the other ms.: e.g., At. 706 ἔλυσεν γὰρ A, ἔλυσε yap GQR: ἕλυσεν (γὰρ om.) L;™ Αἱ. 459 ἔχθει LGOQR: ἔχει A. Now let us turn our attention to the class p. Its existence has been stated, on the basis of the scholia, by De Marco" who brought to light the agreement of GMR in scholia. Then, I have discovered that the ms. Q shows a poetic text of the same class as GR and should be, therefore, added to the group GMR. Q has no scholia, but agrees with GR in the poetic text. M has only scholia and no poetic text, but the scholia

GMR are in agreement. these four mss. GQMR

Consequently, we are in a position to consider linked together by common origin.

The archetype

of this class is marked p. Before I quote significant errors of p — and only this (apart from the resemblance in scholia) methodically will prove that there was such a

separate class — I wish to remind the reader that the mss. of this class 14 The correct text of this passage seems to be: λῦσεν γὰρ. Cf. below, p. 167. us Cf. Vittorio De Marco, “Sulla tradizione manoscritta degli scolii sofoclei,” Studs Italiani di filologia




13 (1936)

3-44, especially pp. 5 ff.; De





agree with Suda in some peculiarities of text passages as well as of scholia as quoted by Suda.!!? This proves that the split of the tradition transmitted through one medieval archetype w of the IX/X* cent. into two classes A and p occurred subsequently some time before the time of Suda, i.e., before ca. 1000 a.p. For quite obviously Suda drew its Sophoclean quotations, in text and scholia, already from a source of the class p. Then, the scholia of p were affected, probably around the middle of the XII® century, by some insertions from Tzetzes, probably Ioannes Tzetzes.!!? For we find in the scholia of GMR references to Tzetzes and even verses of Tzetzes. The inference is that the immediate source of GMR, or possibly of GQMR, was established in the XII! century or some time later.18 There is something extremely peculiar about the geographic diffusion of those mss. of the class p: I should venture the assertion that not only G but also QMR were written in Lower Italy and that this group, therefore, represents a Western tradition of Sophocles so far as these four mss. are concerned. The ms. G was subscribed by a priest Augustius on July 15, 1282, according to the subscription in G fol. 181: (see above, p. 103). The same hand of the writer of the codex, i.e., of Augustius, wrote, directly below the subscription, the following obituary (G fol. 1817): { ἐκοιμήθ(η) ὁ δοῦλ(ος)

ἱερεὺς ἰωάννης τοῦ



ἐν μηνὶ dxr(wB)p(ly)

els τ' ἃ ἡμέρ'

κυρι(α)κ(ῇ) Er(ovs) .sq0 ἱνδ(ικτιῶνοτ) 5: This obituary records the death of a priest Ioannes of (the monastery) of Crapill() on October 1, 1290. The same obituary note is repeated below on the same page by another hand. It is clear that Augustius had the codex G in his possession or in his charge eight years later; he was active as copyist even much later, in 1307 (see above, p. 103 note 105). us Cf. Dindorf, Scholia p. v; De Marco, Studs Italiani N.S. 13 (1936) p. 15 note 2; Turyn, Recension p. 127. Cf. Paulus Jahn, Quaestionum de scholits Laurentiants tn Sophoclem prima pars qua agitur de ratione quae inter Sutdam et librum Laurentianum intercedit (Diss. Berolini, 1884), especially pp. 24 f.; Guilelmus Kausch, De Sophoclis

fabularum apud Sutdam reliquiis (Diss. Halis Saxonum, 1883). ur Cf, Recension p. 102. On Tzetzes’ references, in some of his writings, to the ancient scholia on Sophocles,

cf. Schneidewin,


Jahrbücher für classische

Philologie und

Paedagogik 67 (1853) 509 f. For new publications on Tzetzes, in addition to those quoted in Recension Ὁ. 102 note 33, cf. Olivier Masson, ‘Nouveaux fragments d’Hipponax,” La Parola del Passato 5 (1950) 69-76. 18 A, Colonna, Athenaeum NS. 18 (1940) 273, believes that the source of MR

written in the X/XI* cent.


This assumption he based on palaeographic grounds in view

of the kind of errors which often appear in R. To me it seems that the immediate source of MR can be safely assigned to the XII* century. The confusion of r and ἃ and that

of x and r which are especially frequent in M point to some characteristic letter shapes used in the XII** and XIII* centuries. Anyway, the presence of Tzetzes elements in the common source of GMR, which was prior to the immediate source of MR, makes

Colonna’s assertion untenable.



The remaining contents of this manuscript volume (Conv. Soppr. 152) are quite interesting: namely, copies of Greek letters of the German emperor Frederic II from the year 1250. They have been the subject of special and thorough studies.!!? The presence of such an item in the ms. G would per se point to the South Italian provenience of the ms. Then, the name Αὐγούστιος seems to indicate in this case a Greek monk, a native of Lower Italy, who joined an order of Latin rite. The location of that monastery which is mentioned in the obituary quoted above — probably Augustius referred to a friar of his own congregation — remains to be identified and is a highly interesting problem. The wording ᾿Ιωάννης τοῦ ἀπὸ( = Ital. da) Kparı$\\() also points to a usage which predominates in Italian Greek.” The name of the deceased is given in the nominative. The article τοῦ which follows may mean “monk (or some official) of the monastery, etc.,’’ but τοῦ is peculiar, for normally we find the expression τῆς μονῆς Or μονῆς, and not τοῦ povacrnplov. I rather suspect that τοῦ is meant with the name of a saint, patron of that monastery.



of Kparı\\()

was simply





known in that region. The Italian name was probably something like Crapigha or Crapile, and we should also take into account the possibility

of that peculiar metathesis which was frequent in Lower Italy.™


us Cf. A. Rostagno e N. Festa, “Indice dei codici greci Laurenziani non compresi nel catalogo




Italiani di filologia classica





Wolff, Vier griechische Briefe Kaiser Friedrichs des Zweiten. Zum ersten Male herausgegeben von —. (Berlin, 1855); Tommaso Semmola, ‘“‘Commentario istorico-criticofilologico sopra quattro lettere greche dell’Imperatore Federico II,” Atts della Reale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arts IV (Napoli, 1868) pp. 101-181; N. Festa, "Le lettere greche di Federigo II,” Archivio Storico Italiano, 55 serie, 13 (1894) 1-34,

especially pp. 12 f.; cf. Ernst Kantorowicz, Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite. band (Berlin, 1931) p. 249.


1” Cf. ms. Grottaferrata A.a.IV, fol. 243” μακαρίου ἀναξίου μοναχ(οῦ) ἀπὸ πόλεως ῥηγιου τῆς cadafplas (= da Reggio di Calabria) in a subscription of 1265 a.p., published by

Pierre Batiffol, L’abbaye de Rossano. Contribution ἃ l'histoire de la Vaticane (Paris, 1891) p. 159; ms. Vatic. Barberin. gr. 354 fol. 119: (Batiffol, op. οἶδ. p. 165; VogelGardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber Ὁ. 356) διὰ χειρὸς νικολάον ἰω(άννου) σικιναξάρι ἀπὸ χώρας ἁγίου πέτρου τῶν γαλατινῶν (= da San Pietro in Galatina). For mss. of South Italian provenience, cf. Batiffol, op. cit. pp. 151 ff.; Alberto Vaccari, “La Grecfa nell’ Italia meridionale,’' Orientalia Christiana III (1925) 307 ff.; Giovanni Mercati, Per la Storia dei manoscritti greci di Genova, di varie badie basiliane d'Italia e di Patmo (Studi e Tests, 68. Citta del Vaticano, 1935); Gerard Garitte, ‘‘Deux manuscrits italo-grecs,”’ Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati III (Studi e Tests, 123. Citta del Vaticano, 1946) pp. 16-40; C. Wendel, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 43 (1950) 263-266. 11 On metathesis of p in the Greek of South Italy, cf. G. Morosi, “Dialetti romaici del mandamento di Bova in Calabria,” Archivio Glottologico Italiano 4 (1878) 35; Gerhard Rohlfs, Historische Grammatik der unteritalienischen Gräzität (Sitzungsberichte

der Bayerischen Akademie Heft 4. München,

der Wissenschaften.

1950) p. 82.





In the Greek letters of Frederic II, in the Laur. Conv.

Soppr. 152, we find (Letlere greche di Federigo II ep. Γ΄ line 55 p. 24 Festa) σξερδικατοῦροι (= praedicatores). — On

the Greek of South Italy in general, cf. Gerhard Rohlfs, Scavi

linguistici nella Magna Grecia (Roma,

1933); Rohlfs, Historische Grammatik pp. 13 ff.








cordingly, we have also to consider Capriglia or Caprile, and names of this kind are frequent in the region of Sorrento and Salerno.” While checking some lists of monasteries, I have also come across a place Crapolla, situated near Sorrento, with a Benedictine monastery of San Pietro a Capella.!# Places with the name Caprile seem to be frequent in many parts of Italy, but especially in Southern Italy. There is an additional difficulty resulting from the fact that the scribe of G did not spell out the name of the place in question. He acted so quite often in the letters of Frederic II by practicing suspension in geographic names (cf. Festa, op. cat. pp. 30 ff. in the apparatus). Thus we do not know whether the nominative was Crapilla (or Caprilla) in Latin and Crapiglia (or Caprigla) in Italian, or Crapile (or Caprile).™ It seems of interest to note that the very same Augustius wrote, in 1307, the Ambrosian ms. M 87 sup., which was acquired in 1606 in San Pietro in Galatina.!# In that place, there was a Benedictine (Oli18 A church S. Maria de

Crapilla in the diocese of Salerno is listed

Rotiones decimarum Italiae nei secoli





XIV. Campania. a cura di Mauro Inguanez,

Leone Mattei-Cerasoli, Pietro Sella (Studi e Tests, 97. Citta del Vaticano, 1942) p. 447 no. 6426. This place is listed as Capriglia (4 miles from Salerno) in Lorenzo Giusti-

niani, Digtonarto geografico-ragionato

del Regno di Napoli III (Napoli, 1797) p. 133;

also cf. Disionario corografico-universale dell’Italia IV, 1 (Milano,

1852) p. 199.


is Caprilia in the diocese of Avellino, listed in Rattones decimarum, Campania, Ὁ. 341 no. 5209 ff. (a.p. 1308-1310), and p. 344 no. 5251 (a.p. 1328). This is Copriglia or Crapigha

(1644 miles from the sea), in Giustiniani

III p. 134; Distonario


universale IV 1 p. 199. --- Cf. Amato Amati, Distonarto corografico dell’Italia II (Milano, n.d.) 383. 13 This was Crapolla (in the diocese of Sorrento), with Benedictine Crapolani of San Pietro de Capriola or a Capella: cf. Ferdinandus Ughelli, Italia VI® (Venetiis, 1720) col. 595c; Augustinus Lubin, Abbatiarum Italiae brevis (Romae, 1693) pp. 79, 111; Hermannus Hoberg, Taxae pro communibus seroitits

e Tests, 144. graphique

friars Sacra notitia (Studi

Cittä del Vaticano, 1949) p. 294; L. H. Cottineau, Répertoire topo-biblio-

des abbayes

et prieurés

I (Macon,


cols. 598, 910. — Karl


Southern Italy and Sicily* (Leipzig, 1912) p. 179, mentions ruins of the monastery of San Pietro at Crapolla (less than 1M It is interesting to note the example, there is a place called gia, diocese Manfredonia, east of

Italia IV 1 p. 207). e XIV.

3 miles south of Sorrento, on the Gulf of Salerno). frequent metathesis in the element in question. For in modern times Carpino or Crapino (province FogLago Varano: cf. Disionario corografico-universale dell’

The name appears in Retiones decimarum Italiae nei secoli XIII


a cura








Citta del Vaticano, 1939) p. 6 no. 33: Clerics casalis Caprili; p. 7 no. 63 Clerict Crapili, no.

64 de casali

Caprili, no. 65 casalis

presbiter et clerici de Crapıli (A.D. 1325).




p. 9 no.

122 Archi-

This is a region full of memories of Frederic II

and his son Manfred, but the Greek element was not strong in that part of the country, as it was farther south, so I do not think that this place deserves consideration. The difficulty of making an identification arises from the fact that we have scanty material published from the archives of Basilian monasteries. Until by some lucky chance we get new information on some names of Basilian or Latin monasteries which would fit

our data, we cannot make, for the time being, any definite identification of the place where the ms. Laur. Conv. Soppr. 152 was written. 1% Cf. above, p. 103 note 105. Cf. Martini-Bassi, Catalogus codicum graec. Bibl. Ambros. II p. 645.

II p. 1281.

On other Ambrosian

mss. bought in San Pietro in Galatina, cf. Martini-Bassi


vetan) monastery of Saint Catherine.“


Our ms. G (Laur. Conv. Soppr.

152) was, before coming to the Laurentian Library, in the Benedictine Badia in Florence.” All this seems to point to a Benedictine provenience

of our manuscript G (not a Basilian one).

Also the name of the priest

Augustius or Augustus — quite unusual in the Eastern congregations — points rather to a congregation of the Latin rite. Augustius was probably a Greek from Lower Italy who was ordained in the Latin rite.! We have an additional strong proof that G originated in Lower Italy — namely, its script. It agrees in some special features, like zoomorphic ornaments and initials,"° and the characteristic shapes of ζ, 0, ξ, φ, ψ, with the South Italian script." The ms. is also a palimpsest, a rela18 Cf. Cottineau, Répertoire I col. 1241. On Greek culture in San Pietro in Galatina, cf. Batiffol, L’abbaye de Rossano pp. xxvitt, 95, 97; cf. Wendel, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 43 (1950) 263-266. 17 Cf. Rostagno-Festa, Studi Italians 1 (1893) 161. 18% Festa, Archivio Storico Italiano V* serie, 13 (1894) 12 f., asserted that the scribe of the Conv. Soppr. 152 must have been a Basilian (not a Latin) monk if he transcribed letters of Frederic II that contained statements against Rome. — On Basilians in Lower

Italy, cf. Ch. Diehl, ‘Le monastére de S. Nicolas di Casole prés d’Otrante d’aprés un manuscrit inédit,” Mélanges d’arch£ologie et d’histoire 6 (1886) 173-188; Francesco Lo Parco, *'Scolario-Saba bibliofilo italiota, vissuto tra I"XI e il XII secolo e La Biblioteca del Monastero basiliano del SS. Salvatore di Bordonaro, presso Messina,” Societa

Reale di Napoli.

Atti della Reale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti N.S.

vol. I (Napoli, 1910) parte 2, pp. 207-286; C. Korolevskij, ‘‘Basiliens italo-grecs et espagnols,” Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie eccléstastiques VI (Paris, 1932) 11801236; Giovanni Mercati, Per la storia dei manoscritti greci di Genova, di varie badie basiliane d’Italia e di Patmo; Mario Scaduto, 11 monachismo bastliano nella Sicilia medievale (Roma, 1947). Also cf. Rohlfs, Scavi linguistic: nella Magna Grecia 1 ff., 113 ff.;

Lynn Townsend White, Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (The Medieval Academy of America. Publication No. 31 [Monograph No. 13]. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1938). On Greek elements in the South Italian culture of the XII** and XIII cen-

turies, cf. Charles Homer Haskins, Studies in the History of Medieval Science’ (Cambridge, [Massachusetts,] 1927) pp. 141-193, 242-271. 1% Pietro Pompilio Rodota, Dell’origine, progresso,

Italia 1 (Roma,

e stato presente

del rito greco in

1758) pp. 390 ff., discussed joint activities of Greek

Latin Benedictines in Nardd.

Basilians and

Rodota II (1760) p. 233 pointed out that (to judge from

some documents of the XIII century) Basilians were sometimes ordained in the Latin rite. w Cf. Myrtilla Avery, ‘Miniatures of the Fables of Bidpai and of the Life of Aesop in the Pierpont Morgan Library,” The Art Bulletin 23 (1941) 101-116. I am indebted to Professor Ben E. Perry for calling my attention to this paper. 11 [t is pertinent to recall that the question of the South Italian provincial script was first raised by V. Gardthausen, ‘‘Beitrage zur griechischen Palaeographie,” Berichte über die Verhandlungen

der Königlich






Leipzig. Philol.-hist. Cl. 32 (1880) 73-80; cf. V. Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie! II (Leipzig, 1913) 253-257. The fundamental treatment of the problem was given by Batiffol, L’abbaye de Rossano, especially pp. 89 ff.

Of course, Gardthausen

was right

in cautioning in this connection against hasty judgment about the geographic origin of a manuscript on the basis of its script only. An essential correction of Batiffol’s views was offered by Werner Jaeger, ‘‘Greek Uncial Fragments in the Library of Con-

gress in Washington,” Traditio 5 (1947) 96 ff. I should say that some script features, generally assumed to be a characteristic of South Italian script, appeared as elements of conservative calligraphy in many centers of Greek culture in the earlier Middle



tively frequent occurrence among mss. of South Italian provenience.™ What is even more amazing is the fact that the manuscripts R and M, to judge from their scripts, also look like South Italian products. And the same goes for Q, which has, moreover, Greco-Latin prayers at the end of the volume (by a different hand).“* This would indicate that the ms. Q was kept in a religious institution in Lower Italy. In view of all these elements regarding GQMR, it seems that the diffusion of the tradition p was going on in Italy after a ms. of that class, containing the seven tragedies of Sophocles with scholia, was brought to Italy not earlier than the XII‘ century (considering the Tzetzes references in the scholia of GMR), possibly in the XIII! century (yet some time ahead of A.D. 1282), when interest in classical Greek poetry became much stronger in Byzantium and caused there more copying of such manuscripts. We have to assume that still in the XV“ and in the XVI* centuries there were — in Italy, I believe — Sophocles mss. of the class p in existence — e.g., the source of MR, that χαλαιὸν καὶ σχεδὸν σεσηπωμένον πρωτότυπον

(see above, p. 104), and the source of Q — which later disappeared and Ages and, then, e.g., in Crete in the XV“ cent. Ioannes Rhosus (Omont,

Cf. the script of two natives of Crete:

Fac-stmilés de manuscrits grecs des XV" et X VI* sidcles pl. 30;

cf. Carlo Gallavotti, Rivista di filologia e d'istruzione classica N.S. 18 [1941] p. 242 note 3), and Georgius Gregoropulus

II (Omont,

Die griechischen Schreiber p. 72).

Fac-similés pl. 21; cf. Vogel-Gardthausen,

But, on the whole, for the later Middle Ages beginning

with the XII® century, the notorious characteristic appearance of that specific script is a clue to a very probable South Italian provenience of a manuscript. Cf. Pasquali, Storia della tradistone p. 161 note 5. For specimens of South Italian mss., cf. Pius Franchi de’ Cavalieri et Iohannes Lietzmann, Specimina codicum graecorum Vaticanorum* (Berolini-Lipsiae, 1929) pl. 38 (cod. Vatic. Barberin. gr. 541 = olim V 37); part of the

same page is reproduced in Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie! II p. 253. It is an especially characteristic specimen of 1291/2 a.p. from Lower Italy and it calls for comparison with the Sophoclean ms. G (Laur. Conv. Soppr. 152). The Barberini ms.,

a Greek-Latin evangeliarium, was written by a Benedictine abbot Romanus Benedetto


in Calabria






of San


page xvı; Batiffol, L’abbaye de Rossano pp. 102, 163; Gardthausen, op. cit. II p. 256; Giovanni Mercati, “‘Intorno ad una sottoscrizione di Romano abbate di S. Benedetto in Calabria,” Bessarione 30 (1914) 349-356 = Mercati, Opere minors vol. III (Studs e Testi, 78. Citta del Vaticano, 1937) p. 321-325; Giov. Mercati, Per la storia det manoscritti greci p. 335. The same Romanus wrote, in 1291, a Greek-Latin Psalter, cod. Vatic. gr. 1070 (cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber p. 394; Alfred Rahlfs, “Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments,” Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philol.-hist. Kl. 1914, Beiheft, p. 257; Mercati, Bessarione 30 [1914] 351 f. = Opere minori III pp. 323 f. ; Mercati, Perla storia dei manoscritti greci Ὁ. 335; Vaccari, Ortentalia Christiana III [1925] 318). For the abbey San Benedetto Ullano, now cf. Rationes dectmarum Italiae. A pulia-Lucania- Calabria

(Studi e Testi, 84) p. 336 no. 5118 (a.p. 1324).

For the location of San Benedetto

Ullano, cf.: Giustiniani, Dizionario geografico-ragionato del Regno di Napoli VIII (1804) 131; Antonio Raimondo Rossi, Indice alfabetico generale delle frazioni, casali e colmelli

che compongono il Regno d'Italia (San Vito al Tagliamento, 1878) p. 902. m Cf. Batiffol, L’abbaye de Rossano p. 96. 1 Cf. Pierre Boudreaux, Oppien d’Apamée.

de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes. pp. 19 f.

La Chasse, Edition critique.


Sciences historiques et philologiques, 172.

Paris, 1908)



are not known now to be extant. On the whole, in the case of the class p, we are confronted with a most noteworthy phenomenon: a valuable genuine (pre-Palaeologean) special branch of the manuscript tradition of a classical poet by some chance has been disseminated for a few centuries exclusively in the West, so far as we can judge on the basis of manuscripts preserved.!# I am going to illustrate the class p and its features with the aid of its significant errors in the poetic text, as opposed to the correct readings of the class X. Characteristic material from the scholia of the class p was quoted by De Marco (Studi Italiani N.S. 13 [1936] 3 ff., 21), who also set forth a stemma of the Sophocles tradition with a special consideration of the witnesses of the class p. We shall try to modify it in some respects,

or rather to elaborate it more precisely.

As to the existence of the

separate class p, though it is not doubted any more, I wish to quote a few of its significant errors which confirm eloquently the separate formation of that class. The agreement of some of its poetic readings with Suda! parallels the agreement of Suda’s quotations from Sophoclean scholia with the wording of those scholia in the class p. Of course, we have to realize that some errors of GQMR go back to the pre-Suda stage of the primary archetype of p, while some blunders of the same group of mss. may have originated at a later stage (see below, p. 117). Since I deal here with the poetic text, evidence from M is quoted only occasionally if we need additional evidence from the lemmata of M or from its paraphrase. For all practical purposes, the agreement GQR represents the p reading, especially if it agrees with Suda. Without the latter’s concurrent testimony, we should, strictly speaking, assume the errors in question to have anyway characterized the source pb (see the stemma below, p. 119). In Electra and Oed. Tyr., we should keep in mind that in view of the p coverage of these plays by GR only (without Q), the agreement of GR in these two plays (without Suda) at times may cover technically a lower echelon of the p tradition, viz., the source pc. And in Antigone and Trachiniae (1-372), the p coverage by R alone makes our judgment in this regard even more qualified. Here follows a list of selected significant errors of GQ(M)R against the correct readings of L or LA — such errors represent the class ρ.13 iM In this connection, we ought perhaps to mention an analogous phenomenon in another field — the South Italian dissemination of a peculiar tradition in church literature, the so-called Ferrar group in the manuscript tradition of the Gospels: cf. Alberto Vaccari,


(The Ferrar Group).


111 (1925)

284 ff.; Kirsopp and Silva Lake,

The Text According to Mark

Gospels (Studies and Documents, XI.

Family 13

With a Collation of Codex 28 of the

London, [1941]) pp. 54 ff.

48 Cf. Turyn, Recension p. 127 note 71; cf. below, pp. 116 f. 4 ] should like to have quoted in the above list, in addition to L, also the explicit positive evidence of A wherever it is preserved, but in most cases this cannot be drawn

from the published collation of A and could be gleaned only from a new examination of the palimpsest, made on a broader scale. Cf. Recension p. 127 note 70.




Aitax 83 μὴ LEO™: καὶ GOR. Ai. 127 ὑπέρκοπον L: ὑπέρκομπον GOR, Suda sub Ex 46 (praeter Sudae cod. F). The corruption in p resulted from a gloss of the ancient tradition (ἀντὶ ὑπέρκομπκα Le).

Ai. 176 νίκας LGr’Qr: δίκας GOR. Ai. 257 &rep oreporäs L, Sudae (sub Σ 1059) codd. GM: ἀστεροπᾶς GOR, Sudae codd. AF, στεροπᾶς Sudae cod. V.

(ἄτερ om.)

Ai. 413 καὶ L: om. GQR, Suda sub N 172 (praeter Sudae cod. G). Αἱ. 421 ἄνδρα μὴ L, Suda (sub Οἱ 146): ἄνδρα με GOR. Ai. 1022 καῦρα L: παῦροι GOR, Suda (sub I 1933). At. 1269 ἴσχει L: ἔχει GQR. Electra 121 ἰὼ παῖ rat L: ἰὼ rat (altero παῖ omisso) GR, Suda (sub A 1696). El. 170 ἔρχεται L: ἔρχετ’ GR. El. 306 διέφθορεν L: διέφθειρεν GR, διέφθειρα Suda sub M 538 (praeter διέφθορε Sudae cod. E). El. 417 αὑτὴν ἐστιν L: ἐστὶν αὐτὴν GR. El. 473 ἔφυν L: ἐξέφυν GR. El. 595 οὐ γὰρ οὐδὲ L: οὐδὲ γὰρ GR. El. 830 ἀύσεις L!A (-ns L?): εἴπῃς GR. El. 847 prius ἔτ᾽ L: om. GR. El. 868 τοῦ L®, του LP: om. GR. El. 889 viv θεῶν L: θεῶν viv GR. El. 902 κεὐθὺς L: ὃ κεὐθὺς GR. El. 1002 ἄλυπος L: εὔλυτος GR. El. 1037 ἐπισπέσθαι L: ἕπεσθαι GR. El. 1038 γὰρ L: om. GR. El. 1100 ἐξερευνᾷς L: ἐπερευνᾷς GR.

El. 1169 [ἀ]] πολείπεσθαι L: ἐκλείπεσθαι GR. El. 1361 γὰρ εἰσορᾶν L: γάρ σ᾽ ὁρᾶν GR. Oed. Tyr. 65 ὕπνῳ γ᾽ L: ὕπνων (γ᾽ om.) GR. OT 253 θεοῦ τε τῆσδέ γε L'?, etiam PPaZc (re om.) τῆσδέ τε GR. OT 543 ἀντὶ L: κἀντὶ GR. OT 686 μένειν L: προμένειν GR. OT 1068 μήποτε L: μὴ (ποτε om.) GR.

(θεοῦ τε τῆσδέ τε L?): θεοῦ

On a special element of the Roman tradition p in the final portion of Oed. Tyr., cf. below, pp. 136 ff. Antig. 532 λήθουσά u’ L: λήθονσ' aw’ R (videlicet voce alu’ e scholiis invecta). Ant. 653 πτύσας L: ἀποπτύσας R.

Oed. Col. 16 δ' L: om. QR, Suda (sub I 600).



OC 246 τὸν ἄθλιον 1.0)»: om. QR. OC 269 οὔνεκ᾽ L: ov’ QR. OC 818 ἐγὼ L: om. QR. OC 1457 ἕντοπος L: ἔνστιμος OR. Trachin. 351 τἀνδρὸς L: ἀνδρὸς R. Philoct. 123 viv κεῖνον L: (νῦν om.) ἐκεῖνον GOR. Phil. 144 μὲν tows γὰρ L: μὲν γὰρ tows G, μὲν tows (γὰρ om.) QR.


viously the source of this group had μὲν tous, whence the transposition in G and the omission in QR.) Phil. 154 τίν᾽ L: dvrw’ GOR.

Phil. 413 y’ L: om. GQR. Phil. 1123/4 πολιᾶς πόντου L: πολιᾶς καὶ πόντου GOR.

Phil. 1218 ὁμοῦ L: ἐγγὺς GOR (haec est glossa Le!). As I said above, some mistakes of GOR post-Suda stage of the transmission within erroneous readings of GQR may conflict with then be correct and would coincide with these examples:

may have originated at a the class p. In such cases, Suda whose readings would correct readings of L. Cf.

Atax 259 ἔχει L, Suda (sub Σ 1059): ἴσχει GOR. At. 272 & L, Suda (sub E 1551): om. GOR. At. 274 κἀνέπνευσε L, Suda (sub E 1551): κατέπανσε G, κἀπέπαυσε QR. Ai. 314 πράγματος L, Suda (sub K 2783): πράγματι GOR. Ai. 352 dad L, Suda (sub A 1723): ἀπὸ GOR. At. 389 &\nua L, Suda (sub A 1190): ἄλημα στρατοῦ GOR (voce στρατοῦ errore e v. 381 repetita). Αἱ. 421 yu L, Suda (sub Oc 146): με GOR. Ai. 481 ὑπόβλητον L, Suda sub T 455 (cf. Eustathius p. 106.7): ἀπόβλητον GOR. Ai. 806 τἀνδρὸς L, Suda (sub A 249): ἀνδρὸς GOR. Electra 1288 περισσεύοντα L, Suda (sub II 1278): θεραπεύοντα GR. Oed. Col. 7 χρόνος ξυνὼν L, Suda (sub Π 21): ξυνὼν χρόνος OR. We should not discount the possibility that Suda may in some situations of this kind have simply followed the Laurentian tradition, for it seems that Suda occasionally excerpted also a Laurentian copy free from the blemishes of p: cf. Atax 842 φιλίστων L, Suda sub T 876 (the pertinent portion of the Sophoclean quotation was omitted in the excellent ms. V of Suda): φιλτάτων GQR, Suda sub A 4527. This shows clearly that Suda used two Sophocles copies, mostly a copy of the class p, but occasionally also a copy of the class \. (Sometimes, younger mss. of Suda interpolate poetic quotations by comparing them with vulgate texts of

the poetry in question. p. 106 note 110.)

This has also to be kept in mind; cf. above,








Quite naturally, the class p also in the scholia shows significant errors. It will suffice to indicate just a few of them: schol. vet. p. 1.7 Papageorg. τὰ L: μετὰ GMR; p. 1.12 ὄντος L: ὄναρ GMR;; p. 2.6 ἀττικῶς L: ἀτεχνῶς GMR;; p. 5.17 τρανῶσαι L: τραγῳδῆσαι GMR. We should endeavor to establish subgroups within the whole class which embraces GQMR. There is some difficulty in this respect. Since

Q does not have scholia and M does not have the poetic text, we cannot relate all these mss. directly to each other, but it will be possible to clarify their respective places within the class p by linking Ὁ to Gand R, and by relating M to Gand R. First, let us state that among the mss. exhibiting scholia, M and R assume a separate place as gemelli showing common significant errors that are not shared by G. Sufficient material to this effect was produced by De Marco.!® Let us content ourselves here with these two examples: schol. p. 2.3 Papageorg. σοῦ LG: om. MR; 5.10 ἐπιτεταραγμένη LG: ἐπιτεταραγμένος MR. Thus we conclude that M and R are gemelli, and this is borne out by a comparison of many

passages in the two mss.

Certainly M is not copied from R: cf. schol.

p. 1.6 τέθετο R, but κατέθετο M correctly with LG. Accordingly, we have to assume for MR a common source: pd. Now let us continue the

consideration of the relationships within p on the basis of the poetic text. Of course, Atax and Philoctetes will supply us with strongest evidence,

because these two plays happen to enjoy the simultaneous evidence of GOR. The following examples will reveal that GR are linked together more closely by some common errors from which the ms. Q

is free:

Atax 351 ἄρτι LQ, Suda (sub A 1723), ἀρτίως GT’: ἄρα GR. Ai. 831 τοσαῦτά σ᾽ ὦ LQ, Suda (sub Π 2895): τοσαῦτά σοι LY?: τοσαῦτ᾽ ὦ G, τοσαῦτα ὦ R. At. 1165 rw’ LQ: om. GR. Philoct. 98 ὁρῶ βροτοῖς L, Suda (sub Γ 295), -σι Q: βροτοῖς ὁρῶ GR. Phil. 118 τὸ δρᾶν LQ: τὸ μὴ δρᾶν GR. Phil. 326 ἀλκίμων LQ: γενναίων GR.

Phil. 380 καὶ LQ: om. GR. Phil. 534 els L, ἐς Q: om. GR.

Phil. 573 μοι LQ: om. GR. Phil. 575 ἔσθ' LQ: om. GR.

Phil. 952 ad LQ, Suda (sub A 4430 et sub Ψ 105): om. GR. It results from the above evidence that GR separate sources. Since R represents its immediate we have to assume a source from which G and pd pc. Then, the common source of pc and Q will be sents the copy which was supplied with Tzetzean ı# Cf, De Marco,

Studs Italiani N.S. 13 (1936) 6-10; De

and Q descend


source pd (see above), descended: we call it called pb: this repreadditions that appear Marco, De scholiis, passim.











in the scholia GMR and was brought to Italy some time between the middle of the XII! and the middle of the XIII" century. We have to visualize pb as a manuscript which was written around that period and simultaneously was supplemented with Tzetzean notes — or it may have been a manuscript written earlier, but at that time supplemented with Tzetzean additaments. This copy pb descended from pa, a higher source within the class p. The copy pa was pre-Tzetzean or just free from Tzetzean notes. In the poetic text, pa included already a complete text of Oed. Tyr. The gap in the final portion of Oed. Tyr. that seems to have affected the archetypal copy p (cf. below, p. 136) was already filled in pa. And this copy pa descended from the archetype of the class p (X* century), from which, on the other side, descended Suda. This analysis, along with the analysis of the inner relationships of the class X, settles the basic relationships within the ancient tradition of the Sophocles text. Afterwards, we shall relate to this basic situation some groups of the deteriores. Right now we present, on the basis of the preceding discussion, a stemma of the vetusttores: see the preceding page. Some inconsistencies within the family p should be explained by the fact that R and Q at times departed from the reading of their basic source simply by being influenced by other recensions, especially by Byzantine recensions. For R, this is a characteristic example: Aiax 501 ἴδετε L, Moschop., Thomas, Triclin., R: ἴδε GQ, Suda (sub Z 56 et sub I 42). The agreement of GQ and Suda shows that the blunder ἴδε was a common mistake of the class p which, therefore, should have appeared in R. Yet, R by comparing his text with some other source adopted the normal correct reading ἴδετε. Also, let us consider another case: Electra 335 κακοῖς μοι LG: κακοῖς (μοι om.) Suda (sub T 717): κακοῖσι (μοι om.) R. This means that the original p reading was not affected by the omission — this is evidenced by the agreement LG. But the ms. R on its own caught that omission from Suda (and made a slight change κακοῖσι for metrical purposes). In general, interpolations from Suda (not cases of original agreement of p and Suda, but secondary or accessory interpolations from Suda) were most popular in later Sophocles mss. from the XIV“ century on; they were practiced occasionally both in text and in scholia. As to inconsistencies of Q, cf.: Atax 169 ὑποδδείσαντες LIGR: ὑποδείσαντες Moschop., Thom., Triclin., Q; Philoct. 924 τὰ om. LGR: habent Thomas, Triclin., Q; Phil. 1117 ye LGR: om. Thomas, Triclin., Q. In cases like these, Q simply departs from the vetustiores and embraces a Byzantine reading. But, on the whole, I wish to stress that the Sophocles text of p went through centuries in this limited number of mss. (GQMR) without great

harm that could have been caused by the usual interpolation libido of



those later times (G, to be sure, was protected against that by virtue of its date). It was a blessing of a historical accident that a copy of the class p comprising the seven plays with scholia was brought to Italy some time between 1150-1250 a.p. In Italy, its progeny was produced far from the learned centers of intensive textual operations practiced

in Byzantium and thus was rather isolated from that spirit of interpolation which we deplore so often. This is the reason for the considerably pure state and the preservation of the intrinsic values of the Roman or Western tradition p. We shall see how recklessly interpolated and how inconsistent are some detertores which stemmed from the same class ρ, but originated, as it seems, in Greece after A.D. 1300: I mean mss. of the class ¥ (see below, p. 152). And likewise also younger witnesses, deteriores of the class ¢, basically affiliated with the class A (see below, p. 139), are individually interpolated on many occasions. The above evidence proves that while the text of the seven plays of Sophocles presents on the whole a uniformity that goes back to one minuscule archetype w, there were made, some time before ca. 1000 A.D., two subarchetypes ἃ and p. Their existence is amply demonstrated by significant errors of each of the two traditions. As to the scholia, it is clear from De Marco's investigations that the complete set of scholia of the primary archetype » was transmitted to ἃ and p with significant errors characteristic for each family and with omissions made by ἃ and p, respectively, so that the two traditions complement each other, especially in the case of scholia covered in one family but missing in the other one. We quoted above significant errors for ἃ and p. The examples chosen as '‘errors’’ were selected so as to eliminate a controversial element of subjectivity in the evaluation of what is correct and incorrect. Since the existence of those two classes ἃ and p is proved, we can expect to find a split between the two classes in some divergent readings with regard to which we cannot apply a definite judgment that one is true and the other one is mistaken or erroneous. Oftentimes that may have been the case. But very often the existence, in the two classes, of two different readings results from the fact that the primary archetype had, in addition to one reading exhibited in the text, another reading which was optional or elective and was written above the line or in the margin, with a prefix yp(4¢erac) or without, or was mentioned in the scholia. That was the well-known phenomenon of double readings, which are the origin of many textual divergencies in manuscripts or even are the reason

of a duplicated reading in the text."*

There is ample evidence that the

primary archetype abounded in double readings and ypd¢era:-variants, and L reflects that abundance of variants in a much higher degree than

any other Sophoclean manuscript. u8 Cf. Recension Ὁ. 129 note 74.

At the stage of transmission which



we observe in the witnesses of the class p, the decision as to the choice of alternate or optional readings was in most cases already made, probably much earlier. If that decision went in a different direction from that of λ, a divergence or a split was bound to occur between the two classes. In this connection, I wish to quote some examples of that split between A and p. Perhaps in some cases one of the divergent readings simply was due to some error in the former stages of the transmission. But passing a judgment on such an aspect of a case here, in this presentation of the evidence, would be a subjective procedure. My role is to reconstruct the tradition as it stands. It will be up to future editors of Sophocles to decide every case on its merits, with due consideration for the facts of the recension. First, here are a few examples of double readings and, also, of occasional divergencies resulting from double readings :!*

Atax 168 &xep L“OR: ἅτε L®G.


Ai. 215 πάθος L'Gr’Q: βάρος L'GR. Ai. 1059 αἰσχίστῳ LG”: ἀθλίῳ GOR. Electra 272 abrodévrnv LAGR: αὐτοέντην L7?. El. 379 γόων LGR: λόγων LP. . 1019 abroxepl LAGR: οὐδὲν ἧσσον L?*. . 1097 dds LGR: ζηνὸς L7 (correct reading). . 1101 ἰστορῶ LGR: μαστεύω L”. . 1148 σοι L'R: σὴ L'G. . 1393 ἐδώλια LG'R: ἑδράσματα L7°G*. (Cf. Suda sub E 255.) . 1417 ἀραὶ LGR: ἀρὰς Ge, El. 1450 δίδασκε με LAGR: μήννέ μοι L7°A7?. El. 1460 πάρος LG’: μάτην GR. Oed. Tyr. 78 σὺ] εὖ L'A: σὺ εὖ GR. Of course, the true reading is σύ (and this was recovered by Moschopulus). This is a very interesting case which points to the old uncial source. When its text was being transcribed into minuscule script, there was probably some doubt as to what actually stood there: CT or ET. As a result, two alternate possibilities were recorded, σύ and εὖ. The class A chose εὖ, while the class p combined the two variants into one sequence σὺ εὖ. Moschopulus (followed by Thomas and Triclinius) correctly restored the only possible reading σύ, though his scholium — written probably prior to his definitive treatment of the poetic text — still pertains to the erroneous text: schol. p. 148.35 Dind., ms. Florence Laur. Conv. Soppr. 71 (X) fol. 77” καὶ μὴν καλῶς (for εὖ) καὶ κατὰ τὸν προσήκοντα χρόνον (for els καλὸν) ἐμνήσθης κτλ. OT 212 μονόστολον LGR: ὁμόστολον 1,19. OT 429 πρὸς τούτου L: πρὸς πόλου R (scilicet προσπόλονυ) : πρὸς τούτου GI, vp πρὸς τούτου G* (I suspect that προσπόλου was in the text in the source 19} disregard ypadera:-variants added by /ater hands.



of GR, with a variant yp. πρὸς τούτου above the line, and that G by inadvertence wrote the identical reading πρὸς τούτου also in the line): xpos

τουτί Oxyrh. Pap. 22: does A| above the line refer perhaps to the variant in question? OT 906 φθίνοντα LGR, Suda (sub E 1583): φθίνων τὰ L7 (etiam Zc!). OT 957 σημήνας LIGR: σημάντωρ LY’Grr. OT 1061 ἔχω LR: ἐγώ GRZLMR (p. 202.26 Papag.), etiam Pa. Antig. 53 éros 1,1: πάθος L‘R. Ant. 83 πότμον LA!: βίον LreA-R. Ant. 264 αἴρειν L*A*R: ἔχειν LiAl. Ant. 1208 μολὼν L!: μαθὼν 1,.Ε. The above selection will be enough to exemplify situations created by double readings. In connection with this subject, I am going to quote some evidence for a split between ἃ and p which probably resulted from the fact that only one reading, in the case of original double readings, was chosen definitely and recorded in the text by each of the two classes, If the choices of ἃ and p diverged, there was a split between the two classes. Of course, this explanation cannot cover the origination of all the cases of this kind. There might have occurred changes in one of the two classes which simply through blunder or intention distorted an original single reading so as to bring about a divergence of the two classes. It

will be the task of future editors to decide in such different class reading is a variant or be as such dismissed from possible Without prejudging this aspect of few examples of a clear divergence Atax 28 τρέπει L: νέμει GOR.

cases whether


a secondary deterioration that should consideration as an optional variant. cases quoted below, I quote here a of different readings in X and p. .

At. 39 τοῦδε τἄργα L: ἔργα τοῦδε GOR. Ai. Ai. Ai. Ai. Ai. At. Ai. Ai.

129 ἄρῃ L, αἴρῃ Suda (sub Ex 46): ἄρῃς GOR. 441 7’ L: om. GQR, Suda (sub T 803). 543 λόγων LIA: λόγου GOR. 791 ὥνθρωπε L: ἄνθρωπε GOR. 813 χωρεῖν L: χωρεῖν y’ GOR. 864 ὕστατον L: ἔσχατον GOR. 877 βολῆς L'A, βολῶν L*: μολῶν G'OR. 1000 δύστηνος LAQ: δείλαιος GR.

40 The reading δείλαιος GR is not any isolated error of the group GR — it is a variant carried also by Moschopulus,

while δύστηνος was followed by Thomas

and Triclinius.

Most probably, the class p carried originally both readings (one in the text and the other as a variant), and Q chose δύστηνος. I do not quote in the above cases of a split between ἃ and p the evidence as to how the Byzantines made their choices. It is, on the whole, irrelevant, but proves that the Byzantines knew both traditions — i.e., there were copies also of the p tradition available in Byzantium about the end of the XIII*®









Ai. 1116 τοῦ δὲ L: καὶ rod GOR. Ai. 1127 δεινόν τ᾽ L: δεινὸν (τ᾽ om.) GOR. At. 1136 κοὐκ L: οὐκ GQR. Αἱ. 1141 ἀλλ’ L: σὺ 5’ GOR. Ai. 1248 ἔξω θήσομεν L: ἐξωθήσομεν GQR. Ai. 1272 κἀνόητ᾽ Li: κἀνόνητ᾽ GOR. Electra 378 σοι L!: τοι GR. El. 614 apa 1.1: dp’ ob GR. El. 685 λαμπρὸς L: λαμπρὸν GR. El. 1201 rots ἴσοις LA: τοῖσι σοῖς L°GR. El. 1304 λεξαίμην L (a misreading of δεξαίμην) :™! βουλοίμην R, βουλόμην G. Oed. Tyr. 98 ἐν τῇδ᾽ L: ἐκ τῆσδ᾽ GR. OT 631 καιρίαν 1,1: κυρίαν GR. OT 1329 ἀπόλλων φίλοι L: ἀπόλλων ὦ φίλοι GR. Antig. 318 δαὶ LA, Plutarchi Mor. Ὁ. 509d (ed. Teubn. III [1929] p. 297.22) codd. ZA: δὲ Sophoclis R, Plutarchi alii codd. Ant. 353 ἀκμῆτα LA: ἀδμῆτα R. Ant. 575 ἐμοὶ LA: épu R. Ant. 1098 λαβεῖν LA: κρέων R. Oed. Col. 5 δ' ἔτι LQ”: δὲ τι Q=R, Suda (sub Σ 903). OC 632 ὅτου L: ὅτῳ OR, Suda (sub A 1399). OC 737 ἀνδρῶν L: ἀστῶν OR. OC 1333 καὶ θεῶν L: πρὸς θεῶν OR. Quite intentionally, I did not want to encumber the above evidence with indications of the Byzantine readings, which would show how the Byzantines sided in cases of a split between ἃ and p. This would have shown that all of them — Moschopulus, Thomas, Triclinius — knew both recensions, ἃ and p, and also the recensions of the deteriores (see below). It would also show their preferences for one or another family. In general, Thomas and Triclinius owed their allegiance to the Laurentian tradition, as one would expect in view of the close connection of Zc with LA (cf. above, p. 47), and in view of the fact that Triclinius built his edition on the Thoman basis in the tetrad and on the Laurentian basis in the remaining plays, to judge from the ancient scholia preserved by him. At any rate, I preferred to omit this additional evidence in my lists above, since Byzantine acceptance of one or another ancient reading does not contribute anything essential to the picture of the genuine recension. 141 δεξαίμην appears in FIN!?P. Probably in the source Aa it was written in small uncial script in a scholium — as scholia appear, e.g., in L — reporting the variant, and this is how the confusion of the letters ὃ and X occurred. 14 It seems to me that the reading ὦ φίλοι GR is the correct one if we keep the manuscript reading in 1349: OT 1329 ᾿Απόλλων τάδ᾽ ἦν, ᾿Απόλλων, ὦ φίλοι 1349 ὅλοιθ’ ὅστις

ἦν, ὃς ἀπ' ἀγρίας πέδας.

The meters are: ἡ --—v—-v XY -ὖ

- || baccheus iambus tambus.





The term deteriores is applied here to groups of veieres which belong to younger medieval editions and reveal text recensions that differ in some respects from the codices vetustiores LAGQR. Accordingly, while

the detertores basically carry the old tradition and are a specifically affected category of the veteres, we shall distinguish them from the vetusttores LAGQR which represent the old tradition in its purest manifestation. Thus, under this comprehensive name of deteriores, we indicate manuscripts of the triad belonging to the old tradition, related fundamentally either to the class ἃ or to the class p, as the case may be, written after ca. 1290 A.D. — manuscripts which appear to stem directly from special younger recensions and to have a lower value because of their often composite or desultory character, because of their occasionally inconsistent text character, frequent interpolations, and specific text changes or departures from the vetustiores. This terminology — vetusttores and deteriores — seemed to me to be more appropriate, though, of course, we could consider also the terms velustiores and recentiores, in view of the relative oldness of the respective recensions. But I preferred to avoid the term recentiores, since it is often used to designate the Byzantine interpolated recensions of the Palaeologean era. Therefore, I chose the term deteriores in spite of the methodological opposition which exists among some scholars against the use of the term deteriores.“ At any rate, I emphatically stress that the detertores belong to the genuine old tradition and form special classes of the veteres. Thus, in our concept, the veteres embrace the vetustiores on one hand and the deteriores on the other hand. The difference in the terminology — vetustiores against deteriores — means that the vetustiores go back to an earlier, more genuine tradition, while the deteriores descend from relatively younger and qualitatively inferior subarchetypes. This concept of the manuscript transmission is affected only in a limited way by the chronological oldness of single manuscript witnesses. To be sure, in the case of L and A, their respective age is indicative of their character and quality. But G is a product of the late XIII“ century, M and R were written in the XV‘ century, and Q belongs even to the XVI‘** century. Nonetheless, they represent the genuine tradition of the vetustiores. As we shall see below, the deteriores divide into two classes: ¢ and y. In single or individual detertores, there are to be found occasional or spo18 Cf, Pasquali, Storia della tradizione pp. 41 ff., chapter IV: ‘‘Recentiores, non deteriores.’’




radic interpolations from the well-known Byzantine recensions, especially in much younger mss. But as most characteristic features of these classes, we find in them some specific and peculiar common variants and interpolations, significantly tied up with a given class of the deteriores. We presume that such interpolations were invented by some anonymous grammarians of the middle XIII century who edited the prototypes or archetypes of the classes in question. I postulate this chronology for the origin of the two classes of the detertores considering the fact that only in the second half of the XIII century the spirit of interpolation became so rife as to engender textual activities of the kind exhibited in the deteriores.‘4 Moreover, we find some chronological clues as to the terminus ante quem for the origin of the class ¢ or y, respectively, in the following facts. A representative of the class ¢, the ms. F (Laur. 28, 25), was written by Νικόλαος ὁ Περδικάρης who was active as copyist around 1290 a.p. (cf. below, p. 145). The ms. H (Laur. 32, 40), which belongs to the class ¥, was written by Μανονὴλ ὁ Σφηνέας who is known to have been copying manuscripts around 1287-1297 a.p. (cf. below, p. 152). Some readings of φύ (Az. 160 ἂν δράση, Ai. 1053 ἄξειν) are recorded as yp.-variants in G, and G was written in 1282 a.p. These dates warrant our assumption that the classes ¢ and y were formed some time in the XIII century, probably around the middle of the century. Asa terminus post quem I should consider the time of Eustathius (d. ca. 1194 a.p.), since some of Eustathius’ readings appear in dy (El. 192 ἀμφίσταμαι) or especially in y (Εἰ. 608 κακῶν). Technically, the approximate time limits for the establishment of the triad and for the origin of the detertores would be 1200-1280 a.p. But I think that it must have been toward 1260 a.p. that this intensive study of the tragedians began and the broader dissemination of their manuscripts was set in motion. It seems that the class @ was the earlier one of the two classes of the deteriores, since the class % presupposes the existence of ¢ and is more heavily interpolated. Of course, some subgroups (not to speak of single manuscripts) among the preserved deteriores show stronger influences of Palaeologean interpolations, even influences of Triclinius, so that the origins of such subgroups that developed on lower echelons of the transmission — especially within the class Ψ — should be attributed to a somewhat later time (cf. below, p. 156 note 171). With regard to single manuscripts among the deteriores, in many cases we are confronted with an unpredictable practice of occasional text changes and interpolations going beyond the basic stock of a given class and drawn either from other old classes or from Byzantine recensions, mostly from


and also from Thomas.


the whole,

14 Yet, with regard already to Eustathius, cf. P. Maas, "Eustathios als Konjekturalkritiker,”” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 35 (1935) 299-307 ; 36 (1936) 27-31.






the influence of Triclinius was not so strong, since his editorship affected mainly the lyrics, and an average copyist had rather a reverence for the lyrical lines which he did not understand easily and whose versification was quite mysterious to him.’* That practice of interpolating the text of a ms. against the transmitted character of the pertinent family was sporadic and inconsistent and was in no relation to the stemmatic status of the ms. in question. I should say that some interpolations present rather a highly disturbing element in the stemmatic analysis. Yet, we are now in a position to cope with that horizontal or transversal transmission in this respect, since as a result of our previous analyses of Byzantine recensions we can easily identify in every case an unusual reading of this kind as a known Byzantine interpolation. Such an approach permits us to precipitate and eliminate from our consideration those alien elements of the manuscript tradition, which appear here and there in most veteres of a later date. An analogous method is to be applied also to the evaluation of those textual changes in the deteriores which were often effected through the adoption of a variant from a different class of the old tradition. In general, that inconsistency, or horizontal transmission, or occasional eclecticism, or practice of extraneous interpolations, is the most striking feature of the deteriores. It is something by which they differ considerably from the text consistency of the vetustiores and from the strict discipline of the Byzantine texts (especially those of Moschopulus and Triclinius). These considerations concern practically all Sophocles mss. written

after ca. 1290 a.p., and not only mss. of the triad but also those of the remaining plays. However, I have formulated these views here with a particular regard for the detertores of the triad. In this chapter, we have to discuss special classes of the younger genuine tradition covering the triad: Aiax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus. The very selection of the triad and the limiting of main scholarly interest to these three plays seems to be a Byzantine idea of the XIII** century,'# which was applied also to Aeschylus and Euripides. In Sophocles, it influenced the attitude of Moschopulus who limited his work just to τ Cf. above, p. 72. 16 But it was a pre-Palaeologean idea of establishing a triad for each of the three tragedians. This is shown by the very existence of pre-Palaeologean (i.e., genuine in text and scholia) triads in Aeschylus

(group Φ: cf. Udalricus de Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,

Aeschyli tragoediae [Berolini, 1914) p. xıv; Turyn, Aeschylus pp. 15 f.), and in Sophocles (class ¢). The situation in Euripides remains to be ascertained. Wilamowitz, loc. cit., even assigned the Aeschylean class @ as far back as to the XI“ or XII century. Thus he repudiated his former view (cf. Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Einleitung in die attische Tragödie {Euripides Herakles erklärt von U. v. W.-M. Band I. Berlin, 1889] p. 196) as to a very late Byzantine origin of the tragical triads. At any rate, I cannot

agree with the assertion of Alphonse Dain, Les manuscrits (Collection d'études anciennes. Paris 1949) p. 137, that the selection of the tragical triads was made as late as around 1280 A.D.



those three initial plays out of the larger set of seven plays. Thomas enlarged the selection to four plays with scholia, to which he subsequently added the remaining three plays without scholia, and Triclinius took up all the seven plays preserved. The detertores can be defined in general to be mss. of the triad with an “old” text which basically agrees with the ancient tradition of LAGQR, yet has several readings different from LAGOR. The detertores are supplied with ancient scholia, if any. There is a considerable number of deteriores in existence. Their description is given in the further course of my discussion. I shall now clarify some elements concerning their character and relationships in order to create a basis for their classification. The fundamental “‘old’’ character of the deteriores is evidenced by the fact that, on the whole, they share in the significant errors of the old tradition, even though the pertinent errors were in many cases corrected by the Byzantine interpolated editions. But, as I said above, the detertores go back — so far as their origin is concerned — to a period prtor to the activities of the famous Byzantine grammarians and, therefore, originally their prototypes could not fully benefit from those Byzantine corrections. I am going to quote a few cases to exemplify the basic old text character of the detertores. To simplify the presentation of the essential material, I shall limit myself to the evidence of the vetustsores LAGQR and of few representative deteriores CFNO (for the class ¢) and VWWa (for the class y). Here is the identification of these symbols of the deteriores: C = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2735; F = Laur. 28, 25; N = Madrid 4677; O = Leiden Voss. gr. Q 6; V = Venice gr. 468; W = Milan, Ambros. G 56 sup.; Wa = Milan, Ambros. E 103 sup. (For the descriptions and analyses of these mss., cf. below, pp. 145 ff., 153 ff.) The other deteriores will be in due course linked to their proper classes through significant errors and readings which will be quoted from them in their descriptions. I am arranging manuscript-symbols quoted in such a way that the fundamental old mss. LAGQR are quoted first, thereafter follow symbols of the class ¢, and then symbols of the class y. Here I quote a few significant errors of the old tradition with the pertinent manuscript evidence. The very fact that the detertores share in their coverage proves sufficiently their “old” character: Aiax 519 zäcw L!AGORCFNOVWWa (πᾶσ᾽ Moschopulus); 994 ἁπασῶν L'AGQ RCF®NOVWWa, om. F* (πασῶν Moschop.); 1369 γ᾽ om. LIGQRCFN OVWWa (γ’ habet Moschop.); Electra 809 φρενὸς οἴχῃ LAGRCFNOV WWa (οἴχῃ φρενὸς Moschop.); Oed. Tyr. 50 τ' om. LIGRCFNOVWWa (τ᾽ habet Moschop., γ᾽ habet Triclin.); 117 κατεῖδεν LLGRCFNOVWWa (κατεῖδ' Moschop.); 1252 εἰσέπεσεν L'GRCNOVWWa (εἰσέπαισεν Moschop.; the pertinent portion is lost in F). These examples show that

the deteriores belong to the ancient tradition.



Moreover, they exhibit ancient scholia, if any. These two factors — significant errors in common with the vetustiores, and ancient scholia — certify their afhliation with the old tradition. We have shown before that the two classes of the vetustiores, ἃ and p, cover the entire ancient tradition, which therefore is to be considered

basically bipartite. Now a momentous question arises that is to decide the value and usefulness of the deteriores: we have to consider the grouping of the deteriores and the relation of those groups to the tradition ἃ or p, respectively, and to examine the value of their evidence in the light of the relationships detected. This problem will be cleared in the further analysis. The essential question is: are there in the deteriores any good authentic readings which are not carried by the vetustiores

LAGOR? Toward this end, let us discuss a few readings of the detertores (of all or most of them) by which they differ from the vetustiores, e.g.: Aiax 199 βακχαζόντων L'G'Q, βακχεζόντων R (glosses γελώντων Lel, γελότων Qe!, ἐπεγγελέντων (σε): καγχαζόντων Suda (sub K 11), C, F (-y- ex corr.), NOVWWa, Byzantini (Moschop., Thom., Tricl.). The general acceptance of the reading xayxatévrwy by the detertores precludes, of course, the idea that this reading might have been picked up from the Byzantine recensions (apart from chronological considerations against such a fact).

It is obviously Suda’s correction adopted by the originator of the deteriores: it did not exist in the medieval archetype w, as the agreement of Xand pshows. The genuine “old” tradition of Sophocles was bipartite, and there was originally nothing authentic outside X and p, unless in some cases an optional variant (supra lineam or ypdderat) of the archetype » was disregarded simultaneously both by ἃ and p and thus does not appear in LAGQR. This is a very important consideration to be kept in mind in evaluating the possible authenticity of such variants in the deteriores that are not recorded at all in any one of the vetustiores


At any rate, in this case the reading of the deteriores, being a

departure from the authentic evidence of the vetustiores, was just a conjectural correction taken over from Suda, and the reading βακχαζόντων is the authentic reading of the older genuine tradition.” I can quote

some more characteristic readings of the detertores which are significant corruptions of the correct readings of the vetustiores, e.g.: Atax 1051 προθεὶς LGOQRW®*: προσθεὶς CFNOVW"Wa; At. 710 θοᾶν LGORW'*Wa:

θοῶν CFNOVWI, 47 With Suda’s reading, the word γλώσσαις in the expression πάντων καγχαζόντων γλώσoas Bapvédynra is awkward. Cf. Frederick H. M. Blaydes, The Ajax of Sophocles

(London-Edinburgh, 1875) p. 315.

The old reading βακχαζόντων, in spite of being ἅπαξ

λεγόμενον, is correct (‘‘while all men rave in a very grievous way’’). The glosses of LGQ obviously refer to βακχαζόντων γλώσσαις and mean “to deride, to mock,’’ not just ‘to

laugh.” Suda’s interpolation was probably prompted by the resemblance of 8 and «.



Yet, in spite of these and other common peculiarities of the detertores, our further analysis will show that the detertores are not one class and that they are composed of two classes, ¢ and ¥, which often share in some common readings coincidentally. Since the class y seems to be more interpolated and, therefore, somewhat younger than the class ¢, it is highly probable that the editor of ψ studied the class ¢ and took over many readings of ¢ that appealed to him. But the separation of the detertores into two distinct and basically disconnected classes is clearly visible. Of those classes, the class ¢, supplied with Laurentian scholia, is mainly represented by the mss. CFNO; it is related, in text and scholia, to the Laurentian tradition A. The other class y, supplied with Roman scholia, is mainly represented by the mss. VWWa and fundamentally stems, in text and scholia, from the Roman tradition p. To prove the existence of these classes, I have to quote some significant readings or rather errors peculiar to each of them, respectively. I shall briefly produce some proofs to this effect, and afterwards we shall deal

separately and with more detail with these classes. Here are some significant readings of the class ¢. Basically, they are covered by CFNO. Among these mss., FN are rather consistent witnesses of ¢, while C and O occasionally show shifting allegiance. As before, I quote the evidence of LAGQR to establish in each case the genuine ancient reading, and I quote also the readings of VWWa ( = y), to show how the class y behaves in a given case. Here are a few exclusive readings of the class ¢: Electra 1396 ἑρμῆς ἐξάγει Le? ἑρμῆς ἐπάγει LP: ἑρμῆς σφ᾽ ἄγει GRV! WWaO: ἑρμῆς σφ᾽ ἐπάγει CFN (this ¢ reading is obviously a result of reconciling or harmonizing the two different readings of X and p). OT 222 τελῶ LGRVWa: τελῶν CIFNOW. The Thoman scholia record the existence of both readings (p. 285.36 Dind., Zc fol. 85” εὕρηται καὶ τελῶ καὶ τελῶν). This is a cogent proof that the class ¢ is chronologically pre-Thoman. Elsewhere (cf. below, p. 133) we assume that ¢ is even pre-Moschopulean. OT 347 δ' L'L’™GRVW'Wa: θ᾽ CFNOW:. OT 989 ἐκφοβεῖσθ᾽ LGRVWWaC: εὐλαβεῖσθ᾽ FINO. On the whole, F is perhaps the most consistent representative of the class $ and the mss. CFNO cover this class most conveniently. Of course, some mss. of this class show sometimes desultory agreements with other classes. In the class y, V is the leading witness. The ms. W agrees, in general,

quite clearly with V, and the ms. Wa pertains to the same tradition. Agreements of VWWa in peculiar readings represent the class y. For the class y, cf. these significant readings (which differ from ἈΦρ):



Electra 1169 [ἀ]] πολείπεσθαι L, ἀπολείπεσθαι FNO, ἀπολιπέσθαι C: ἐκλείπεσθαι GR: ’ξαπολείπεσθαι VWa, ἐξαπολείπεσθαι W. This is a conciliatory combination of the reading p with that of X. El. 926 ἤκουσας LGRCFN: εἰσήκουσας VWWad0O. . El. 601 χεῖρα σὴν μόλις LGRCFNWa: σὴν χεῖρα μόλις VWO. Now that we have demonstrated above the separate existence of these two classes ¢ and Y among the deteriores, we should establish the relationships of ¢ and y to the basic traditions \ and p. The logical action to take in this respect is to observe cases in which ἃ or p show significant errors and to compare the readings of ¢ and y with those significant errors. Also in cases of a split between ἃ and p, resulting presumably

from double variants, an agreement or disagreement of a given ms. or manuscript-group with such a characteristic reading should be indicative of its affiliation. For cases of ¢ following errors of X, cf.: Aiax 696 χιονοκτύπου GORVWWa"C: χιονοτύπτου L, χιονοτύπον FINO War, Ai. 1360 δῆτα σὺ GRVCO, δῆτα ovy- Q: δὴ od L'AN, σὺ δὴ F: (δῆτα om.) ov WWa. It seems that in some source of ἃ there must have been σὺ, which explains the inversion in F and the omission in WWa. But the essential feature here is δὴ instead of δῆτα, an error of ἃ followed by ¢. It is interesting to see how CO and WWa, respectively, changed their allegiance in this case. Oed. Tyr. 139 ἐκεῖνον GRVWWaC (and this reading is backed by the scholia) : ἐκεῖνος L'F NO, Suda (sub A 3678). OT 397 εἰδὼς GRVWWaCO@"™: οὐδεὶς LIFIN!O=? Suda (sub T 828 codd. AV: om. Sudae codd. GM). It should be, however, pointed out that ¢, while it descended from X, was in many cases free from errors of LA (or LAZc: cf. above, p. 108). This means that ¢ stems not from λα, but from another source of the X tradition: cf. El. 359 οὖν om. L!PZc: habent GR¢y; 1168 μετεῖχον GRoy: κατεῖχον L!A; OT 349 εἶναι om. L!APPaZc: habent GRoöY; OT 1024 ἐξέπεισ᾽ αὐτὸν L*P?PZc: αὐτὸν ἐξέπεισ᾽ GRLPöY. The immediate source of $ we mark Ab. On Ab, cf. below, p. 138; see stemma, Ὁ. 137. We may also surmise that possibly the copy ¢ removed some general blemishes of ἃ (which appear in LA) by comparing its source with the text of the other class p. The class ¢ exercised some freedom and, since its editor knew also the tradition p, at times ¢ adopted a reading of p, even an erroneous reading of p: cf. El. 325 φύσιν L: φύσαν GRCFNOVWWa. Perhaps there had been a double reading in the archetype w and perhaps φῦσαν was also








recorded in the archetype of A —a manifestly faulty variant, if it ever was treated as a variant. Also cf.: Ai. 127 ὑπέρκοπον L: ὑπέρκομπον GQR, Suda (sub Εἰ 46)1@ CFNOVWWa. — Αἰ. 421 μὴ L, Suda (sub Oc 146): με GORCFNOWWa, ἐμὲ V. — At. 481 ὑπόβλητον L, Suda (sub T 455), CW (cf. Eustath. p. 106.7): ἀπόβλητον GORFNOVWa. Cf. schol. ad locum, Ὁ. 42.25 Papag. ὑπόβλητα L, Suda: ἀπόβλητα GMR (here I quote only the vetustiores). — Ai. 1022 παῦρα L: παῦροι GOR, Suda (sub Π 1933), CFNOVWWa.'” In all these cases the ¢ readings are obvious corruptions (and two of them, Ai. 421 and Az. 481, originated on a lower echelon of the p transmission, since Suda was not affected by them). Yet, the class ¢ chose to follow these corrupted readings of p. But the basic and predominant affiliation of ¢ in the poetic text points to X. As to the affiliation of the class y with p, I should like to state that, on the whole, the predominant agreement of VWWa (or, occasionally, of

two of them) with significant errors of GQR is a sufficient proof of this afhliation. Here are a few examples of the relationship of VWWa to some significant errors or variants of GQR (= p):

(= y)

El. 121 ἰὼ παὶ παῖ LFNO: ἰὼ rai (altero rat omisso) GRVWWaC, Suda (sub A 1696). El. 847 prius &r’ LFN, θ᾽ post 806° C: om. GRVWWaO!. El. 1119 ξεῖνε LCFNW®: ξένε GRVW"Wa0. El. 1467 el δ᾽ &reorı(lv) LCFN: εἰ δ' ἔστι(ν) GR: εἰ δὲ τις ἐστὶ(ν) VWWaO. Of course, this interpolation was made by y to fill in the omission which was felt to have affected the text of GR. OT 543 ἀντὶ LCFNO: κἀντὶ GRVWWa. OT 677 ἴσος LFNOW*WaC” (-o1s C*%?): ἴσως GRVYW!. It is of interest to note a case where VW follow a blunder of G alone (while R is correct): El. 569 τι LRCNWPr°Wa (the pertinent portion of F is lost): om. GVW*O. As to the whole class y, its versatile editor did not cling blindly to only one source (which was p): he must have compared his text with other recensions and he was anxious to avoid some errors of p and occasionally followed readings of ἃ or of ¢. Cf. Atax 257 (ἄτερ om.) ἀστεροπᾶς GQRO!, Sudae sub Σ 1059 codd. AF, στεροπᾶς Sudae cod. V: &rep oreporäs LCFNO:WWa, Sudae codd. GM, ärep doreporas Sophoclis V. This shows how VWWa avoided the omission of &rep being an error of p as certified by GQR + Suda: they simply followed the correct reading of λφ. M8 ὑπέρκομπον Sudae codd. AGIVM: ὑπέρκοπον Sudae F, but Suda’s ms. F, written A.D. 1422 (cf. Adler, Suidae Lexicon V p. 228), has ὑπέρκοπον probably from a Byzantine Sophocles manuscript (from Moschopulus, or Thomas, or Triclinius). It was Moschopulus who reasserted, in the late XII1* century, the correct reading ὑπέρκοπον.

19 Thomas knew both readings and contested the latter one on metrical grounds: schol. p. 350.32 εὑρίσκεται κτλ.


Zc fol. 27” ταρά τισι μὲν τῶν βιβλίων παῦροι, παρά τισι δὲ raipa



As a matter of fact, the class y follows ¢ quite often in some peculiar readings that differ from those of the velustiores. In such cases we find a coincidence resulting in a joint coverage of a new reading both by ¢ and y, i.e., by the deteriores, though the two classes are fundamentally of divergent origin. I note the case of the reading Ai. 199 καγχαζόντων, which was initiated by Suda (cf. above, p. 129) and followed by ¢ and y. Another case of ¢ followed by y is Electra 947 ποεῖν LGR, ποιεῖν F: τελεῖν CNOVWWa. In a former study (Recension Ὁ. 134), I postulated that the reading τελεῖν is a Moschopulean interpolation. But now, in view of the almost unanimous coverage of τελεῖν by the deteriores, I have reconsidered this case and I see that τελεῖν should be credited first to ¢, and then to y. A case of a correct reading formerly attributed by me

to Moschopulus (cf. loc. cit.) which, I think now, should be assigned to the deteriores is El. 1024 τοιαύτην οὖν L'GR: τοιαύτη νοῦν C (-η ex corr.), F (v- ex corr. videtur), NOVWa: τοιαὐτη[[ν]] νοῦν W.!® Another case of a new reading covered by the deteriores almost unanimously or, as we assume, of a @ reading followed by y¥, is: OT 229 ἀσφαλὴς LIAGRC: ἀβλαβὴς FNOVWWa. These readings (At. 199 καγχαζόντων from Suda, El. 947 τελεῖν, El. 1024 τοιαύτη νοῦν, OT 229 ἀβλαβὴς), whose priority we credit to the deteriores or rather to their earlier class ¢, were accepted also by Moschopulus and Triclinius and, more or less definitely, by Thomas. This means that the archetype ¢ was prior to Moschopulus. As I said, I think that ¢ originated some time around the middle of the XIII century. A confirmation of our findings about the affiliations of ¢ and y, respectively, should be expected also from the scholia of these classes. The deteriores, as I have already stated, have ancient scholia, if any. In most cases, those scholia are exhibited in full sets, though sometimes only parts or portions of a given manuscript are accompanied by scholia. The details in this respect are given below in the descriptions of the mss. For the class ¢, the most valuable sets of scholia are exhibited in the mss. FNO. For the class y, the representative sets of scholia appear in the mss. VWWa. Also the scholia of the twin mss. H (Laur. 32, 40) and A (Laur. Conv. Soppr. 41) pertain to the class %, but will not be quoted below, for I consider the testimony of VW to cover sufficiently the scholia ¥. Immediately we should raise the question how these sets of scholia — ¢ and Κ᾽ — are related to the scholia ἃ or p, respectively. Quite naturally, we expect in the scholia to find relationships analogous 19 Thomas records both readings in an unpublished scholium on El. 1024 (Zc fol. 65°): γράφεται καὶ τοιαύτην καὶ τοιαύτη χωρὶς τοῦ v. Since the Thoman recension was posterior to the Moschopulean recension, this does not prove whether Thomas refers to the

deteriores or to Moschopulus.








to those established above for the poetic text of the classes ¢ and y. The detection of such affinities will be most welcome if they will, as we hope, coincide with our findings drawn from the text readings. The results of our investigation of the scholia will be somewhat qualified inasmuch as scholia of the detertores do not show absolute, rigid consistency of allegiance to one or the other class. On the whole, they manifest an affiliation with one class, but occasionally they show acceptance of readings from another class, so that we have always to count with a certain amount of floating or drifting transmission. The scholia of FNO in most cases or, let us say, in longest stretches of their sets represent clearly the scholia X, as exemplified eminently by L and most probably by A, wherever preserved and legible. Those scholia of FNO are blemished occasionally by some omissions, but — on the whole — represent a sound text of the Laurentian scholia ἃ to the degree of even being free from individual errors of L. Thus we may again assume that concordant scholia of FNO go back to a subarchetype of the class A, namely, to the source Ab which is independent of L. On the other side, the scholia of VW agree in general, also in some significant errors, with the class p — that is, with the scholia GMR (there are no scholia in Q). But very often and quite unpredictably the mss. VW (jointly or even singly) shift in scholia from their basic source p to the class A or ¢. In general, the mss. VW make the impression of a very free and inconsistent recension, both in text and in scholia. A few examples below will illustrate the manuscript relationships just mentioned in the field of scholia. Toward this purpose, I am going to use the testimony of FNO to cover the scholia ¢, and that of VW to cover y. I prefer not to use here the ms. Wa, because it is quite desultory in the scholia, though mostly it agrees with VW. Altogether mss. LFNOGMRVW are quoted below for the discussion of the scholia, provided the text in question appears in each of them; otherwise, the pertinent symbols are missing, as the case may be. Let us consider in the scholia some errors of L facing correct readings of GMR so that we may see how the deteriores ᾧ and y, respectively, side in such cases, with ἃ or p. Cf. schol. p. 60.21 Papag. ἀπὸ GMRVW: om. LFNO; 63.15 μάχης GMRVW: ἀρχῆς LFNO; 103.2 ob GMR: οὕτω LFNO; 138.7 βοῇ GMR: βουλῇ LFNO. Thus it appears clearly that FNO (= ¢) followed the tradition of L (=X). Now I shall quote a few errors of GMR in the case of correct readings of L: cf. schol. 2.6 ἀττικῶς LF: ἀτεχνῶς GMRV;; 12.18 ἔγγεγραμμένην LFN: γεγραμμένην GW; 31.12 ἀεὶ LFNO: om. GMRVW. This shows that VW (= y) followed GMR (= p). The same situation — λῴ against py — appears in cases of a split between ἃ and p (where a definite judgment as to which one is the correct reading is doubtful): cf. schol. 104.14 πένθους LFNO: πάθους



MVW. As to the ms. Wa, on the whole it agrees with VW (cf. schol. 3.9 μόνης om. VWWa). Yet, I cannot warn too strongly that VW or VWWa show very fluid allegiance and quite often shift from one to the other tradition, or even contaminate occasionally two variants. Likewise, the ms. O is not entirely consistent. But FN are, in general, faithful satellites of L. Still, there are proofs, also from the scholia, that mss. of the class ¢ actually form a separate class. For there are many significant errors peculiar only to the deteriores of this class ¢, e.g.: schol. 161.2 φιλόδημον LGMRVW: φιλότιμον FNO. Yet, this class ¢, though it belongs to the tradition A, is free of individual errors of L and has, therefore, a value as a witness of the Laurentian tradition: cf. schol. 121.15 σκληρὰ MVWFO: σμικρὰ L. Similarly, the scholia of % exhibit some errors peculiar only to mss. of this class and not exhibited in p, which confirms that y is a separate class: cf. schol. 3.9 μόνη LFOGMR: om. VW; 7.4 πολὺ πρότερον LFNOGMR, Suda (sub T 341): om. VW. Sometimes, mss. of the class y are free of the errors of GMR: cf. schol. 1.12 ὄντος LFOV: ὄναρ GMR. Yet, when we consider the inconsistency and the duplicity of the class ¥, we doubt whether this happened because the class % was independent of the common source of GMR — or, to put it differently, whether this was due to the fact that ¥ goes back to

a somewhat higher echelon within p than the source of GMR.

I should

rather say that y managed to escape some errors of GMR by comparing its p-like source with another source of Laurentian origin. — In our previous analyses of the poetic text, we have noticed that ¥ sometimes joined the tradition ¢ and thus produced coincidentally a joint reading of the deteriores & +. There are similar situations also in the scholia: cf. schol. 119.6 τινα L, τι GMR: πολλὰ FNOVW.

The above analysis of the manuscript filiation on the basis of the scholia agrees with our previous analysis of the transmission of the poetic text and is just an additional confirmation of our previous findings. The reader is to be reminded that in the fundamental study of De Marco (De scholiis) there is an essential presentation of basic material from the scholia of L and GMR. I did not want to confuse the picture by quoting evidence from more deteriores. It would certainly show that the class ἡ had many satellites and obviously was impressive and popular because of its boldness. Then, presentation of additional evidence would show that any one of the deteriores practiced occasional departures from its basic source. Sometimes such desultory procedure extends over longer stretches of the scholia as well as of the text. Sometimes, desultory changes affect inde-

pendently the scholia or the text.

Additional interpolations from Suda

(I mean secondary interpolations, not any manifestations of the inherited agreement of Suda with p) are quite frequent in any detertor of either



class ¢ or ¥, both in text and scholia.!!

As I said before, we encounter

in single detertores occasional individual interpolations from the Palaeologean recensions. To conclude our discussion of the deteriores, I wish to examine a special problem regarding the manuscript ramifications in the final portion of

Oed. Tyr. — a problem which involves a certain aspect of the p tradition. In that final portion of Oed. Tyr., there are a few examples of an agreement py¢ in a blunder against the correct reading of L, and this situation offhand would seem to be rather puzzling. Let us first consider Oed. Tyr. 1386 ἥκιστά γ' ἀλλ᾽ LPPa: ἥκιστ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ GRVWWaCNO (the pertinent portion of F is lost). The mss. P and Pa follow here more closely the tradition of L (cf. below, pp. 158 f.). On the other hand, the erroneous reading of GR (= p) is shared by VWWa (=y) and by CNO (= 9). There is a similar case: OT 1438 100° ἂν el LPPaV: ἴσθ᾽ ee GRWWaCNO. Here it seems that V individually switched over to L (cf. OT 1480 Ir’ om. L!APPaV) — but WWa (= y) and CNO (= ¢) agree with the blunder of GR (= p). An analogous situation can be quoted from the scholia: schol. Oed. Tyr. 961 p. 200.18 Papag. σῶμα LW: om. GMVWaFNO. We want to give an explanation of this peculiar phenomenon. It should be noted that Suda does not have quotations from the final portion of Oed. Tyr. From the text of Oed. Tyr., Suda does not quote any lines from OT 964-1388, and there are not any quotations from the scholia on OT 917-end.'""= Suda quoted abundantly Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Oed. Col., both for text and scholia; then, Trachiniae and Philoctetes, mostly for text. Its quotations from the text of Antigone are negligible; from the scholia on Antigone, they are none; from the scholia on Trachiniae and Philoctetes, they are negligible. It might have used, for those negligible categories, a different source.'* At any rate, Suda’s main Sophocles copy which contained at least Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Oed. Col., all of them with scholia, had the above indicated part of Oed. Tyr., from which no quotations appear in Suda, torn out or omitted. I think that this very part of Oed. Tyr. was lost or otherwise damaged in the archetype of p, from which Suda drew its Sophoclean material. Since that part of Oed. Tyr. was missing in the tradition p, a subarchei Cf. Ai. 183 γ᾽ om. Suda (sub

704), NOVWa; Ai. 472 7’ om. Suda (sub A 4213),

NO; As. 574 rat om. Sudae (sub II 2089) codd. VE, Sophoclis Fe; EJ. 549 οὖν om. Suda (sub 4 1642), OWa. These are just a few examples; it has no particular significance that

I quote interpolations in the nature of omissions — there are examples of other changes, too. Interpolations from Suda occur almost in every deterior, and the same goes for scholia. u See the indexes in Adler, Sutdae Lexicon V pp. 125, 128. 1 Cf. Paulus Jahn, Qusestionum de scholiis Laurentiants pp. 1 ff.

p "'




................... ............ ............ ......~pa

\ pc



A pd


V W Wa

I\ R





type of that class, which we call pa, had to supplement the missing part of Oed. Tyr. from another source. That supplement, which we mark with the symbol o, had to comprise at least OT 964-1388 in text and OT 917-end in scholia, and probably extended somewhat beyond these limits in both directions. Of course, pa had to look to the other, Laurentian, tradition for the material that was needed to fill the gap. And pa

took this supplement o from a Laurentian source which we call Ab — from the same source from which & descended. This is clearly demonstrated by the agreements of o ( = the final portion of Oed. Tyr. in p orinGMR) with ¢ in some significant errors as OT 1386 and OT 1438. The agreement of y with p& in those cases is just an automatic result of ¥

stemming from p as well as of its frequent following the readings of ¢. This analysis of the problem contributes essentially to the elaboration of our stemmaof the ancient tradition — see the preceding page — and helps understand the manuscript constellations in that part of Oed. Tyr. We cannot make too positive guesses as to when this operation in the p tradition occurred — I mean the integration of the supplement σ into the subarchetype pa. We also should bear in mind that in the group pb the scholium on OT 1264 (which here is contained in the part in question) exhibits an additament from Tzetzes (De Marco, Studi Itahans N.S. 13 [1936] 11), one of those Tzetzes insertions which appear also elsewhere in GMR. That learned man who introduced Tzetzean elements into the copy pb (it may have been Tzetzes himself) acted around the middle of the XII* century or later. He certainly dealt with a complete text of Oed. Tyr. if he annotated the line OT 1264. Accordingly, we can assume approximately the middle XII* century as a terminus ante quem for the filling of that gap in Oed. Tyr. in the copy pa. We have demonstrated the origins and the affiliations of the two classes of the deteriores, ¢ and y. Text and scholia show that ¢ stems from the Laurentian tradition, from an intermediate source Ab, and that y originated from pa, though it is so strongly influenced by ¢ that one could consider y¥ to be a contamination of its basic stock p with very many readings of ¢ in the poetic text. A strong warning must be impressed on the reader to the effect that we expect almost every deterior to change occasionally its source and to fluctuate sporadically in the spinning of its text and its scholia. Some sources of manuscript-groups seem to have had many variants recorded, and the choices made by the copyists varied quite often.

On the basis of the above analysis, we are in a position to present the general stemma of the Sophocles transmission (cf. above, p. 119) in a more elaborate form, by including the deteriores into the relationships established in our discussions.



As I pointed out above, the class ¢ — mainly represented by the mss. F and N — comprises the triad, is supplied with Laurentian scholia, and basically agrees in its poetic text with the Laurentian tradition X. It was independent of Aa, for it stemmed from a source Ab going back to the Laurentian archetype X. It was established before the Palaeologean period, as shown by the fact that some of its readings are accepted already by Moschopulus and some are discussed in the Thoman scholia. Its agreement with X is revealed by its following some significant errors of X, according to the examples quoted above. This is the correct methodical procedure, based on the communion of errors. It is natural that whenever the other tradition p is affected by errors, manuscripts of the class ¢ are expected to agree with the correct readings of LA, and this is also shown in the manuscript evidence quoted above in case of erroneous readings of GOR. Yet, I ought to note that there are a few cases in which ¢ obviously embraced the reading of p — such inconsistencies of eclectic editorship were common in the Middle Ages (cf. above, pp. 131 f.). The editor ¢, who

seems to have consulted also a copy of the class p, for some reason preferred in some cases to adopt a reading from outside, i.e., from p. This explains the occasional coincidence p¢, which conflicts with the usual agreement λῴ appearing in the class ¢. Apart from their fundamental agreement with X, the manuscripts of ¢@ as a class sometimes exhibit readings that are entirely different from those of the vetustiores. (It is rather irrelevant whether the class % adopted the readings in question or not, because if it did we consider in such cases mss. of % to be rather accessory witnesses.) In my former study of the Moschopulean recension, I tended to consider any reading different from LAGQR as a late Byzantine interpolation of the Palaeologean era. While this holds true in most cases, there are nonetheless in the detertores some readings different from LAGQR — or simply not appearing anywhere in any of the vetustiores — which should be credited just to some editor of the deteriores prior to the Palaeologean recensions.'™ This assumption is based on the fact of the more or less general acceptance of those special readings by the whole classes of the detertores. That generality militates against the idea that such different readings (if they appear coincidentally in some of the Palaeologean recensions) were first invented by a Palaeologean interpolator and then adopted by the deteriores from a Palaeologean recension, for Palaeologean interpolations were adopted only sporadically by single detertores (or some small groups 4 Cf. above, p. 133.




of them) and could never have been introduced generally into all the detertores. Moreover, some of those special readings of the deteriores do not appear at all in any of the Palaeologean recensions. Then, the archetype of ¢ was certainly prior to Thomas (cf. above, p. 130) and most probably prior also to Moschopulus (cf. above, p. 133). The phenomenon of those special readings of ¢ deserves more attention. We have to analyze them with more attention and to establish their possible origin, for this has great bearing upon their possible authenticity and value for textual criticism. Let us examine the more significant special (i.e., not occurring in the vetusttores) readings of the detertores which enjoy general acceptance in the class φ. First, I should like to mention a case which, strictly speaking, should not belong to the category intended for discussion, because the reading of the deteriores $ coincides with A, though it is different from LGR: Electra 198 προφητεύσαντες L'GRW* (erroneously) : προφυτεύσαντες ACFN OVWP°Wa (correctly). Before we gained a collation of A, we were confronted with the following situation: the vetustiores had an error, and almost all the deteriores #, followed by y, exhibited the correct reading. Yet, we could not possibly suspect that almost all the deteriores were so alert metrically that each of them individually adopted the correct reading προφυτεύσαντες found in the Moschopulean recension. Nor would it do to assume that the originator of ¢ adopted a Byzantine correction, for it is hardly possible that $ was posterior to Moschopulus. Then, quite recently, it was established that προφυτεύσαντες was the reading of A. The unanimity of the deteriores & (followed by the class y to whose editor the correct reading easily appealed) points to the fact that this was the reading adopted by the archetype ¢. And, since we have learned of the reading of A, we infer that προφυτεύσαντες probably was preserved as an optional variant in the archetype w, a variant then disregarded by p but preserved by X. It was rejected by L, but was adopted by A and ¢.'% Thus, the disclosure of the reading in A proves that the correct read-

ing in @ was not a conjectural metrical emendation made by ¢ but a correctly chosen variant. This case is highly instructive, for it means that optional ancient variants may have been discarded coincidentally by the vetustiores (here at least A preserved the correct reading) and still may be preserved in the detertores, though the ratio of probability of such contingencies seems to be very low, considering the fact that especially the ms. L is extremely careful in recording ypädera:-variants. At any rate,

we should keep the potentialities of such situations in mind, for such a 48 The gloss προσκεψάμενοι Lt'Wast! points rather to προφητεύσαντες. But there are other glosses, too: προμελετήσαντες Gel, γεννήσαντες CelFelWael, προγενήσαντες WE!, κατασκευά-

σαντες O8!, προκατασκευάσαντες Wasl. εἰργάσατο.

Also cf., in the ancient scholium Ὁ. 113.23 Papag.,




conclusion commands some consideration for the readings of ¢ which differ from LAGQR, though basically I advocate every possible preference for the readings of the vetustiores and every possible disregard for the divergent readings of the deteriores. Of course, if only a few deteriores differ from the vetustiores in a different reading which coincided with the reading of a Palaeologean recension, then we have to assume that the deterior or the detertores in question simply adopted a Byzantine interpolation — something which was chronologically possible, since the deteriores known to us were written after ca. 1290 A.D. I should like to give below a general list of the characteristic readings of ¢ (more often than not followed by ¥ or some mss. of the class y). Some of these readings have been discussed above (cf. pp. 129 ff.). As before, manuscript evidence is given from the following mss.: LAGQR for the vetustiores; CFNO for the class ¢ which is here our principal concern;

VWWa for the class ¥. Evidence quoted for ἡ shows that % adopted many special readings of φ.᾿ Aiax 160/161 ἂν καὶ LGOR: ἂν δράσοι (-7) καὶ GrPFNOVWWa: ἂν (gl. λείπει δράσ' 5.1.) καὶ C. The corruption occurred because a gloss sneaked into the text of the detertores. It happened before 1282 a.p.

considering the fact that it is recorded in G7’,

We shall watch out for

other references to the readings of the deteriores ᾧ which may appear in the dated ms. G, since it provides us with a terminus ante quem for the Origination of ¢. Even Thomas followed the faulty reading of φ in Ai. 160/161. Triclinius criticized the error in a scholium (p. 334.19 Dind.; see above, p. 71), without naming the party against which he argued.

This is one more example of Thomas’ acquaintance with the tradition ¢. At.


ἄρῃ LGQR,


(sub M 944, codd. AVB),


F!NOVWWa, Sudae codd. GF. At. 199 βακχαζόντων L'G'O βακχεζόντων R: καγχαζόντων Suda

11), C, F (-y- ex corr.), NOVWWa.

ἄρῃς Cv (sub


This is the reading exhibited already

in Suda. Cf. above, p. 129. Ai. 243 5’ ἐννάζων L'GRC#F PNP, 5° ἐννάζων L'™, δ᾽ ἐνάζων Q, ἐννάζων Fle: δεννάζων Suda (sub A 216), CeF*N*N'*2=VW'!WaWa'™, The correct reading had been restored by Suda and was taken over from Suda

by ¢ and then followed by %. The verb appears elsewhere in Sophocles (Antig. 759).

Cf. Eustathius p. 668.46.

At. 710 θοᾶν LGQRW'Wa: 604» CFNOVW!

(a corruption).

Ai. 1051 προθεὶς LGQRWP°: προσθεὶς CFNOVW"“Wa (a corruption). At. 1053 ἄγειν LIGORF: &fe» GrCNOVWWa. This was a change made because of the preceding ἐλπίσαντες, in accord with the grammatical rule on the possible use of the future in such constructions (cf. Thomas Mag., Ecloga vocum atticarum Ὁ. 70.17 Ritschl). If ἄξειν actually



was an innovation of φ (and not an ancient variant rejected by the vetustiores), then the fact of its being recorded by G7 is again a proof that ¢ was prior to 1282 A.D. Az. 1168 πλησίοι LGORV!*W!: πλησίον CFNOVi'W'Wa. At. 1409 πατρός γ᾽ ὅσον LGORF: πατρὸς ὅσον CNOVWWa. At. 1417 τότε LGQRFO: ποτε CNVWWa. Electra 55 μοι L'GRNW'Wa: που CFOV. This is ἃ ¢ reading (and not a Moschopulean invention, though it was followed by Moschopulus). El. 129 πατέρων LGRF: τοκέων NOVWWa, τοκίων C. El. 192 ἀφίσταμαι L'A: ἐφίσταμαι GRFWa, ὑφίσταμαι C: ἀμφίσταμαι Eustathius p. 1692.57, NOVW. The deteriores took up a conjecture of Eustathius, who perhaps had been influenced by the faulty Laurentian reading in making his conjecture. Incidentally, I want to stress that the metrical reason for adopting the reading ἀμφίσταμαι by modern editors is not cogent; the reading ἐφίσταμαι of p is perfectly correct and metrically admissible.' El. 309 πολλῆστ᾽ L: πολλή τ᾽ GRWa: πολλή γ᾽’ NOVW: πολλὴ δ᾽ C (non liquet F). El. 364 τυχεῖν LIGRCV®®, Favorinus Περὶ φυγῆς 17.32 (Pap. Vatic. Gr. 11: Studi e Testi 53 Ὁ. 26): λαχεῖν FNOV«Wa. El. 405 ἐμπορεύῃ LGRNOV: ἐκπορευῃ CFWWa. El. 405 ποῖ φέρεις LRFO®? ποῦ φέρεις GVW: τῷ φέρεις CNOP°Wa. El. 415 πολλά τοι LGR, Suda (sub II 1870), FVWa!: πολλάκις CNWWar®. El. 460 δυσπρόσοπτ᾽ LGRFVWiWa!: δυσπρόσωπ' CNOW'Wa!.

El. 947 ποεῖν LGR, ποιεῖν F: τελεῖν CNOVWWa.

(Cf. above, p. 133.)

El. 1024 τοιαύτην οὖν LIGR: τοιαύτη νοῦν C (-n ex corr.), F (v- ex corr. videtur), NOVWa: τοιαὐτη[[ν]] νοῦν W. El. 1157 ἐξαφείλατο L'GRCFW*: ἐξαφείλετο NOVW?*Wa. This is a proper correction of a quite old corruption preserved in the vetustiores and in some deteriores. El. 1396 ἑρμῆς ἐξάγει Leo? ἑρμῆς ἐπάγει LP: ἑρμῆς σφ᾽ ἄγει GRV!WWaO: ἑρμῆς σφ᾽ ἐπάγει CFN. This is the most significant reading of φ, since it is not followed by y and is, therefore, an exclusive feature of the class ¢. Oed. Tyr. 38 οὐδ᾽ L: οὐκ GR: οὔτ᾽ CFNOVWWa. OT 222 τελῶ LGRVWa: τελῶν C'FNOW. On a reference to the two variants in the Thoman scholia, cf. above, p. 130. OT 229 ἀσφαλὴς L'AGRC: ἀβλαβὴς FNOVWWa. 1 The corresponding passages have to be read as follows: El. 171 del μὲν γὰρ ποθεῖ, ποθῶν δέ οὐκ ἀξιοῖ φανῆναι.

aw 191 ἀεικεῖ σὺν στολᾷ, κεναῖς δὲ

The meters are:

ἐφίσταμαι τραπέζαις.

v---v-v-M|| baccheus creticus baccheus “-u-u--|| dambus baccheus

The last syllable of the former line is, of course, anceps; it is followed by hiatus.



OT 347 δ' L'L'™=GRVW'Wa: 6’ CFNOWs. OT 626 τὸ γοῦν LGRCVT’Wa: τό γ᾽ (οὖν om.) FNOVW.!" OT 655 οὖν LGRC, ad Wa: om. FNOVW, Nicephorus

Quaestiones grammaticae (Godofredus Hermann,


De emendanda


grammalicae graecae pars prima [Lipsiae, 1801] p. 349.10; J. A. Cramer, Anecdota graeca e codd. manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis IV [Oxonii, 1841] p. 260.32).18 OT 773 λέξοιμ᾽ LGRCWa: λέξαιμ᾽ FNOVW. This syntactic correction is to be credited to ¢. (Before, I attributed it to Moschopulus: cf. Recension p. 136.) OT 797 χρησμῶν LGCWWa: χρησμῶν γ᾽ FNOV, also R. This is a

reading of the class ¢. (Before, I attributed it to the MoschopuleoPlanudean class £p: cf. Recenston Ὁ. 138.) OT 827 ὃς ἐξέφυσε κἀξέθρεψε pe LGRCFWa: os εξεθρεψί Oxyrh. Pap. 1369: ὃς ἐξέθρεψε xäftduot we NOVW. This is rather a puzzling coincidence of a deterior reading with a papyrus reading, but it must be due to a coincidence of independently made transpositions. OT 874 μάχαν L!G! (μαχᾶν debuit scribi), μάχην G*R, μαχαν fons Sudae sub T 15 (namque adiuncta voce ἃ insequenti paxava in μηχανᾷ abiit in Sudae codd. AFV): μάτην scholia (p. 196.13), Gr’CF*, μάταν FINOVWWa. This is a very interesting case. Except for the scholia and for G7, only the deteriores give the correct reading μάταν while the reading of the veiustiores actually is μαχᾶν (also μάχαν Zc*). Obviously, the original correct reading μάταν was, in the poetic text, corrupted into μαχᾶν, and the deteriores restored the authentic reading on the basis of the scholia. G?’ recorded the reading μάτην from the deteriores ¢, as G did also elsewhere. The unanimity of ¢, followed by y, is very impressive. OT 892 τοῖσδ᾽ LGR, Suda (sub K 1389), CWa: τούτοις FNOVW. OT 989 ἐκφοβεῖσθ᾽ LGRCVWWa: εὐλαβεῖσθ' ΕἸΝΟ. OT 1264 ἐὠραις LG'R, Eustathius p. 389.42: alwpas Tzetzes,!® CNO VWa, (-ow) W. OT 1265 ὅπως δ' ὁρᾷ LGRVWa: ὅπως 69g CNOW. This reading is to be credited to the deteriores ¢, not to Moschopulus (cf. Recension p. 137). 1 The faulty reading τό γ᾽ ἐμὸν originated because in some mss. such was the beginning of, or lemma

prefixed to, the ancient scholium

(p. 189.20 Papag.).

τό γ᾽ ἐμὸν

as the beginning or lemma of that scholium appears in GFNO (τὸ γοῦν γ᾽ ἐμὸν lemma in Wa; no lemma in LMRV). Then, in the paraphrase p. 189.21 there is τὸ γοῦν in LMRNOVWa (τὸν νοῦν F by mistake; no scholium in W). Thus everything points to the fact that a lemmatic prefix of the scholium (though it was not meant to be a verbatim quotation, but just an essential reference destined to introduce the paraphrase) was

erroneously understood by the deteriores as the correct wording and influenced the change in the text. NR. Guilland, Essas sur Nicéphore Grégoras (Paris, 1926) pp. 112 f., wrongly contests Gregoras’ authorship of these Grammatical Questions. Tzetzes

in schol. GMR

on OT 1264: De Marco, Studi Italians N.S.

13 (1936)


Cf. Photius Berolin. p. 56.20 Reitzenstein s.v. Alwpa; Photius uses the ancient scholium on ἑώρα, but his entry is aldpa.








OT 1386 ἥκιστά γ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ L: ἥκιστ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ CNOGRVWWa

OT 1438 100’ ἂν el LV: ἴσθ᾽ ei CNOGRWWa

(cf. p. 136).

(cf. above, p. 136).

On the very interesting fact that » almost in every case follows ¢, I made some remarks above (p. 133). In the evidence quoted above, we should understand that if one or more of the deteriores of the class ¢ depart from the predominant reading of the class and join the vetustsores, it does not necessarily mean that a given deterior compared his text with a velustior and gave preference just to that vetusttor. It may be an accidental result of the fact that some of the popular Palaeologean recensions exhibit that same reading of the vetustiores and the detertor in question by joining what he found in a Byzantine source coincidentally and indirectly came into an agreement with the vetustzores. Some interesting conclusions may be drawn from the list of the readings ¢. The crucial problem is this. Since the old Sophocles tradition is bipartite, how shall we evaluate a different reading of the deteriores & versus an agreement of the vetustiores? Offhand we should say that such a different reading cannot be ancient tradition and could be only an invention or an innovation of the deteriores. Yet, some — to be sure, very few — cases compel us to exercise cautious judgment. As I said, if in case of an original double variant the choice of Aa and p coincided and the other alternate variant, therefore, does not appear in LAGQR, that alternate variant may nevertheless have survived in Ab — and, by the same token, in its descendant ¢. And we have to keep in mind that considerable portions of A are lost or cannot be explored adequately. Situations of this kind can be exemplified by the case of Oed. Tyr. 874 μάταν, where ¢ may have been guided by the scholia. El. 1024 τοιαύτη νοῦν was a case of proper word division (cf. above, p. 133). El. 1157 ἐξαφείλετο and OT 773 λέξαιμ᾽ are rather obvious corrections. Also OT 1265 ὅπως ὁρᾷ is a slight attempt to straighten out the text. But in other cases there is no reason why we should not consider the readings of the vetustiores as the correct and authentic readings of the old tradition. Readings of ¢ like El. 55 που, 364 λαχεῖν, 947 τελεῖν, OT 229 ἀβλαβής, do not deserve any recognition’ and should be dismissed in favor of the vetustiores. I think that most of the peculiar readings of ¢ are simply gratuitous substitutions invented by the editor of ¢, and there is not enough basis for a belief that those readings had ever existed as optional variants in the old tradition. In the course of the above analysis I corrected my former attribution to Moschopulus of a few readings which now have actually proved to have been already exhibited by ¢.' 10 In the past, such readings gained their way into the text of some editions just because Εἰ. 55, rection #1 Cf.

they were adopted by Moschopulus and, eo tpso, represented by AL’, as, e.g., El. 947, or OT 229; or because they appear — as, e.g., El. 364 — as a later. corby 1.3. above, p. 18 note 6.



Whether some of the ¢ readings are inventions of ¢ or ancient readings originally transmitted somewhere as optional variants, this cannot be decided apodictically and generally, but calls for a careful analysis in every single case. But I am basically impressed most strongly by the agreement of the vetusttores and am inclined to consider most of the

special ¢ readings as interpolations of the editor of ¢ — i.e., as prePalaeologean interpolations, but nonetheless interpolations. I should like to add that sometimes the deteriores diverge because of their adopting different variants out of two variants that appear in the vetustiores: cf. Aiax 427 πρόκειται LIARO!V: πρόκειμαι GQCFNO*WWa. The mere fact that mss. as closely related as GOR diverge so that GQ side against R, proves that there was in the main sources of the tradition a double reading. It is almost impossible to establish here formulas covering every possible contingency of manuscript constellations. E.g., Electra 226 ἂν GRCNOVWWa: om. LAF, Suda (sub Καὶ 1186), Zc. The omission of ἂν is a specific error of the Laurentian tradition, and Suda happened just in this case to use that tradition (contrary to its usual agreement with p). Zc often shares in peculiar readings of the Laurentian tradition (cf. above, p. 47). Now, how is it that F goes with LA while other mss. of ¢

are free of that error?

F may know a proper Laurentian source (cf.

below, p. 146), or may be influenced here either by Thomas (Zc) or by Suda. Elsewhere, there are in Sophocles cases when we are faced with a puzzling and, for some reason, unexpected agreement of some mss. with L or with LA — actually, it may be an indirect agreement, the direct agreement being often made with Zc, i.e., with the (first) Thoman

recension. I describe in the following the main representatives of the class ¢. Their affiliation with ¢ has been already established by the very fact of their being involved in the coverage of ¢ readings produced above. I am giving below their separate descriptions with an indication of their

particular and essential features. F = Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, vil. Paper, ca. 1300 a.p., 169 x 126 mm., ὁ Περδικάρης, according to a note on fol. Aeschylus portion): ὦ x(ptor)é βοήθει τῶ

plut. 217 122” δούλω

28, 25. See below plate, foll. Written by Νκόλαοει (at the conclusion of the σου νικολάω τῶ περδικάρη

(the name was corrected from the nominative by the scribe himself). same



the ms.







The A.n.!®

18 Cf. Turyn, Aeschylus p. 55; cf. above, p. 126. This is the text of the subscription of Vatic.


gr. 214 (fol. 219”): { ἐγράφη δὲ τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον διὰ χειρὸς νικολάον

ἁλιτροῦ οὗ τὸ ἐπίκλην we καὶ ἐτελειὠθη κατὰ μῆνα cerr(éuf) poy τῆς τετάρτης ἱνδικτιῶνος τοῦ δξακισχιλιοστοῦ ὁπτακοσιοστοῦ ἐννενηκοστοῦ ἐννάτου ἕτους. καὶ οἱ μεταλαμβάνοντες καὶ ἀνα-








Consequently, we can refer the activities of Perdicares as copyist to the period around 1290 a.p. Because dated Sophocles mss. of that important period are very rare, we welcome an approximate date for F. It is not especially helpful as a chronological contribution to the history of the class ¢, for we have an earlier terminus ante quem in the fact that G, dated Α.Ὁ. 1282, records some variants of ¢ (cf. above, pp. 141 f.). But it is a much more valuable contribution to the chronology of Byzantine recensions, since F was occasionally infected with some interpolations from Moschopulus and Thomas (cf.*below). This shows that at the time F was written, even the later of the two recensions, the Thoman one, already was widely diffused. — Fol. 123: of the new numbering in pencil (127: of the old numbering in ink) Vita; 124” arg. to Aiax; 126° Atax; 162: arguments I, II, to El.; Electra; 191" arg. I, oracle, enigma, arg. II, to Oed. Tyr.; 191%-217" Oed. Tyr. (1-1246). Ancient scholia on the three plays; they belong, on the whole, to the class X. In the poetic text, F shows specific readings of ¢, as: El. 1396 ἑρμῆς of’ ἐπάγει, OT 989 εὐλαβεῖσθ᾽, and other readings quoted above (pp. 141 ff.) in whose coverage F is involved. The character of this ms. has been sufficiently revealed in the preceding analysis of the whole class, but since the evidence concerning single mss. is distributed under special categories, I consider it useful to restate here, in a rearrangement, the most essential evidence inasmuch as it characterizes F and other mss. mutually. Now, the ms. F, as a member of the class ¢, shows its affinity with X, as has been evidenced on many occasions. F agrees with errors of L, on account of the agreement Ad: cf. Atax 546 τοῦτόν ye GQRCWa: τοῦ τόνδε LFN OVW; Ai. 696 χιονοκτύῦπου GORCVWWa*: χιονοτύπτου L, χιονοτύπου F'NOWa?*; Ai. 1360 δῆτα σὺ GRCVO, δῆτα σνγ- Q: δὴ od LIAN, σὺ δὴ F: (δῆτα om.) σὺ WWa; Oed. Tyr. 139 ἐκεῖνον GRCVWWa et Σ: ἐκεῖνος L'FNO, Suda (sub A 3678); OT 397 εἰδὼς GRCVWWaO": οὐδεὶς L!F'N! O=? Sudae sub T 828 codd. AV (om. Sudae GM). Moreover, F individually joins L in some peculiar errors even if other witnesses of the class ¢ exhibit the correct reading: cf. At. 241 ἱπποδέτην GOQRCFP* NOVWWa: ἱππολέτην L!L"™ZLF "War; El. 226 ἂν GRCNOVWWa: om. γινώσκοντες τὸ ῥηθὲν βιβλίον, ὑπερεύχεσθε τοῦ Ὑραφέως παρακαλῶ ὅπως τύχη τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ μακαρίας ζωῆς. This date is September, 1290. Cf. E. Feron - F. Battaglini, Codices manuscripts Graeci Ottoboniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae (Romae, 1893) p. 126; Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber Ὁ. 355. Bandini, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Laurentianae III (Florentiae, 1770) col. 290, quoted from the Aeschylus ms. Laur. 86, 3 (cf. Turyn, Aeschylus p. 55) a note by Nicolaus Perdicas. Actually, in the Laur. 86, 3, written by Manuel Spheneas (cf.

below, p. 152), the last page (fol. 232": Aesch. Pers. 1062-1076) is a later replacement of a missing original page. It was copied directly from Laur. 28, 25 fol. 122". The later copyist in transcribing the corresponding Aeschylean

scholia copied from


28, 25 also the subscription of Nicolaus Perdicares (and while doing this misread his name).

Consequently, the note from Laur. 86, 3 is irrelevant and worthless.



LAF, Suda (sub Καὶ 1186), Zc; El. 456 ἐπεμβῆναι GRCNOVWWa: ἐπιβῆναι L!F; El. 1298 λελεγμένῃ CNOVWWa: δεδεγμένῃ L'F!: λεγομένῃ GR. The errors of L in Az, 241 and El. 1298 had, of course, palaeographical reasons. The reappearance of these errors of L in F is quite interesting. In case of a split between ἃ and p, when different alternate variants are used, F along with other witnesses of ¢ follows L: cf. At. 1136 xotx LFNOWWa: οὐκ GQRCV; At. 1141 ἀλλ’ LFNOVW!?: od δ' GQORCN’ W??Wa; El. 378 σοι L'CFNOW:: τοι GRVWi, τὸ Wa; El. 1304 λεξαίμην L (errore pro δεξ-), δεξαίμην FIN?: βουλοίμην RCOV!WWa, βονλόμην G. As it happens often in the deteriores, there are also in F some inconsistencies or alien elements from other sources. In the poetic text of OT (not in the scholia), there appear some surprising agreements with W: cf. OT 104 τήνδ᾽ om. FW™; OT 472 ἀναμπλάκητοι ἃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀποφυγεῖν in textu FW, etiam K (a part of the scholium sneaked into the text); OT 1000 κεῖθεν om. F'W; 1141 ἐκ μακροῦ χρόνου] οὖν μακρῷ χρόνῳ FW'K. Occasionally, there are in F some agreements with p: cf. Atax 303 πολὺν γέλων GORF, OT 267 καὶ om. GRF. Sometimes, there appear interpolations from Suda: e.g., cf. At. 574 παῖ om. Sudae (sub II 2089) codd. VE, Sophoclis F. Interpolations from Palaeologean recensions, from Moschopulus and Thomas, are frequent — this is an interesting fact in connection with the approximate date of the manuscript. F adopts Moschopulean readings, e.g.: Az. 705 ξυνείης, 780 τοσαῦθ᾽, 1070 λόγων (τ᾽ om.), 1127 δεινόν γ᾽, OT 42 εὑρεῖν ἡμῖν. Thoman readings appear, e.g.: At. 82 ὄκνῳ) ἰδεῖν, 798 πάρεστι κεῖνος, OT 550 τι om. — There are in many places occasional inconsistencies in F as a result of its following different classes of the veteres, especially at the beginning of Atax (approximately up to Aiax ca. 400). N = Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 4677 (olim N 47). Paper, XIV‘ cent., 250 x 155 mm., 205 foll. Once owned by Constantinus Lascaris, who also supplemented some missing portions in the Sophoclean part of the ms.!® — Fol. 76'-77” Vita (excerpt) ;arg. to Atax; poems on Sophocles by Simonides, Erycius, Dioscorides; Aiax 1-32. These pages are supplemented in Constantinus Lascaris’ handwriting. The original text extends 78’-130”r. Fol. 78" Azax (33-end) ; 95” arguments I, II, to El.; Electra; 114 arg. I, II, to Oed. Tyr.; 114"-130” Oed. Tyr. (1-1499). At the end, fol. 131", Oed. Tyr. 1500-1530 supplemented by C. Lascaris. Ancient scholia of the class ἃ on the three plays; they resemble closely those of F. For ¢ readings in N, cf. especially: Az. 1051 προσθεὶς, 1053 ἄξειν, El. 405 τῷ φέρεις, 1396 ἑρμῆς σφ᾽ ἐπάγει, OT 229 ἀβλαβὴς, 347 0°, 989 εὐλαβεῖσθ᾽. As a member of the class ¢, the ms. N goes on the whole 4 For his handwriting, cf. Franchi de’ Cavalieri-Lietzmann, Specimina codicum graecorum Vaticanorum? pl. 58.








with the text of L—cf. these readings in N: At. 546 τοῦ τόνδε, 696 χιονοτύπου, 1136 κοὐκ, 1141 ἀλλ’, 1360 δὴ σὺ, El. 378 σοι, OT 139 ἐκεῖνος, 397 οὐδεὶς In the final portion of Oed. Tyr., N agrees in some errors with GR, but this agreement results from the fact that p took over the end of OT from ¢ (see above, p. 138): cf. OT 1386 ἥκιστά y’ ἀλλ᾽ L: ἥκιστ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ GRCNOVWWa; 1438 100’ ἂν el LV: 108’ eb GRCNOWWa. In some places, N shows special affinity with O and with E (on this ms., see below, Ὁ. 150). Cf. OT 355 τοῦτο om. NO; OT 442 ye om. NO; OT 492 κω om. NOE; OT 508 εἰσῆλθε NOE. There are Byzantine interpolations in N. For example, cf. such Moschopulean readings in N: El. 61 μὲν οὐδὲν, El. 422 ᾧ. Also some interpolations were made by N from Suda: cf. At. 197 ἀταρβήτως (from Suda sub A 4320).

O = Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijks-Universiteit, Vossianus graec. Q 6. Paper, XIV“ cent., 250 x 175 mm., 42 foll. — Fol. 21’ Vita; arg. to Atax; 22" Atax; 29" arg. I, II, to El.; 30% Electra; 36” arg. II to Oed. Tyr.; 365-42: Oed. Tyr. Ancient scholia on the three plays. In several portions, the text and the scholia follow divergent sources. As to the text, the ms. O several times changes its character. Azax 1-216 (fol. 22'-23%) goes closely along with V;; cf. the following concordant readings of VO: 42. 27 αὐτῶν VO!; 64 xobx VO; 83 μὴ om. VO; 115 ὧν (περ om.) VO; 205 ὁ δεινὸς μέγας VO (also W).— Then, Aitax 217-656 (fol. 24-26) presents a normal text of the class & (cf. Ai. 421 ἄνδρα με, 546 τοῦ τόνδε) and shows in that section some special agreements with F: cf. Ai. 393 με ζῆν FO, 531 φόβοισιν (y’ om.) FO.— The next portion, Atax 657-1092 (fol. 26-28") goes with V (cf. At. 659 γαῖαν VO) and with VW (= y) in general: cf. At. 698 xaporoe VWO, 798 τήνδ᾽ ἔξοδον V'W!0, 903 γυνὴ VWO, 984 μοι om. VW=O. — Then, Atax 1093 — Electra 192 (fol. 285--315) follows a normal ¢ text: cf. At. 1136 κοὐκ, El. 55 που, 129 τοκέων. But the portion Electra 193-1510 (fol. 31%-36") again follows particularly V (cf. El. 689 rovö’ VO; 836 ἄνακτ᾽] ἄνω κατ᾽ V, ἂν xar’ O) and, by the same token, follows the Venice class y. In that part, there appear, e.g., such concordant readings of VWO: El. 296 ἔργον, 336 μὲν om., 520 γε om., 601 σὴν χεῖρα μόλις, 608 ἔργων] κακῶν, 665 καὶ μάλιστα, 729 κἀπέκτεινε, 926 εἰσήκουσας, 1263 τ᾽ om., 1453 ἀλλ’ ἀπέδειξαν, 1467 εἰ δὲ τις ἐστι(ν). — The text of Oed. Tyr. seems to represent the normal text of φ (cf. OT 139 ἐκεῖνος, 222 τελῶν, 229 ἀβλαβὴς,

543 ἀντὶ, 989 εὐλαβεῖσθ'᾽) and shows some

more specific agreements with N and E (see above). But in the latter half of Oed. Tyr., there are some readings which agree closely with W (cf. OT 1517 οὖν ἐφ᾽ als εἰμι W, οὖν ἐφ᾽ ols εἰμι O; also many agreements with VW), and also some agreements with GR (cf. OT 1144 τί τοῦπος ἱστορεῖς τόδε GO, τε τοῦπος ἱστορεῖς τόδε R; 1255 γὰρ els ἡμᾶς GRO).



There are even such rare agreements as OT 1151 οὐδὲν εἰδὼς L!APO.


be sure, the scribe of O knew the tradition of L: cf. schol. At. 76 p. 8.21 Papag. ἐχθρὸν GVF: νεκρὸν LO. Obviously, O was occasionally quite eclectic. There are in O also occasional interpolations from Byzantine sources: e.g., cf. OT 1225 ἀρεῖσθε (from Moschopulus); Εἰ. 549 οὖν om. (from Suda sub A 1642). As to its scholia, at the beginning the ms. O shows in some portions

agreement with L, with G, with W — but beginning with schol. Az. 665 (p. 57.7 Papag.) the scholia of O agree closely with scholia of the class ¢ as represented in F and N.!*

the Laurentian

C = Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, Ancien fonds grec 2735. Paper, XIV‘ cent., 25 x 17 cm., 200 foll. — Fol. 87” arg. to Atax; 88" Vita (excerpt); 88" Azax; 119” arg. I, II, to El.; Electra; 148” arguments I, II, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 149*-174" Oed. Tyr. Ancient scholia on At. 1 and on Oed. Tyr. 1-300. The text of the ms. divides into two portions. Atax and Electra 1-471 (fol. 885--128:) follow the Venice class y; cf. these concordant readings of VWC: Aiax 320 ἐξηγεῖτ᾽ ἀνδρὸς, 903 γυνὴ, 953 ὀδυσσῇος, 984 μοι om. VW"C, 1163 μεγίστης, Electra 336 μὲν om., 459

μέλλον. --- Then, in Electra 472-end and Oed. Tyr. (fol. 128"-174”), after having abandoned allegiance to ¥, C simply follows the text of the class ¢: cf. El. 947 τελεῖν, 1396 ἑρμῆς σφ᾽ ἐπάγει, OT 222 τελῶ!ν]], 347 θ᾽, 1386 ἥκιστ᾽ ἀλλὰ, 1438 ἴσθι el. But C is at times inconsistent anywhere: cf. OT 139 ἐκεῖνον with GRVW. We should also note some striking agreements of C with the vetustiores against the detertores, e.g.: OT 229 ἀσφαλὴς LIAGRC (ἀβλαβὴς dy); El. 1157 ἐξαφείλατο L'GRCFW* (ἐξαφείλετο NOVW?*). This is also a quite characteristic agreement: Atax 679 ἐχθαρτέος LIPC (ἐχθραντέος GR, Suda sub E 4016, FNOVW, ἐχθαντέος Q). Obviously, as was practiced by other scribes, the writer of C occasionally adopted readings from other sources. There are in C also interpolations from Byzantine recensions: cf. El. 422 ᾧ, 1375 ὅσοιπερ πρόπυλα, OT 77 80’ ἂν, 105 εἰσεῖδον (from Moschopulus) ; OT 356 γὰρ om. (from Zc = Thomas); 1271 ὄψοιντο (from Triclinius).!% 4 It should

be noted that these mss.

Ε (Laur. 28, 25),

N (Madrid

4677), and

O (Leiden Voss. Q 6), contain also the Aeschylean triad in the old version and that they are likewise related to each other in Aeschylus. Cf. Turyn, Aeschylus pp. 40, 27, 30; in Aeschylus, these mss. were symbolized by me Ne, N, Y, respectively. 1 The ms. Paris 2735 is, in Oed. Tyr., the codex Victorii as reported, from a collation of Petrus Victorius, by Fridericus Thiersch, "De copiis Victorianis in Homerum, Hesiodum, Pindarum et tragicos,”” Acta Philologorum Monacensium tom. I fase. III (Mo-

nachii, 1812) p. 332.

Thiersch published Victorius’ collation for Oed. Tyr. 1-100, and

this was repeated from Thiersch in Petrus Elmsley, Sophoclis Oedipus Tyrannus (Lipsiae, 1821) p. xvi. The identification of the Sophocles ms. collated by Victorius as

Paris 2735 is obvious.

For example, the following readings of C were recorded by

Victorius in the collation published: Oed. 40 νῦν τὸ κράτιστον.


13 xarourelpas, 20 διτλῆς 1.1. διελοηῖς 8.1,




E = Cambridge, Trinity College Library, R.3.31 (cf. L. Campbell, Journal of Philology 8 [1879] 87-95). Paper, by different hands of the XIV‘, XV, and XVI* cent., 213 x 140 mm., 98 foll. This is a composite manuscript in which some lost original parts were replaced by later supplements. Our symbol E applies only to the ‘‘old’’ text parts (Ai. 1350-1395 on fol. 32”, and El. 914-end, Oed. Tyr. 1-1355). On fol. 68", there is a note: κωνσταντίνος ὁ καὶ παδιάτης (cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber p. 247) ; this may be the writing of the main copyist of the codex, or that of the owner. This is the general distribution of the contents (without distinction of the heterogeneous single portions) : fol. 1’ arg. to Ai.; 2" Atax; 34" arg. (Moschopulean) to El.; Electra; 67° arg. I, II, to Oed. Tyr. ; 685-98" Oed. Tyr. But this is the analysis of the ms., according to its various portions: Fol. 1": arg. to Atax, by a hand of the XVI‘ century. Fol. 2'*-21": Atax 1-810, by a hand of the XVI**century. Moschopulean and ancient scholia on At. 1-168. The text of this section, which is a later replacement of missing folios, is Moschopulean: cf. At. 58 ἐμπιτνῶν, 112 tyw ce ἐφίεμαι, 488 τινες, 565 ἐνάλιος. Fol.



with Moschopulean οὐδ᾽ ἐμοὶ δὴ, 951 ἄγαν Fol. 28'-32': Azax with Moschopulean


by the main

scholia. The γ᾽, 1070 λόγων 1126-1349, by scholia. The


of the XIV“


text is Moschopulean: cf. At. 877 (τ᾽ om.), 1081 πάρα. a different hand of the XIV* cent., text is Moschopulean: cf. Ai. 1127

δεινόν γ᾽, 1214 ἀνεῖται, 1230 ἐφώνεις.

Fol. 32": Atax 1350-1359 and Atax 1360-1395, written by two different hands of the XIV“ century. The lines Aiax 1360-1395 were canceled, because they were duplicated in the subsequent section. The text seems to be old and closely affliated with the deteriores: cf. At. 1359 viv πολλοὶ φίλοι E (πολλοὶ φίλοι νῦν N, νῦν φίλοι πολλοὶ WWa); 1360 (δῆτα om.) σὺ E!WWa (δὴ σὺ L!AN, σὺ δὴ F; cf. above, p. 131).

Fol. 33"-": Atax 1360-1395, by the hand of the XVI* cent. (the same that wrote fol. 2-21’: cf. above). Text and scholia are Moschopulean: cf. At. 1369 χρηστός γ᾽. Fol. 34*-54": Aiax 1396 — Electra 913, by a hand of the XIV* cent. The text is Moschopulean: El. 42 μακρῷ χρόνῳ, 528 εἷλεν οὐκ, 676 τότ' ἐννέπω.

Fol. 55"-94v: Electra 914 --- Oed.

hand of the XIV* cent.

Tyr. 1355 with scholia, by the main

The scholia are Moschopulean, but the poetic

text is ancient and belongs to the class ¢. It shows some closer affinity with N (cf. above, p. 148), and occasionally reveals some special agreements with W (cf. OT 791 μὲν om. WE", 1044 οὗτος om. WE). We can

easily disregard the other portions of this ms. and we should consider this portion to be the only noteworthy and original section of the ms.




For ¢ readings in E, cf.: El. 947 τελεῖν, 1396 ἑρμῆς of’ ἐπάγει; OT 222 τελῶν, 229 ἀβλαβὴς, 989 εὐλαβεῖσθ᾽. For readings of E which agree, as it should be expected, with L, cf.: El. 1467 εἰ δ᾽ ἔπεστι, OT 139 ἐκεῖνος a.c., 543 ἀντὶ. Sporadically, in some stretches of Electra and Oed. Tyr., the ms. E adopted some readings of the Venice class y: cf. El. 916 τοι] re VWE!, 1050 οὐδὲ VWE, 1102 ὀρθῶς, OT 236 ὃς (τις om.) VWE, 245 alt. τῷ om. ΝΕ. Fol. 95*-96": Oed. Tyr. 1333-1441, by a hand of the XV“ cent. The lines OT 1333-1355 were canceled, because they appeared in the pre-

ceding portion.

Text and scholia are Moschopulean: cf. OT 1348 ποτέ

(ἄν om.). Fol. 97:-: Oed. Tyr. 1442-1491, by a hand of the XV“ cent. The text is Moschopulean: cf. OT 1446 re, 1459 ἀρρένων. Fol. 98"-v: Oed. Tyr. 1492-1530 with Moschopulean scholia, by a hand

of the XIV* cent.

The text seems likewise to be Moschopulean.

Paris, Supplément grec 1229. Cf. Recension p. 167. Paper, XVI cent. Atax (40-end), Electra, Oed. Tyr. This is a composite ms. At the beginning, Aiax 40-106 is ancient. Then, Atax 107-end and Electra are Moschopulean (cf. Recension, loc. cit.). Oed. Tyr. is, on the whole, ancient and belongs to the deteriores, probably of the class ¢. For its ancient readings, cf. OT 42 ἡμῖν εὑρεῖν, 43 του, 77 ὅσα (ἂν om.). For readings of the deteriores in this ms., cf.: OT 222 τελῶν, 229 ἀβλαβής, 827 ἐξέθρεψε κἀξέφυσὲ με, 1386 ἥκιστ᾽ ἀλλ΄. It seems that this text belongs rather to the class ¢, to judge from its readings like these: OT 139 ἐκεῖνος, 543 ἀντὶ. There are some interesting coincidences with W: OT 78 εὖ (r’ om.), 476 ἀνιχνεύειν (also V), 1440 y’]


There are quite many Moschopulean interpolations, e.g.: OT 630

μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ ob σοὶ, 637 al τ᾽ olxous.



In the previous discussion (cf. above, p. 132), we have pointed out that manuscripts of the triad of the class y — called also the Venice class — stem basically from the Roman tradition p and have fundamentally ancient scholia derived from the same tradition p. Accordingly, they agree in many cases with p against X. At the same time, they show that the archetype of this class ¥ was compared with the text of other classes with the result that most omissions and strikingly peculiar readings of p were abandoned in y in favor of \@ readings. Moreover, many peculiar readings of ¢ were accepted by y, which accounts for the extremely frequent agreements of φύ. Some characteristic readings of ¥ have been quoted above, and a general list of more significant readings of y will be given below. In the following presentation of the y material, I shall use the evidence of the most prominent witnesses of this class, V and W. They often disagree because one of them — especially W — sometimes departs from the common reading of % in favor of an ancient reading, or mostly in favor of a ¢ reading. But wherever V and W coincide in a strikingly peculiar reading different from that of p or X or φ, then it has to be considered a special reading of v, and obviously an interpolation devoid of any basis in the authentic “‘old’’ tradition. As to the chronology of y, i.e., the time at which the presumed archetype of the class % (not the subarchetype of its members VW and some others) originated, I have to point to the fact that many readings of y appear in the ms. Laur. 32, 40 = H, which I have recognized to be written by Manuel Spheneas.'* This copyist wrote two other mss. dated of 1287 and 1297 a.p. Roughly speaking, we can refer him to the close of the XIII! century, and that would be the terminus ante quem for the formation of the tradition y in the triad. And I note that, of course, the class ¥ was posterior to the class ¢. This succession is quite obvious, since the class ¢ is basically a homogeneous product of the family \ both in text and scholia. The class y, however, is a derivative of the tradition p, but underwent in the poetic text also an extensive influence of the class ¢, thus becoming a rather heterogeneous product, contrasting with

the higher consistency of the class ¢. with ¢ way a Venice of the

Accordingly, the agreement of y

in numerous text readings can be explained only by % being in a follower of ¢, but not vice versa. I have to state at once that the class Κ has no value at all for the poetic text of Sophocles, in view fact that the text of p is evidenced by three vefusttores GOR (and

M for the scholia).

Moreover, the text of ¥ is quite unreliable and dis-

w Cf. Turyn, Aeschylus pp. 54 f.; Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber p. 281; cf. above, p. 126; below, p. 159.





torted by many interpolations and mistakes. Of course, in the scholia of the triad the mss. VW supply additional evidence for the tradition p, and perhaps deserve occasional attention. I shall proceed with the description of manuscripts affiliated with the class y. Their analysis and characterization will bring out the more significant features of this class. First of all, I shall deal with the leading witnesses of the class ψ: V and W, which the reader has already met in our previous preliminary discussion of the class y (cf. above, p. 130). V = Venice graec. 468 (No. di collocazione 653). See below, plate vııı. Paper, XIV“ cent., 340 x 248 mm., 190 foll. I assume the date of the ms. as of the early XIV* cent. on internal grounds. Since the ms. shows some Triclinian readings (cf. below, p. 166), it is post-Triclinian and, therefore, its date has to be moved down to the period after 1300 A.D. — Fol. 80 Vita; arg. to Atax; 81? Atax; 93" arg. III, part of arg. I (ἡ μὲν σκηνὴ — διδασκαλίᾳ τῆς ᾿Αντιγόνη:), to Antig.; 93% Antigone; 103: prose arg. and metrical arg. to Philoct.; 103" Philoctetes; 115% ancient arguments I, II, to El.; Electra; 128” arg. II, I, enigma, oracle, to Oed. Tyr.; Oedipus Tyrannus ; 142" arg. to Trach. (from Apollodorus) ; 142” Trachiniae (1-18); after that, several folios appear to have been lost; 143'-146% Oedipus Coloneus (1338-end). Ancient scholia on Aiax, Antig., Philoct., El., OT; no scholia on Trach. and Oed. Col. This ms. divides into two sections: V, comprising Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., shows its affiliation with the class y and is related basically — both in text and scholia — to the tradition p. However, the other part of the ms., Ve, comprising the remaining plays (Antig., Philoct., Trach., Oed. Col., distributed in the ms. in an unusual sequence), reveals a clear affinity with the tradition A, though occasionally the picture is slightly

blurred because of many interpolations practiced in both parts of the codex. I shall deal with V2 in another chapter (see below, p. 165); here, only V, will be treated below as a prominent witness of the class y, which is called the Venice class just because of this Venice ms. The characteristic evidence for % readings in V; was already touched upon above (see p. 131) and will be more abundantly offered below in connection with other mss. of the class y. Besides V,, another important witness of the class y is W (cf. above, p. 130). W = Milan, Ambros. G 56 sup. (No. 399 in Martini-Bassi). Paper, XIV cent., 260 x 175 mm., 1 + 125 foll. — Fol. 1" Vita; 1” arg. to

Aiax; after fol. 1, a leaf is missing which contained Ai. 1-16; 2'-21” Aiax (17-end); 22” ancient arguments I, II, to El.; Electra; 40° arguments I, II, to Oed. Tyr.; 40"-57" Oed. Tyr. Ancient scholia of the class p on the three plays; they extend through schol. OT 1084 (through fol. 54"). Though the ancient scholia of VW on the triad stem from the








class p, they do not exhibit the Tzetzes scholia on At. 884 (De Marco, De scholuts Ὁ. 140), on OT 263 (op. cit. p. 149), and on OT 1264 (De Marco, Studs Italiani N.S. 13 [1936] 11; here my statement applies only to V, for scholia of W do not reach that far). This lack of Tzetzes insertions in the scholia of VW is to be explained by the fact that y goes back to a pre-Tzetzes source of the class p — namely, to the source pa

(cf. above, pp. 120, 138).17 For common readings of VW which characterize the tradition y, I shall quote below a longer list. It is to be recalled that there are many common errors of VW and GOR, which proves that y derives from p (cf. above, p. 132). In the final portion of Oed. Tyr., where p took over a missing part from ¢ (cf. above, p. 138), quite naturally there are agreements of ¢py: cf. OT 1386 ἥκιστά γ᾽ GAN’ L: ἥκιστ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ CNOGRVW. There are many cases in which only V of these two mss. goes with p, while W in its erratic or eclectic way departs from p and joins X; I do not quote such cases here. Indeed, we have to realize that both V and W were acquainted also with the ἃ tradition, which they used occasionally. After all, we know that V had at his disposal a source of the X class

for the remaining plays (and probably that source comprised a triad of the same character \, too). As to W, it is interesting to note that this manuscript occasionally shifts from y to ¢ (beyond the usual ingredients from ¢ in ψ) and sporadically shows some peculiarities in common with

LA or L: cf. At. 538 αὐτὸν GQRVWaCFNO: om. LIAW; El. 1185 οὐδὲν GRVWaCFNO: ἐγὼ L'W; OT 918 ἐς GRW**WaCFNO, els V: εὖ LPa!? WeA; 1084 ἐκφὺς οὐκ GRVCFNO: ἐκφὺς ὡς οὐκ L'W. There is no report on readings of A in the last three cases. The palimpsest A should be checked for these readings. It seems that the scribe W had at his disposal some copy descending from a Laurentian source and that he used it occasionally. I am quoting below the more significant readings of VW, to be presumed to be readings of the class y. Mostly these are either blunders or interpolations. For the sake of completeness of reference and convenience of the reader, I shall include in the list below also those readings which have been already pointed out in the preliminary discussion of the class Ψ (pp. 130 ff.). The manuscript coverage quoted in each case is limited to the basic vetusttores LGQR and to the mss. VW as witnesses of the class y. In general, in the cases quoted below, the deteriores of the class ¢ agree with the vetustiores ; only occasionally some of the deteriores of this 1 ] note the fact that in the Pindar scholia only one ms., B (Vatic. gr. 1312), has Tzetzes additions: cf. A. Turyn, De codicibus Pindaricis (Polska Akademja Umiejetnosci. Archiwum Filologiesne, Nr. 11. Cracoviae, 1932) p. 15; cf. Turyn, Philologus 90° (1935) 117.



class ¢ depart from the general old reading and embrace the reading y, or in some stretches of the text a ms. of the class ¢ would shift to y as it

is indicated in its description.

But this is rather individual and excep-

tional, and I prefer to dismiss here this additional evidence of ¢ in order not to complicate overduly the general picture. Other members of the class y are not yet quoted here; in their descriptions, I shall demonstrate

their affiliation with y by quoting the appearance of established y readings in their texts.

This is a list of more characteristic readings of VW

(=y).18 Aiax 205 ὁ δεινὸς ὁ μέγας LGOR: ὁ δεινὸς μέγας VW. This is an excellent metrical correction (in anapaests), though probably it was achieved unintentionally. Ati. 320 ἀνδρὸς ἐξηγεῖτ᾽ LGQR: ἐξηγεῖτ᾽ ἀνδρὸς VW.) Ai. 798 τήνδε δ᾽ ἔξοδον LGQR: τήνδ᾽ ἔξοδον VIW!. Ai. 813 μόνον LGQRW:: μόνῳ ΝΥΝ". At. 953 ὀδυσσξως LGQR: ὀδυσσῆος VW. Ai. 1163 μεγάλης LGQR: μεγίστης VW. Ai. 1163 τι LGQR: om. VW. Ai. 1179 ὅπως rep LGOR, Suda (sub II 1788, praeter ὅπως περὶ Sudae A): ὅπως re VW. Electra 411 σνγγένεσθέ γ᾽ ἀλλὰ LGR, Sudae sub 2 1276 cod. A: σνγγέveo’ ἀλλὰ Suda sub A 1068, Sudae Σ 1276 codd. VME, Sophoclis VW.! El. 487 ἐν LGRW:: εἰν VW', etiam AUY. This is an interesting proof that the source of AUY (class τ: cf. below, p. 174) interpolated its Moschopulean text of the triad from other sources. ‘El. 594 οὔνεκα LGRW5: ἕνεκα VW'. El. 601 χεῖρα σὴν μόλις LGR: σὴν χεῖρα μόλις VW.

El. 608 ἔργων LGR: 1% The


y was

λόγων Suda



(sub I 131): κακῶν Eustathius p. being defined as a separate



Dindorf through his collation of the Laur. Conv. Soppr. 41 = A (cf. below, p. 160) for the triad (cf. Dindorf, Sophoclis tragoediae, Lipsiae, 1825) and by Adolf Michaelis

through the collation of Vindob. philos. philol. gr. 281 = We Elecira (cf. Otto Iahn - Adolf [Bonnae, 1882) p. 11).



(cf. below, p. 161)

[1872]; cf. Iahn-Michaelis,



1 It is interesting to note that perhaps the source of L also had some confusion in the sequence of words at the end of that line, for before correction

ἐξηγεῖτ' L*: then, ἀνδρὸς [exe] ἐξηγεῖτ᾽ ἔχειν Le.

there was ἀνδρὸς ἔχει»

I suspect that some old manuscript

source had an omission supplemented above the line in this in L® it was at first inserted in the wrong place thus: ἀνδρὸς hand, some source used by y had also a wrong insertion in ἔχειν. 1% This is a proof that y (VW) occasionally interpolated basis of Suda. Cf. El. 1393 els om. Suda (sub E 255), VW!.


way: ἀνδρὸς m . Then, ἔχειν ἐξηγεῖτ᾽. On the other this manner: ἐξηγεῖτ᾽ ἀνδρὸς the Sophocles text on the It was a common practice

among the copyists of that period to interpolate the Sophocles text and likewise the scholia from Suda (cf. above, pp. 120, 135 f.).



1969.18, VW. This is obviously an interpolation from Eustathius. We have already encountered an interesting case of a reading from Eustathius in the class ¢ (cf. above, p. 142, on EJ. 192 ἀμφίσταμαι). El. 723 δίφροι LGR: δίφροις VW. El. 926 ἥκουσας LGR: εἰσήκουσας VW. El. 1072 obxér’ LGR: οὐκ (-ér’ om.) VW. El. 1100 ἐξερευνᾷς LW?*: ἐπερευνᾷς GR: ἐρευνᾷς VW. El. 1102 ἀλλ’ εὖ θ᾽ LGRV?*: ὀρθῶς W: ὀρθῶς ἀλλ᾽ εὖ 6’ V* (this is a combination of the two readings). For the origin of the interpolation ὀρθῶς, which is a characteristic feature of the class y, cf. El. 1099. El. 1169 [ἀ]]πολείπεσθαι L (ἀπολείπεσθαι etiam FNO): ἐκλείπεσθαι GR: ᾿ξαπολείπεσθαι V, ἐξαπολείπεσθαι W. The reading of VW was an obvious attempt to reconcile the ἃ and the p readings. El. 1375 ὅσοι πρόπυλα LGR: ὅσοιπερ πρόπυλα Moschopulus: ὅσοι προπύλαια Triclinius: ὅσοιπερ προπύλαια VW. El. 1453 ἀλλὰ κἀπέδειξαν LGR: ἀλλ’ ἀπέδειξαν VIW. El. 1467 εἰ δ᾽ ἔπεστι[[»]] L: εἰ δ’ ἔστι(ν) GR: εἰ δέ τις ἐστὶ VW. Quite obviously, % wanted to fill in the metrical gap caused by the omission in p. This case serves also as a proof of the descent of y from p (cf.

above, p. 132). El. 1497 ἰδεῖν LGR: εἰσιδεῖν VW. Oed. Tyr. 236 ὅστις LGR: ὃς (τις om.) VW. OT 476 ἰχνεύειν LGR: ἀνιχνεύειν VW. As to the presence of some Palaeologean interpolations in the mss. of y, it seems that the prototype of Y was post-Moschopulean and postThoman (but not post-Triclinian — cf. below, note 171), since some Moschopulean and Thoman readings penetrated into y: cf. El. 1124 ἐπκαιτεὶ LIGRCFNO: ἐπαιτεῖται Moschop., VW (also Triclinius, but we have to consider the earliest author of the reading); El. 707 !varos LGRFN, Moschop., &varos C: ἔνατος δ᾽ Thomas, VW (also Triclin.), 11 This is a combination interesting chronologically, was post-Triclinian, though archetype y (Wa here joins satellites of the class y).

of the Moschopulean with the Triclinian reading. It is for it proves that at least the immediate source of VW it does not prove what was the general reading of the VW, but the reading of VWWa is not followed by all the

The prototype of ¥ could

not be so late as to be post-Tri-

clinian, since many readings of the class ¥ were followed by Manuel Spheneas,


scribe of H (cf. above, p. 152). And this case prompts us to specify that probably not every reading of VW was a y reading, though very many of them were. Probably some concordant readings of VW, if not extant in many other members of the class y, have

to be credited to a lower level of the tradition y as particular readings of the immediate source of VW. Among readings of VW that were not so generally accepted by other members of the class y and, therefore, could be considered readings of a lower echelon, I can quote, e.g.: Ai. 984 μοι LGQRW»: om. VW; El. 296 τοὔργον LGR: ἔργον VW; El. 645 ἄναξ LGRW”?: ἄπολλον VW; El. 729 κἀνέπιπτε LGR: κἀπέκτεινε VW; El. 1504 δεῖ pe LGR: pe δεῖ VW; OT 753 μία LGR: μόνον VW.



évvaros δ' O; El. 1386 βεβᾶσιν LGRCFN, Moschop.: βεβᾶσι δ᾽ Thomas, VWO (also Triclin.). Some fewer mss. of the class y individually adopted quite many Palaeologean interpolations, and V excelled in that line. It is easy to understand the character of the special readings of y: they were arbitrary inventions of some Byzantine philologist of the last decennia of the XIII! century — I mean the originator of Yy—and they should be recorded in the future editions only if they offer something

worth considering, with the full realization of their conjectural character. In evidencing occasionally the y readings, future editors may limit themselves, on the whole, to recording only the readings of VW. As I mentioned before, in very many cases VW, or y, agree with special readings of ¢, but the class ¢ is to be credited with the priority of those readings. The agreement ¢y goes so far that we can consider the class y to be a contamination of a ground base of p character with an influx of ¢ ingredients. The ms. W occasionally may reveal some interesting readings picked up from a vetustior. It is always to be kept in mind that y is highly inconsistent, erratic and desultory. On the whole, the same picture as in the poetic text of ¥ prevails also in the scholia of that class, as exemplified prominently by V and W (cf. above, pp. 134 f.). They represent the tradition p with many conjectures and with occasional use of A or ¢ material, and with interpolations from Suda in case of differences (rare and trifling, to be sure) between the ancient scholia and Suda. Thus, also for the scholia the evidence of % is devoid of any special value. The examples of VW readings quoted above provide us with an ample repertory of characteristic features, which, if found in other mss., almost automatically assign them to the class ¥. I continue the description of the mss. of the class y. Va = Moscow, Gosudarstvenny! Istoricheskif Muzel, Khludov A 172 (cf. Turyn, Aeschylus p. 31; Manuscripts p. 26). Paper, XV*b cent., 203 x 135 mm., 141 foll. I was unable to obtain some more information about this ms. or more photographic material. What I have is a photostat of fol. 91” containing Oed. Tyr. 1498-end ; this precedes the Aeschylean portion of the ms. It may be (but this is only my guess) that the beginning of the ms. contains the Sophoclean triad — Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. — extending through fol. 91”, but the contents of that part of the ms. have yet to be ascertained. The specimen of Oed. Tyr. which I possess reveals a text affliated with y, since it is most closely related to V: cf. OT 1499 ὧνπερ] ὅθεν VVa, 1513 ζῆν ante καιρὸς transpos. VVa, 1518 u’ Sxws] ὅπως με VVa, 1525 καὶ] ὁ V, om. VaW*®, 1528 θνητὸν

ἄνθρωπον ὄντ᾽ VVa.

Possibly the whole of the Sophocles text in this ms.

may have the same character.








Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, II.F.35. Cf. Recension p. 162. XIV‘ and XV*» cent.” Aiax (24-end), Electra, Oed. Tyr. (1-1275). The portion Aiax 24-1034 added at a later time (probably as replacement of lost folios) is Moschopulean and has sparse Moschopulean scholia (cf. loc. cit.). The older part, beginning with Aiax 1035, has full Moscho-

pulean scholia, but its text is a contamination of a Venice text % with Moschopulean interpolations. For the basically “old” character of this part of the ms., cf.: At. 1036 οὖν, El. 1362 μάλιστα ἀνθρώπων, OT 77 ὅσα (ἂν om.), 1252 εἰσέπεσεν. For its y readings, cf.: El. 411 συγγένεσθε ἀλλὰ, 459 μέλλον, 487 εἶν, 916 re, 1102 ὀρθῶς, 1169 ’ξαπολείπεσθαι͵ OT 476 ἀνιχνεύειν, 1001 re om. (also om. V), 1007 y’ om. (also om. V), 1068 ποτε om. (also om. GRV). For Moschopulean interpolations in that part, cf.: As. 1081 πάρα, 1230 ἐφώνεις, El. 1029 πάθης, OT 159 κεκλομένω, 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἐμοῦ, 1225 ἀρεῖσθε. P = Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, cod. Palatinus graec. 40. Paper, XIV‘ cent., 24 x 17 cm., 252 foll.; mostly in 2 columns to a page, 36 lines to a column, for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 2" Atax; 10” ancient arguments I, II, to E}.; Electra; 20" arguments I, II, oracle,

enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 20-30’ Oed. Tyr.

The text of this ms. divides

into three sections. Aiax and Electra ca. 1-1259 belong to the y tradition. Cf., in that portion, such readings of P: Az. 1163 τις om., El. 608 κακῶν, 723 δίφροις, 1102 ὀρθῶς, 1169 ’ξαπολείπεσθαι. This y portion of P is especially related to W.17 Electra ca. 1260-1510 shows a & text: cf. El. 1396 ἑρμῆς σφ᾽ ἐπάγει. Oed. Tyr. (entirely) is affiliated with the Laurentian tradition \ — or, to be more precise, with Aa — and reveals many agreements with peculiar readings of LA or L. For this Laurentian portion of the ms. P, cf.: OT 252 ταῦτα] τὰ L'P, 253 τῆσδέ ye L!?P, 322 εἶπες L'AP, 322 προσφιλῆ L'P, 349 εἶναι om. L!AP, 598 αὐτοὺς ἅπαν L'P, 763 ol’] ὅ γ᾽ LP, 896 χορεύειν πονεῖν ἢ τοῖς θεοῖς LP,! 1024 ἐξέπεισ᾽ αὐτὸν L*?P, 1151 οὐδὲν εἰδὼς L'AP, 1480 tr’ om. L!AP. P is occasionally interpolated from other sources. In view of the

scarcity of Aa witnesses, the evidence of P for Oed. Tyr. does have some value. 11} am indebted to Professor Carlo Gallavotti (Rome) for additional information on this ms. and a collation of several readings from it. I had also a microfilm reproduction of El. and OT in this ms. νῶτα ın Aiax 110 νῶτα πρῶτον φοινιχθεὶς P: πρῶτα φοινιχθεὶς νῶτα W, πρῶτον φοινιχθεὶς Wa, πρῶτον (νῶτα om.) φοισιχθεὶς We. This shows an original omission in the common source

and subsequent insertions of the omitted word at wrong places.

Also cf. Atax 579 δῶμ᾽

ἀπάκτου LGOR,

(δῶμα κτάκτον Eustath.


(sub A 2875), ¢, V: δῶμ᾽ ἀπάγου WPC??

742.43, 1532.59, 1937.62). 14 For the reading of A, cf. Scheltema, Mnemosyne ser. IV, 2 (1949) 134.



= Vatican Library, Vatic. graec. 904. Paper, XIV* cent., 255 x 175 142 foll. — Fol. 105'-111" Electra (1015-1510); 112: arguments to Oed. Tyr.; 112"-135" Oed. Tyr. (1-1523) ; 136"-137% Azax (1-98) ; Electra (382-441); 142:- Aiax (1359-1420). The poetic text of 1-98, 1359-1420, Electra 382-441, was written by a different hand,

but the scholia even in these portions were added by the main hand. The ms. had scholia, but most of the outer vertical margins were cut off so that we have now only a few pages preserved entirely and showing scholia of the Laurentian tradition. Their evidence should not be overlooked by a future editor of the ancient scholia. The poetic text of this ms. has a composite character and is drawn from

various sources. Electra 1015-1510 belongs to the y tradition: cf. El. 1072 οὐκ (-é7’ om.), 1100 ἐρευνᾷς a.c., 1102 ὀρθῶς, 1169 ’ξαπολείπεσθαι, 1375 ὅσοι[[ rep] προπύλαια, 1453 ἀλλ’ ἀπέδειξαν, 1467 el δέ τις ἐστὶ, 1497 ἐσιδεῖν. It seems

that this ¥ portion of Pa is especially related to Wa, with which it shares, e.g., these errors: El. 1026 γάρ τ’ ἐγχειροῦντα, 1027 τὸν νοῦν.

The most valuable section of the whole ms. Pa is the poetic text of Oed. Tyr. which (apart from occasional interpolations) shows an amazing agreement with the text of LA or L in some very special features: cf. OT 72 τήνδ᾽ ἐρυσάμην L!APa!, 252 ταῦτα] τὰ L!Pa, 253 τῆσδε γε L'?Pa', 260 ἔχω L!Pa!, 349 εἶναι om. L'APa, 598 αὐτοὺς ἅπαν LPa, 763 ol’] ὅ γ᾽ LPa!, 1084 ἐκφὺς ὡς οὐκ L!Pa! (also W), 1386 ἥκιστά y’ ἀλλ᾽ LPa (the ms. Pa owes this correct reading most probably to its Aa-like source), 1480 Ir’ om. L'APa. It is noteworthy to compare these agreements with the concordant features of LAP (see above, p. 158); cf. also above, p. 47. It seems that in this ms. also Azax 1-98, Electra 382-441, and Atax 1359-1420, belong to the same L-like tradition: cf. At. 28 τρέπει, 33 ὅπου," 1360 δὴ σὺ (also LIAN, ov δὴ F: cf. above, p. 131). All the L-like portions of Pa afford valuable additional attestation of the Laurentian tradition. Among mss. of the Venice recension y, there are two gemelli: H and A (we keep for these two mss. their symbols introduced by Dindorf). H = Florence, Laur. plut. 32, 40. Paper, around 1300 a.p., 254 x 185 mm., 71 foll. Symbol H in Dindorf, Scholia, and in Papageorgius. I have recognized the writing of this ms. to be that of Manuel Spheneas (cf. above, p. 152). — Fol. 1" Anonymus, περὶ κωμῳδίας A XV Cantarella

(Aristophanis Comoediae recogn. R. Cantarella 1 (Milano, 1949] pp. 37 f.); arg. to Aiax; 1° Aiax; 25" ancient arguments

I, II, to El.; 25” Electra;

τὸ Atax 33 ὅπου is the reading of L*?=“-K'!DYAU*?U7"Y (but ὅτου Of course, the group AUY


L*K* DAY? Urey),

may have learned the reading from L or from the scholia of

On the relationship of K to L, see below, pp. 166 ff.




40: arguments


I, II, to Oed.



Tyr.; 49*-71"




Ancient scholia

on the three plays. A = Florence, Bibl. Laur., Conventi Soppressi 41. Paper, XIV“ cent., 26 x 17 cm., 87 foll. Symbol A since Dindorf. — Fol. 1"" Atax 1-44 (with Moschopuleo-Thoman scholia), added by a later hand; the text of these lines seems to be Triclinian, and the scholia probably came from the Triclinian commentary of the same source. The original body of the ms. begins, after a loss of several folios, on fol. 2". Fol. 2'-12" Azax (559-end) ; 13" arg. to El., published by Dindorf, Scholia pp. 243.3-244.3 ; 13" Electra; 30" arguments I, II, oracle, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 305-457

Oed. Tyr.

Ancient scholia extend from fol. 2" through 38”, on Aicx 552

— Oed. Tyr. 813. Dindorf’s collation of this ms., with the symbol A, became known already in 1825 (cf. above, p. 155 note 168). The two mss. H and A are obviously gemelli drawn from one source. They show, e.g., these errors in common: Az. 1274 οὗτος om.; El. 129 τῶν γενναίων; 1323 xwpodvros τινὸς; 1499 σὰ ἴδης νῦν κακὰ ἐγὼ H, σὰ ἴδε viv κακὰ ἐγὼ A; OT 258 ἀλλ’ om. They cannot be copies of each other, because particular mistakes in one of them are not repeated in the other one: cf. El. 67 om. H: habet A; 46 τυγχάνει] ὑπάρχει A: τυγχάνει H correctly. Here are a few well-known readings of % which appear in these two mss. HA: As. 320 ἐξηγεῖτ᾽ ἀνδρὸς H (the pertinent portion is lost in A), 798 τήνδ᾽ ἔξοδον, El. 847 prius ἔτ᾽ om., 926 εἰσήκουσας, 1169 ’ξαπολείπεσθαι, 1453 ἀλλ’ ἀπέδειξαν, 1467 ef δὲ τις ἔστιν, 1497 ἐσιδεῖν H εἰσιδεῖν A, OT 476 ἀνιχνεύειν. --- The following ms. is partially related to HA: Ha = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2796. Cf. Recension p. 164. Paper, XV" cent. Atax, Electra, Oed. Tyr. The text of this ms. divides into four sections. At the beginning, Atax 1-193 is a Thoman influenced text (Ai. 82 ἰδεῖν, 154 iels λόγο). Then, Atax 194-end, Electra, Oed. Tyr. 1-36, is Moschopulean (cf. loc. cit.). The next section, Oed. Tyr. 37-302, is closely related to H and, by virtue of this affiliation, belongs to the class ¥; the symbol Ha applies only to this section (cf. OT 54 ὡς κρατεῖς WHHa4, 199 παρέρχεται H!Ha, 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ἐξ ἐμοῦ HHaA, 258 ἀλλ’ om. HHaA). Finally, Oed. Tyr. 303-end is again Moschopulean (cf. OT 637 ob τ' οἴκους, 659 φυγὴν, 752 ἐν δ᾽ abrotow ἦν). The source of the Moscho-

pulean sections of this ms. belonged to the class £m: cf. El. 454 els txOpods αὐτὸν, OT 906/7 γὰρ παλαιὰ λαΐου θέσφατ΄. Three mss. of the class ¥ are very closely related among viz.: Wa, Wb, Wc. Here is their description:

Wa = Milan, cod. Ambros. Paper,



250 x 171


E 103 sup. (No. 310 in Martini-Bassi). mm.,

1 + 172 foll.

— Fol.

1" Vita;




arg. to Atax; 2' Aiax; 19° ancient arguments I, II, to El.;!"* Electra; 33” arguments I, II, to Oed. Tyr.; 3.3". 46) Oed. Tyr. There are ancient scholia which in a desultory way change their sources, but mostly agree with those of V and W; only in some portions do they shift to the ¢ tradition. Occasionally, they have some peculiar additaments from

outside the regular corpus of the scholia (cf. Dindorf, Scholia pp. x ff.). I used Wa, along with V and W, for the coverage of y readings in my previous discussions (cf. above, p. 128). Incidentally, this ms. Ambros. E 103 sup. contains a Pindaric portion (symbol N in Pindar) which belongs to the characteristic Paris recension of Pindar (cf. Turyn, De codicibus Pindaricis p. 57). Wb = Vatican Library, cod. Vatic. graec. 1332. Paper, XIV“ cent., 256 x 181 mm., 230 foll. — Fol. 9'-147 Aiax 1-316; the folio 15:- Azax 317-409 was supplemented by a later hand; 24-31% Aiax 636-end; 32-48" Electra ; 48” arguments I, II, oracle, enigma, to Oed. Tyr. ; 49-52

and 535-64" Oed. Tyr. (1-699, 856-1010, 1230-1331, 1445-end).


16-23, 56-57, 59-60, 62-63, are blank; fol. 52” exhibits a Life of Euripides, 53" has a grammatical fragment. Ancient scholia on the three plays, extending through schol. OT 137 (through fol. 50”), reveal the same character as the scholia in Wa. Wc = Vienna, Oest. Nationalbibl., cod. philos. philol. graec. 281. Paper, XV“ cent., 214 x 144 mm., 144 foll., 15 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1" Vita; 2-3" arg. to Atax; 3°-6* blank; 67 a few glosses; 7: Atax; 51” arguments I, II, to Electra copied from Wa (cf. below, note 176) ; 52: Electra ; 99* arguments I, II, to Oed. Tyr. ; 99°-138"

Oed. Tyr. (1-1248).

Ancient scholia.

A later hand of the XVI* cent.

added some Byzantine (Moschopulean and Thoman) scholia. These three mss. WaWbWe are closely related. They obviously stem from one source: cf. At. 119 τίς ἄν σοι τἀνδρὸς ἄλλος ἦν WaWbWe, 166 χωρὶς σοῦ WaWbWce, 482 φρενὸς ὅμως WaWc (the pertinent portion of Wb is missing), 1213 καὶ om. WaWbWe. The group is especially related to the ms. W, as is shown, e.g., by these examples: At. 589 γε] we WWaWc

(the portion of Wb is missing), 1413 μένος] αἷμα WWaWbWc. The two mss. Wa and Wb seem to be gemelli: cf. At. 962 τοι om. Wa Wb; El. 129 ye νέων WaWb! (γενναίων Wh?) ; 282 δύστηνος WaWb; 1324 φέροντες φήμην οἵαν WaWb; OT 41 σε om. WaWb. Only in a portion El. ca. 1222-1510, the ms. Wb veers away from Wa. In that portion, Wb shows some interesting readings, e.g.: El. 1243 ye om. VWb;

El. 1485-6 om. L'K'Wb* (sed habet A). 10 Argument I to Electra in this ms. is enlarged by the text published from We (which here reproduces the ms. Wa) by Iahn-Michaelis, Electra? p. 35 left column, lines 8-12 (the reading line 9/10 in Wa is els τὸν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ γαμβρὸν).



As to the ms. We, it shows a composite character, though throughout in the same group. The initial portion, Atax 1-344 fol. 175), seems to be an apograph of Wa: cf. Vita pp. 1.14-2.1 δ᾽ αὐτόν φασιν — κατὰ] δὲ φησιν αὐτὸν ἐν [|] κατὰ Wa: δὲ φασιν

it stays (through Dindorf (ex φη-

corr.) αὐτὸν [[ἐν]] κατὰ We; schol. p. 1.17 Papag. οὐδὲ] ἐν δὲ WaWc; AB. 237 ἀργόπκοδας Wa!Wc!, ἀργύποδας Wa*Wc* (also Wb). This relationship would account for the automatic agreements WaWc in Ai. 119 or 166 as quoted above. Then, for the rest of Atax (345-end), Wc continues

giving a text of the same kind as WaWb,

though not transcribing it

from Wa; cf. the agreements WaWbWc given above. Yet, Wc is sporadically inconsistent, intensely corrected and heavily interpolated from many sources so that many significant features of its source were superseded by other readings. Then, in Electra and Oed. Tyr., the ms. Wc is again simply an apograph of Wa, as is shown by the fact that every peculiar error of Wa reappears in We: e.g., cf. El. 8 ὁ om. WaWc; 55 σνγκεκρυμμένον WaWc!; 173 alterum θάρσει om. WaWc; OT 189 εὐῶπα] κῶπα WarWc; 468 νωμᾶν] κυμᾶν WaWc (νωμαν Wa’, νωπᾶν Wer’). Accordingly, while we bear in mind that Wc in Atax 1-344, Electra, and Oed. Tyr. is a mere apograph of Wa, and in Atax 345-end is somewhat inconsistent (though related to this very same group), we can simply dismiss it from further consideration. Of course, the affiliations of Wc just indicated point to the y character of Wc. This is of some interest in connection with the fact that the Electra text of Wc became, many years ago, generally known through its collation published in the Electra edition of Iahn-Michaelis. This — in addition to the disclosure of A readings published by Dindorf (see above, p. 155 note 168) — contributed to the acquaintance of the scholarly world with the y tradition. The afhliation of Wa and Wb with W has been indicated above. The ms. Wa itself was applied to the coverage of y readings (above, pp. 130 ff.). By virtue of these relationships, both mss. Wa and Wb are shown to belong to the y tradition, which was exemplified by concordant readings of VWWa. Here I quote explicitly some y readings which appear in both mss. WaWb: cf. Aiax 953 ὀδυσσῆος, Electra 723 dippers, 926 εἰσήκουσας, 1100 ἐρευνᾷς, 1102 ὀρθῶς, 1169 ’ξαπολείπεσθαι, Oed. Tyr. 236 ὃς (τις om.), 476 ἀνιχνεύειν. Some other mss. of the class % follow. Wd = Vatican Library, cod. cent., 223 x 155 mm., 395 foll., ocles. The Sophoclean portion is later Arsenius of Monembasia);

Palat. graec. 319. Paper, XV/XVI% 25 lines to a page for the text of Sophwritten by Aristobulus Apostolides (the see above, pp. 65, 68; below, pp. 184,

187, 189. — Fol. 189"-211” Oed. Tyr. (391-end); 212: blank; 21.3:--228: Aiax





2295 ancient arguments



I, II, to El.; 229r-259r Electra. No scholia. This is a composite manuscript. The text of Oed. Tyr. was copied directly from Vatic. 1333 (Zc) as is shown by these common readings of Zc and Pal. 319: OT 1030 τότε (ἐν om.); 1096 te; 1380 μάλλιστ᾽ Zc, μάλιστ᾽ Pal.; 1424 el] els; 1454 ἀπολλύντην; 1487 τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ [[πικρρῇ]} βίου Zc: τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ (lacuna) βίον Pal.; 1514 [[κγρῆ]]σαι Zc: (lacuna) oa Pal. (For another apograph of Zc by Aristobulus, see above, p. 65). The character of the Atax text in Wd cannot be determined with positive certainty because of many interpolations and many leaves lost. Yet, toward the end of Atax there appear in Wd interesting agreements with some deteriores: cf. Aiax 1359 πολλοὶ φίλοι νῦν NWd (νῦν πολλοὶ φίλοι E, viv φίλοι πολλοὶ WWa); 1360 (δῆτα om.) σὺ EIWWaWd. Then, the Electra text of Wd belongs decidedly to the class y: cf. Electra 601 σὴν μόλις χεῖρα, 608 κακῶν, 1102 ὀρθῶς, 1169 ’ξαπολείπεσθαι.

The whole ms. is heavily interpolated with various Byzantine readings: cf. Ai. 84 ὀφθαλμοῖς (γε om.), cf. Thomas; 112 ἐγώ σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι (Moschop.) ; 233 ἐκεῖθεν ἐκεῖθεν (Thomas) ; 295 πάθα:] τύχας (Tricl.). We = Vatican Library, cod. Palatin. gr. 139. Paper, XV/XVI* cent., 216 x 195 mm., 329 foll., 23 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 98" Vita (excerpt); arg. to Atax; 99° Atax; 121: arg. I to El.; 127% a Latin argument to Electra; 128: Electra; 158: arg. I, enigma, oracle, arg. II, to Oed. Tyr.; 159-188" Oed. Tyr. (lines 1379-1488 omitted in the middle of fol. 187%). No scholia. Marginal notes in Latin. The text of this ms. is more closely related to W (cf. Ai. 57 ἔχων κτείνειν WWe). It agrees with VW and obviously belongs to the class y. Cf. such readings of We: At. 1163 μεγίστης, 1163 τις om., 1179 ὅπως re, Electra 601 σὴν χεῖρα μόλις, 608 κακῶν, 1102 ὀρθῶς, 1375 ὅσοιπερ προπύλαια, 1497 εἰσιδεῖν,

Oed. Tyr. 236 ὃς (τις om.). There are in We quite many Byzantine interpolations, e.g.: Ai. 994 πασῶν, 1369 y’, El. 809 οἴχη φρενός, OT 1252 εἰσέπαισεν.

Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2794. Paper, XIV cent., 213 x 140 mm., 138 foll., 17 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. The handwriting of Paris 2794 is that of the Aeschylus ms. Paris 2785 (cf. Turyn, Aeschylus p. 61), which has the same page size and the same number of poetic lines to a page.” Probably there was originally a large volume intended to comprise triads of Aeschylus (Paris 2785), Sophocles, and Euripides. For 17 With regard to the Paris 2785, Jean Irigoin, Scriptorium 4 (1950) its watermarks No. 2887 and 2788 (Briquet). Since they point to 1335 (cf. C. M. Briquet, Les filigranes* (Leipzig, 1923] pp. 202 f.), we gain, token, a chronological clue for the approximate date of Paris 2794 which

195, identifies and 1336 A.D. by the same is written by

the same scribe as Paris 2785. Such dating of Paris 2794 — approximately around the middle of the XIV century— would be rather an early date thus established for a

text of the Jena recension, which is followed in a part of this ms.



a part of Eurip. Orestes (503-947) concludes the Paris 2794, and Paris 2800 written by the same hand, likewise with 17 poetic lines to a page, shows the Euripides triad — Hecuba, Orestes (1-17, 52-502, 948-end),

Phoenissae — without the portion of Orestes which is included in Paris 2794. — Fol. 17 Vita; 2r arg. to Atax; 3" Anonymus περὶ κωμῳδίας (Aristophanes A XV p. 37/38 Cantarella); Prophecy (cf. above, p. 88); 3” Atax; 43: arg. I, II, to Electra, and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papag.); Electra; 85: arg. I, II, to Oed. Tyr.; 85-125" Oed. Tyr. (11458). There are Moschopulean scholia on the three plays, but the

poetic text is composite and divided into three sections. Atax and Electra 1-231 (fol. 3"-49r) belong to the Jena recension: cf. Ai. 527 κάρτ᾽ ἂν ἐπαίνου, 780 εὐθὺς ἀναστὰς ἕδρας, 1418 εἰσιδοῦσι, 1419 πρὶν 5° ἂν ἰδεῖν οὐδεὶς, El. 76 ἐργάτης, 231 ἀποπαύσαιμι a.c. (this reading appears also in 4] 4). Electra 232-end and Oed. Tyr. 1-117 (fol. 495-885) belong to the Venice class y: cf. El. 274 προσαυδᾶν ταύτην (this also in HAWa), 459 μέλλον, 487 εἰν, 723 δίφροις, 926 εἰσήκουσας, 1169 ’ξαπολείπεσθαι, 1375 ὅσοιπερ προπύλαια.

Oed. Tyr. 118-1458 (fol. 89-125”) is Moschopulean: cf. OT 130 τὰ, 136 θ᾽, 159 κεκλομένω, 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἐμοῦ, 297 οὐξελέγξων, 1348 ποτέ (ἄν om.), 1422 οὐχ.






In our discussion of the vetustiores (cf. above, p. 101), we have established the basic ‘‘old’’ evidence for the Sophoclean plays also beyond the triad and illustrated the division of the old tradition into the Laurentian class A and the Roman class p also for the remaining plays: Antigone, Oed. Col., Trachiniae, Philoctetes. We know that we have to rely fundamentally on the mss. LAGQR, and we proved how we should evaluate the Byzantine tradition of Thomas Magistros and Demetrius Triclinius in the remaining plays. Now, there are in existence some other mss. which belong, with regard to the plays in question, totally or partially, to the old tradition and contain all or some of the remaining plays. They are, in those plays, veleres in a general way; yet, they are less reliable, since they were exposed, in a varying degree, to Byzantine interpolations. In the above heading, I call them “less important’: they could be called also less valuable, or less reliable, or inferior; I did not want to call them ‘deteriores’’ (which they certainly are), for we have used this term in a specific application to a certain tradition of the triad. The mss. in question are not exponents of any definite recension. Each of them is an individual product of a late Byzantine scholar or copyist of the XIV“ century at the earliest and represents a single, eclectic compilation of Sophoclean texts from different sources. Our analytical approach to these mss. will tend to discover the re-

lationship of a given manuscript to the Laurentian or the Roman tradition, as the case may be; then, the possible shifts of its allegiance; the degree of its genuineness as affected by possible Byzantine interpolations, and the source of its interpolations. On the whole, as the reader will see, the results of our analysis will show the low reliability of these poorer witnesses and their limited usability for the attestation of the genuine tradition in the remaining plays. Now I am going to present the single mss. in this group. V = Venice graec. 468 (cf. above, p. 153). In this ms., the triad (V;) is a representative witness of the Venice class y. Here we have to deal with the portion of this ms. containing: Antigone, Philoctetes, Trachiniae (1-18), Oedipus Coloneus (1338-end), with ancient scholia on Antig. and Philoct. This portion of the ms. we mark Vg, in opposition to the triad Vı (but in quoting readings we simply use the general symbol V regardless of the play). Vs reveals clearly its Laurentian character, i.e., its affiliation with the




tradition A. It shows in its basic features quite close resemblance to L or A, which prompts me to note that also in Aeschylus this same ms. Venice 468 exhibits a portion of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon the text of which is closely related to the Aeschylean Mediceus, i.e., to the Laur. 32, 9.11 To prove the Laurentian character of V2, I am quoting just a few examples of agreement of L (possibly LA) and V: Antig. 998 σημεῖα τῆς ἐμῆς R: τῆς ἐμῆς σημεῖα LV; 831 τέγκει θ᾽ R: τάκει 6’ LV; 1098 λαβεῖν LAV: κρέων R; Phil. 108 δῆτα τὰ ψευδῇ GOR: δὴ τάδε ψευδῇ LAV; 288 ἐξεύρισκε ΟΟΕΚ: εὕρισκε LV; 414 ἀλλ’ GOR: om. LV; 772 ταῦτα GQR: om. LV; 1051 you GR, με σὺ Q: om. LV; Oed. Col. 1415 ὦ φιλτάτη od ποῖον OR: ὦ φιλτάτη ποῖον LAV; 1474 τοῦτο QR, Suda (sub T 854): om. LV; 1529 στέργων ὅμως OR: στέργω νόμῳ L, στέργων νόμῳ V; 1640 φρενὶ QR: φέρειν LAV; 1664 ἀλγεινὸς OR: ἀλγεινῶς LV. The fragment of Trachiniae in V is too short to allow a conclusive statement on its character, though it seems that in this beginning of Trachin. the ms. V goes with R: cf. Trach. 2 βροτῶν πρὶν ἂν L, Suda (sub Ac 256): πρὶν ἂν βροτῶν RV; 7 ναίουσ᾽ ἐνὶ RV: ναίουσ' ἐν L. Of course, we are not surprised to find even in this section of the ms. some interpolations from Thomas (e.g., Antig. 493 κλοπαῖς) and even from Triclinius, e.g.: Phil. 150 ἄναξ τὸ σὸν LGR, τὸ σὸν ἄναξ Q: ἄναξ (τὸ σὸν om.) Tricl., V. This fact gives us also some clue as to the possible date of the ms. — it is chronologically post-Triclinian. I noted in another connection (cf. above, p. 76) that for a part of Philoctetes the ms. V was copied in the Triclinian ms. Ta. On the whole, I should say that, in view of the scarcity of Laurentian witnesses, this V2 may be used as an additional witness both for text and scholia, with a proper regard (or rather disregard) for its Byzantine interpolations. K = Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, plut. 31, 10. Cf. Arminius Metlikovitz, ‘‘De Sophoclis codice Laurentiano plut. XX XI. 10,” Dissertationes philologae Vindobonenses 2 (Pragae-Vindobonae-Lipsiae, 1890) 213302. Paper, XIV“ cent., 299 x 194 mm., 265 foll. — Fol. 143" Aicx; 160” ancient arguments I, II, to El.; Electra; 178: arg. Il to Oed. Tyr.; Oedipus Tyrannus; 197% oracle to Oed. Tyr.; Antigone; 212" prose arg. to Philoct.; 212” Philoctetes; 228% Oedipus Coloneus; 250'-265” Trachiniae. Sparse ancient scholia on Aiax, Electra, and the beginning of Trachiniae. The ms. has a text drawn from several sources and is heavily interpolated, but in some portions it is closely akin to L, though by reason of its interpolations it never presents a consistent text. On account of its relation-

ship to the Laurentian tradition and to L, this ms.

K was the object of

great interest. The older method of determining its character was very faulty, since scholars did not recognize its different character in single τ Cf. Turyn, Aeschylus pp. 14, 100; Eduard Fraenkel, Aeschylus Agamemnon! pp. 2 ff.

MANUSCRIPTS OF ANTIG., OED. COL., TRACH., PHIL. portions and its erratic inconsistency visible in every portion. an analysis of the single portions of K:

167 This is

Aiax and Electra represent an L-like text: cf. Atax 33 ὅπου L*?K!; 115 ἐννέπεις L7°K 7°; 178 ἐλαφηβολείαις L*K; 696 χιονοτύπκτου LK; 706 ἕλυσε yap αἰνὸν GQR, (-cev —) A: ἔλυσεν αἰνὸν L'K!. It is very interesting that the omission of γὰρ is not shared by A;!” this shows that K is here most closely akin to L. — Also cf. At. 1214 ἄγκειται L'K; Electra 359 οὖν om. LIK; 456 ἐπιβῆναι L'KF; 584-586 om. LA: at habent LK; 649 ἐφεῖς L'K!; 881 ὕβριν L'K ; 1485-1486 om. L**K! (habet A). At the same time, as a result of its desultory manner, K has even in this section some alien readings; e.g., there are in Electra such readings from y like El. 1102 ὀρθῶς, 1169 ’ξαπολείπεσθαι.

Oed. Tyr. follows mainly the Roman tradition p: cf. OT 253 θεοῦ (re om.) GRK (et nonnulli alii); 267 καὶ om. GRK (etiam F); 295 ods δ᾽ GRK*; 525 rotxos δ᾽ GRK; 1021 δῆτα GRK (etiam FO); 1445 γ᾽’ ἂν GRK (etiam WO). There are readings from other sources, too, especially from the deteriores. At the end of OT, some readings common to ¢py quite naturally appear also in K: cf. OT 1386 ἥκιστα ἀλλὰ, 1438 ἴσθ᾽ εἰ. The beginning of Antigone 1-522 follows the L tradition: cf. Antig. 193 τῶν R: τῶνδ᾽ LAK; 235 πεφραγμένος R: πεπραγμένος LAK: δεδραγμένος testantur scholia Thomana, fortasse respiciunt etiam scholia vetera — cf. Suda sub A 162; 413 κινῶν R: κεῖνον LK!; 507 δρᾶν R: om. LIK. But Antigone 523-end (from fol. 204” on) follows the p tradition: cf. Ant. 532 λήθουσά μ᾽ ἐξέπινες L: λήθουσ᾽ alu’ ἐξέπινες RK; 653 ἀλλὰ πτύσας L: ἀλλ’ ἀποπτύσας RK; 684 ὑπέρτατον L: ὑπέρτερον RK; 801 ’γὼ L: κἀγὼ RK; 930 τήνδε γ᾽ ἔχουσιν L: τῆσδ᾽ ἔχουσιν R, τήνδ᾽ ἔχουσιν K. Philoctetes follows the L tradition: Phil. 288 ἐξεύρισκε GQR: εὕρισκε LK; 414 ἀλλ’ GOR: om. LK; 772 ταῦτα GOR: om. LK; 1051 pov GR, pe od Ο: om. LK.


Coloneus follows the L tradition: cf. OC 79 σοι L!A!OR: γε

LA": σοί γε K (this is a contamination of the two variants that appear in L and A); 391 τοιοῦδ᾽ bx’ ἀνδρὸς Thomas, Tricl.: τοιοῦδε γ᾽ ἀνδρὸς R: τοιοῦδ᾽ ἀνδρὸς LAK; 564 κινεύματ᾽ L'K.™ 191 think that the true reading Atax 706 is: λῦσεν γὰρ αἰνὸν. Cf. above, p. 109 note 114. 1 Suda obviously refers to the double reading δεδραγμένος ---- πεφραγμένος. Drachmann

(in Adler's apparatus) seems to have recognized it when he proposed for Suda: δεδραγμέσος: πεφραγμένος. 41 The case OC 128 is not entirely clear: As τρέμομεν λέγειν RLP°: ἃς τρέμο (-μεν λέγειν om.) L®: ἃς τρέμομεν λέγειν om. K.—Campbell (Sophocles I? p. 30) believed that only 4s r was written by 1,5 and that, consequently, ρέμομεν λέγειν was added by L®. I doubt whether the partial omission by L* and the omission in K have anything in common or are due to some disturbance in some Laurentian source. Probably the omission in K was simply an oversight caused by the fact that the words as τρέμομεν λέγειν in L (or in

the intermediate source of K) extended the line over a wider space than the preceding lines.



In Trachiniae, we can distinguish the tradition X and p only for the beginning of the play, as far as the text of R reaches (Trach. 1-372), and at least in that portion of Trachiniae the ms. K follows the text of p: cf. Trach. 179 χαρὰν L: χάριν RK; 289 νιν L: om. RK. For the rest of Trachiniae, there is no criterion for determining the difference between A and p. For example, if we observe Trach. 491 y’ om. LAK (habet Thomas, Triclin.), or 534 φράζουσα LK (φράσουσα Thomas, Triclin.), we do not know whether these corruptions are a feature of the ἃ tradition or of the whole ancient tradition (involving also p which is not represented here because of the loss of its manuscripts). And, of course, we do not know whether K had at his disposal a full ms. of Trachiniae of the class p. As to the basic problem of the possible relationship of K to L or toa A-like source in the pertinent portions of K, no definite conclusion can be reached. Perhaps K in its \-like portions descended tndtrectly from L in such a manner that in the course of that transmission alien interpolations and accessory changes were added. The problem is also complicated by the fact that it is sometimes hard to establish the chronological relationship of some corrections in L to the time of the presumptive intermediate copy between Land K. At any rate, it is obvious that Καὶ in those portions stems from the X tradition, though the value of K is considerably reduced as a result of its interpolations and inconsistencies. As for Byzantine interpolations in K, it is impossible to exhaust all the cases by making specific quotations. Suffice it to say that K felt no compunction in adopting anywhere a Byzantine reading — or any different reading from the medieval traditions — different from that which

he had in his source.

Let us quote only a few examples from K: Aiax

951 ἄγαν γ᾽ (Moschop.) ; 1342 y’ om. (Thomas) ; El. 332 y’ om. (Thomas) ;

1124 ἐπαιτεῖται (Moschop.); OT 18 of δ᾽ ἠιθέων (Thomas); Antig. 210 ἐκ vy’ LAR: ἐξ Thomas, K; 1114 τὸν βίον σῴζοντα LAR: σῴζοντα τὸν βίον Thomas, K; 1241 ἐν LR: εἰν Tricl., K. Here, I am indicating the originators of these Byzantine readings: K may have taken them over also from some subsequent followers of those interpolations. — I ought to mention that K succeeded in making (of course, conjecturally) an excellent correction which, as we know now, coincides with the correct authentic reading appearing in a papyrus: Trach. 1136 μνωμένη L, Thomas, Triclin.: μωμένη K and Oxyrh. Pap. 1805. Perhaps K was

inspired by Soph. Oed. Col. 836. On the whole, the ms. K is worthless, though it may be used in Antig., Philoct., Oed. Col., Trach., as an occasional additional evidence duplicating in controversial cases the evidence of ἃ or p, as the case may be. But it would have to be used with great caution because of its constant adopting of Byzantine interpolations.



S = Vatican Library, cod. Urbinas graec. 141. Paper, XIV“ cent., 252 x 170 mm., 191 foll. — Fol. 1: Aiax; 11” arg. I, II, to El.; Electra; 23: arg. II, oracle, to OT; Oed. Tyr.; 34° arg. III, I, to Antig.; oracle, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 34” Antigone; 53% prose arg. to Philoct.; 53-717 Philoctetes (1-1297). Ancient scholia on Aiax 1, Electra, Oed. Tyr. (316end), Antigone, Philoctetes. The scholia on Ai., El., OT, are eclectic and desultory. Scholia on Antig. and Phil. are of the Laurentian class. The ms. is extremely inconsistent in its selection of sources and, moreover, heavily interpolated. In the triad, the ms. S follows surprisingly often the Venice readings y and the readings of the Roman class p. It seems that S oscillates between a y source (of a V-like character) and a p source: cf. Atax 39 ἔργα τοῦδε GORVS, 159 ἔρυμα VS, 205 ὁ δεινὸς μέγας VWS, 568 ἐμοὺς om. VS, 778 τῇδ᾽ ἐν ἡμέρα VS, 1068 γ᾽ om. GQRWS, 1127 δεινόν τ᾽ LVW: δεινὸν (τ᾽ om.) GQRS, 1136 οὐκ GQRVS, 1141 σὺ δ' GORS, Electra 283 κἀπιδακρύω VWS®, 608 κακῶν VWS, 723 δίφροις VWS, 847 prius ἔτ᾽ om. GRVWS, 916 τοι] re VWS, 1026 πράσσειν] πάσχειν GRS, 1298 λεγομένῃ GRS, Oed. Tyr. 753 pla] μόνον VWS. We have to take into account that sometimes y coincides with p, yet it is rather easy, from the examples just cited, to infer how S shifted allegiance over longer stretches. For a longer part of Aiax, S follows V, then shifts to GOR for the rest of Atax. In Electra the picture is similar: at first, S goes along with VW, then shifts over to GR. In Oed. Tyr., the S text is quite heterogeneous. There are agreements with ¢ or ¢y or with Lo (cf. OT 229 ἀβλαβής oyS, 347 0° oS, 543 ἀντὶ LdS, 655 οὖν om. gS), but the text of Oed. Tyr. in S seems to be strongly influenced by L. The influence of the L text extends in S over the whole triad: cf. Atax 1214 ἄγκειται L'KS, El. 331 ψυχῇ ματαίᾳ L7°S7, 948 καὶ ποῦ σοι LS, 1101 μαστεύω Lv°S*, OT 461 λάβῃς (μ’ om.) LS. These agreements, especially in yp.-variants, are most interesting and may even raise the question whether the copyist of S was in direct touch with the ms. L. The varying constellations in which S appears in the triad prove that S shifted several times its sources and modified the text with various readings from many available sources. For Byzantine interpolations in the triad of 5, cf.: At. 58 ἐμπιτνῶν, 717 μετεγνώσθη, El. 809 οἴχῃ φρενὸς, OT 42 εὑρεῖν ἡμὶν (from Moschopulus); At. 328 εἵνεκ᾽, El. 890 λοιπὸν ἢ (from Thomas); El. 554 θ᾽, OT 1157 τῇδ᾽ ἡμέρᾳ (from Triclinius). The whole text of the triad is so contaminated in S that we can dismiss it entirely from any consideration. The problem of Antigone and Philoctetes in S has to be treated separately, apart from the triad. The scholia on Antigone and Philoct. represent the Laurentian scholia X (not the Roman scholia p). The poetic text is certainly ancient (cf. Antig. 648 γ᾽ om. LRKVS), but very heavily interpolated. As to its affiliation — whether it is with ἃ or p —,








the picture is not absolutely consistent, but there are very frequent agreements of S with GQR rather than with L. Therefore, I assume that S in Antigone and Philoctetes is basically affliated with p, though 5 probably knew the Laurentian tradition also in these plays (he used its scholia) and occasionally adopted its readings.

For agreements of S with R in Antigone, and with GOR in Philoctetes, cf.: Antig. 219 'πιχωρεῖν LIZ": 'xtxepety RS; 367 τοτὲ L: ποτὲ RS; 439 ἀλλὰ πάντα ταῦθ᾽ L: ἀλλὰ ταῦτα πάνθ᾽ RS; 532 λήθουσά μ᾽ LS7?: λήθουσ᾽ alu’ RS; Philoct. 98 ὁρῶ βροτοῖς L, Suda (sub T 295), -σι Q: βροτοῖς ὁρῶ GRS; 144 tows yap L: γὰρ ἴσως GS, tows (γὰρ om.) QR; 952 αὖ LQ, Suda (sub A 4430 et Ψ 105): om. GRS; 1218 ὁμοῦ L: ἐγγὺς GORS. These examples prove sufficiently that S agrees with the text of GOR in general and even more closely with GR than with Q. Thus it is obvious that S is affliated with a later source of GR which we marked pc (cf. above,

p. 118).

At the same time, we should not overlook the fact that S

knew the tradition X, from which there are some infiltrations in S also in this portion: cf. Phil. 288 ἐξεύρισκε GQRZgZn: εὕρισκε LSKV, ZoZp, Triclin.!@ As to Byzantine interpolations in the S text of these two plays, it would be cumbersome to enumerate all of them — I shall content myself with just a few samples: Antig. 210 & y’ LAR: ἐξ Thomas, Tricl., 5; Phil. 61 τήνδ᾽ LGQR: τὴν (δ᾽ om.) Tricl., 5. In general, interpolations are quite frequent in these plays in S, both from Thomas and from Triclinius. Considering the text character of S as analyzed above, its inconsistency, and its interpolations, we can leave it out in future editions of Sophocles. Ub = Vatican Library, cod. Vatic. graec. 910. Paper, XV‘ cent., 22 x 15 cm., 190 foll. — Fol. 1* (according to upper right corner numbering) Aiax (1119-end); 7" arg. I to Antig. (ἡ μὲν σκηνὴ --- τὸ δρᾶμα τοῦτο NB’);

7°-34" Antigone;



73” enigma,



II, to Oed. Tyr.; 74-107” Oed. Tyr. (1-1504). Moschopulean scholia on Aiax (1119-end), Electra, Oed. Tyr. (1-947), with some notes added among the scholia. There are short ancient scholia on Antigone, based on AUY-like (cf. below, p. 173) or V-like scholia. Many leaves are damaged. This is a composite manuscript, the scribe of which changed his sources several times. The drawing of precise border lines between the different portions of Antigone is sometimes difficult or doubtful, because as a result of damages many characteristic readings that could 82} am reporting in this case evidence also from some Thoman mss. and from Triclinius, for we have to realize that some coincidences with L may be occasioned indirectly under the influence of Byzantine texts whenever they carry Laurentian readings. Of course, in the case of S, many elements speak for its contact with the Laurentian tradition.



contribute to the analysis of the text character of a given section are lost. For the same reason, an entirely positive analysis of the text character of Aiax in this ms. is somewhat hampered. At any rate, the preserved part of Aiax (1119-end) is ancient: cf. Atax 1160 παρῆ, 1230 édpdvers, 1369 γ᾽’ om. It clearly belongs to the deteriores (cf. At. 1409 πατρὸς ὅσον) and is affiliated rather with the class ¢, since it is free of most blunders of the class % in this portion of Aiax. There are many inconsistencies and interpolations in this section of the ms.: cf. Az. 1127 δεινόν γ', 1214 ἀνεῖται (from Moschopulus). Electra and Oed. Tyr. are Moschopulean in text and scholia, but there are many departures from the standard Moschopulean text. For Moschopulean readings in this ms., cf.: El. 809 οἴχῃ φρενός, 985 μὴ λιπεῖν, 1029 πάθῃς, 1124 ἐπαιτεῖται, 1375 ὅσοιπερ πρόπυλα, OT 29 καδμείων, 35 καδμείων, 42 εὑρεῖν ἡμὶν, 50 στάντες τ᾽, 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἐμοῦ, 637 ob τ’ οἴκους, 752 ἐν δ᾽ αὐτοῖσιν ἦν, 804 συνηντίαζον. A more interesting part of this ms. is Antigone. It presents a desultory text which alternates portions drawn from an AUY-like source (of the

Paris class x — see below, pp. 173 ff.) and from a V-like source so that the corresponding sections of this ms. may be considered gemelli of AUY or of V, respectively, as the case may be. Also scholia in Ub are drawn from the source from which the poetic text is drawn, but then scholia from the other source were added subsequently by the very same scribe (and the different shade of ink is indicative of this procedure). This is a rough and. approximate distribution of the single portions in Ub (it did not seem worth while to pursue this analysis too closely throughout the entire text of Antigone, though it may be that the alternation or the shifting of sources was even more desultory than indicated below): Antig. ca. 1-301 (ca. fol. 7-13”), 332-470 (fol. 147-17"), 886-1010 (fol. 25"--275), are derived from an AUY-like source (cf. below, pp. 175 ff.). Cf. the following readings in the portions just indicated: Antig. 125/6 ἀντιπάλου---δράκοντος A*U*Y*Ub!*; 337 πτερῶν AYUb, πετρῶν U; 340 ἀποτρύεται καλλομένων AUY Ub; 342 πολεύων AUY Ub; 467 ἠνσχόμην AUYUb; 939 δὴ ᾽γὼ κοὐκέτι LR: δὴ κοὐκέτι AYUD, δὴ οὐκέτι U. Antig. ca. 302-331 (ca. fol. 14:-5), 471-885 (fol. 17:-257), 1011-end (fol. 28-34”), are derived from a V-like source, and these portions can be considered a gemellus of V with which they share some peculiar errors and readings: cf. Antig. 315 τι om. VUb; 317 rots VUb; 323 & L!: ἣν R: om. VUb; 557 μέν τ᾽ ofov ZCVUb™; 559 μὲν ἥδει ζῆς V μὲν ἤδη ζῆς Ub; 637 ἄξιος ἔσται ZCVUb; 684 ὑπέρτερον RVUb; 727 πρὸς Thomas, Tricl.: ix’ LR: zap’ VUDZE; 855 προσέπεσες LR: προσέπεσας VUbZhr; 1038 el — 1039 χρυσόν om. VUb; 1067 ἀμοιβὰν VUb; 1169 ἔχων σχῆμ'᾽ (α) VUb. Yet, Ub is not copied from V in the pertinent portions, for some errors of V



are not repeated in Ub (cf. Antig. 1119 μένεις V by mistake: μέδεις Ub correctly). In the V-like portions some readings have been corrected by the same scribe in accordance with the other source, i.e., with the AUY-like text: cf. Antig. 474 πίπτειν Ub": κίττει AUYUb™; 509 x’ οὗτοι Ub™: x’ οἵδε

AUYUb». On the whole, the only interesting part in this ms. is the text of Antigone. But we know pretty well the traditions that are represented in this text of Ub. Since the main witnesses of those traditions are preserved — I mean V on one side and AUY on the other side — we can dismiss the text of Ub as irrelevant.



Paris CLass x

I wish to conclude this survey of manuscripts that contain Antigone, Oed. Col., Trachiniae, Philoctetes, by discussing a group of manuscripts whose tradition has been hitherto identified with the well-known ms. A (Paris 2712). For this reason, I shall call this group the Paris class x. This class comprises the following mss. : Paris 2712 (A), Venice 467 (U), and Vienna phil. 48 (Y). Here are brief data on these mss. : A = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2712. See below, plate 111. Cf. Recension pp. 139 ff. Parchment, XIV* cent. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antigone, Oedipus Coloneus, Trachiniae, Philoctetes. Sparse Moschopulean scholia on the triad. Sparse ancient scholia on the remaining plays. The scribe of A made himself many corrections in the Laurentian ms. L (cf. Recenston p. 140; cf. below, plates 1 and 111). On apographs of A, cf. Recension pp. 148 ff.; below, p. 190. U = Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, graec. 467 (No. di collocazione 764). Cf. Recension pp. 141 ff. Paper, XIV*b cent. Aiax, Electra, Oed. Tyr., Antigone, Oedipus Coloneus, Trachiniae, Philoctetes. Planudean scholia on the triad. Sparse ancient scholia on the remaining plays. Y = Vienna, Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, cod. philosophicus philologicus graec. 48. Paper, XV‘ cent., 300 x 215 mm., 1 + 118 foll.; 2 columns to a page, 23 lines to a column for the text of Sophocles.’™ Former owners: Georgius Corinthius, Aimar de Ranconet, Ioannes Sambucus, Sebastian Tengnagel. There is a note on fol. 3": ex bibliotheca de Zorsi Corrinthio di Ca(n)dia. This must be the well-known Georgius

comes Corinthius (fl. first half of the XVI" cent.), nephew of Arsenius of Monembasia, though we miss here the usual notation of his ownership (cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber p. 78 note 7). Probably the note just quoted was not written by the owner himself. The connection of Georgius Corinthius with Crete is well-known (cf. Emile Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique ou description ratsonnée des ouvrages publiés par des Grecs aux XV" et X VI" siécles I [Paris, 1885] p. CLXx1I note 2, p. 252; Aeneas Piccolomini, Studi Italiani di filologia classica 4 [1896] 16f.; Gerstinger, Johannes Sambucus p. 297; B. Aaobpdas, Κρητικὰ Χρονικά 4 τι Cf. Hans Gerstinger, ‘Johannes Sambucus als Handschriftensammler,” Festschrift der Nationalbibliothek in Wien herausgegeben sur Feier des 200jährigen Bestehens des Gebäudes (Wien, 1926) pp. 274 note 3, 309 f., 345 note 4, 365. — This ms. was erroneously recorded by Daniel de Nessel, Catalogus, sive recensio specialis omnium codicum manuscriplorum graecorum, nec non linguarum orientalium, Augustissimae Bibliothecae Caesareae Vindobonensis (Vindobonae-Norimbergae, 1690) IV p. 33, as containing Demosthenis, Oratoris Alheniensis, Orationes. Therefore, it was overlooked in my list of the Sophocles mss. (Manuscripts p. 39). Gerstinger was the first to report correctly the

Sophoclean contents of this Vienna ms.










[1950] 236). The ms. was bought by Sambucus for 11 ducats from Aimar de Ranconet’s son in Paris in 1560 (fol. 1°): Ioan. Sambucus Lutet(ia)e 11 A a Rancon- filio- 1560. Next ownership entry (fol. 1°): Ex libris Sebastiani Tengnagelij I.V.D. Caes. Biblioth. Praef. — Fol. 1° Vita; 2° arg. to At.; 3" Atax; 17" arg. to El.; 18" Electra; 34" arg. I, II, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 35" Oedipus Tyrannus; 51: arg. III, I, to Antig.; 51" Antigone; 65: arg. I, IV, to Oed. Col.; 65% Oedtpus Coloneus ; 84" arg. to Trach. (from Apollodorus) ; 99: prose arg. to Phil.; 99-115" Philoctetes. Some peculiar scholia of a late character on the triad. Sparse ancient scholia on Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil. There is an apograph of the four plays (Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil.) from Y in the ms. Brussels 11343 (Ya): cf. below, p. 191. I proved previously (cf. Recension pp. 142 ff.) that A and U are gemelli throughout the seven plays. The Vienna ms. Y appears to have joined the mss. A and U as their gemellus. In the triad, Y represents a Moschopulean text just as AU do. For Moschopulean readings in Y, cf.: At. 58 ἐμπιτνῶν, 80 ἐν δόμοις, 112 ἐγώ σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι͵ 488 τινες, 717 μετεγνώσθη, 1011 ἥδιον, 1369 γ᾽, El. 42 μακρῷ χρόνῳ, 433 ἀπὸ, 809 οἴχῃ φρενὸς, 890 λοιπὸν ἵν᾽ A, 1141 ξέναισι, 1375 ὅσοιπερ πρόπυλα, OT 50 στάντες τ᾽, 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἐμοῦ συνειδότος, 1046 ὑμεῖς γ᾽, 1185 χρῆν u’, 1242 εὐθὺ πρὸς, 1348 ποτὲ (ἄν om.), 1446 τε, 1459 ἀρρένων. This text of Y belongs (as that of AU does) to the Moschopuleo-Planudean class tp: cf. Ai. 1369 πανταχοῦ, El. 238 ἔβλαστ᾽, OT 652 οὔποτε. The text of Y likewise agrees with AU in some departures from Moschopulus (cf.

Recension pp. 144f.): cf. Ai. 546 πον τόνδε AUY




486/7 αἰσχίσταις εἰν αἰκίαις AUY (from VW =y), OT 957 μοι (σὺ om.) σημάντωρ AUY (from VHA: y reading). Yet sometimes Y differs from AU by being free of their errors: cf. Az. 196 οὐρανίων AU!: οὐρανίαν Y; Ai. 198 dpuär’ ἐν δ᾽ ἀνέμοις AU!: ὁρμᾶτ᾽ ἐν εὐανέμοις Y; OT 1291 ὡς om. AU!: habet Y. Perhaps, by the time Y copied its text, the master copy of x was already corrected and some of its blemishes were removed. At any rate, the coexistence in AUY of a Moschopuleo-Planudean text and

those special readings like El. 486/7 and OT 957 shows that the mss. AUY in the triad are gemelli. The writer of Y individually adopted some interpolations from other sources: cf. At. 64 κοὐχ Y, also VHO (but οὐχ AU); At. 419 σκαμάνδροιο Y, also C’NW'S (but σκαμάνδριοι AU); At. 1028 τὴν om. Y, also SZf (habent AU).18 iM The ms. Vienna phil. 48 is not a Triclinian manuscript and, therefore, cannot be identical


the famous



that was


by Turnebus:



p. 97 note 17; above, p. 74 note 73. — Gerstinger, op. cit. pp. 310, 375, lists another Greek ms. formerly owned by Ranconet: it is the ms. Vienna philos. philol. gr. 261 (commentary on Aristotle’s Rhetoric). 1% This omission was made intentionally by some interpolator for metrical reasons:

he did not recognize the synizesis in the preceding word θεῶν and, therefore, removed what he considered to be a redundant syllable.



While the agreement of AUY in the triad is quite obvious, also in the remaining plays the same mss. agree so closely that we have to assume that AUY are gemelli throughout all the seven plays. For the close agreement of AUY in the four plays, Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil., cf.: Ant. 100 ἀελίου LR: ἀελίοιο AUY; 337 περῶν LR: πτερῶν AY πετρῶν U; 837 ζῶσαν καὶ ἕπειτα θανοῦσαν LR: om. AUY; Oed. Col. 16 ὡς ἀφεικάσαι LIA!: ὡς ἀπεικάσαι L*A°QR, Suda (sub I 600): ὡς σάφ᾽ εἰκάσαι AUY; 47 οὐδ᾽ ἐμόν τοι LAR: οὐδ᾽ ἐμόν τι Thomas, Tricl., Q: οὐδὲ μέντοι AUY ; 70 ap’ οὖν LAQR: ἀρ’ ἂν AUY; 91 κάμψειν LAQ, Suda (sub T 350), κάμψιν R: κάμπτειν AUY; 426 πάλιν LAR: πόλιν AUY; Trach. 143 παθοῦσα LR: παροῦσα AUY; 163 νέμοι LR: μένειν AUY; Phil. 47 λαβεῖν LAGOR: μολεῖν AUY. Y is actually a gemellus of A and U and does not derive from either one of them, because specific blunders of A or U, respectively, do not appear in Y: cf. OC 41 σκαιὸν A: σεμνὸν vulgo codd., Y; OC 76 ἰδών τι U: ἰδόντι vulgo codd., Y. This relationship is shown also in the scholia of the three mss. on the remaining four plays. Accordingly, we have to consider that each of these mss., A, U, Y, was transcribed independently from their common source, which we mark π. The ms. Y (Vienna 48) was the basis of the Aldine edition. This is easily proved by the general agreement of the Aldine text with the text of Y. Quite naturally, in most cases characteristic agreements of Aldus with Y pertain also to the other mss. of the Paris class, to A and U, so that we frequently observe concurrent readings of AUY and Aldus, e.g.: Antig. 837> ζῶσαν καὶ ἕπειτα θανοῦσαν om. AUY, Aldus. Occasionally, we notice an agreement of Aldus with UY only (if A departs from the class reading x): cf. Antig. 196 ἀφανίσαι UY Aldus (but ἀφαγνίσαι A); OC 110 τό γ᾽’ UY Aldus (but τόδ’ A).1 Yet, apart from this basic agreement of Aldus with the Paris text, there are many exclusive errors of Y only (not shared by AU) that were printed by Aldus, and this positively shows that Aldus followed in his edition the ms. Y: cf. El. 727 συμπταίουσι Y Aldus (συμπαίουσ AU); Oed. Tyr. 1137 ἐμμόνους Y Aldus (ἐμμήνους AU); Antig. 255 οὐδὲν γὰρ Y Aldus (ὁ μὲν γὰρ AU); Oed. Col. 282 rods Y Aldus (τὰς AU); Trach. 910 versum om. Y!: αὐτὴ πρὸς αὑτῆς δαίμον᾽ ἀκαλουμένη Y?, abr? πρὸς αὑτῆς δαίμονα καλουμένη Aldus (αὐτὴ τὸν αὑτῆς δαίμον᾽ ἀνακαλουμένη AU) ; Phil. 19 ἀμφιτρῇρος Y Aldus (ἀμφιτρῆτος AU). Of course, we observe also agreements of Aldus with those peculiarities of Y which, though drawn by Y from other sources, are a specific feature of Y within the Paris class (cf. above): e.g., cf. At. 64 κοὐχ Y Ald. (οὐχ AU); At. 419 σκαμάνδροιο Y 1 Such cases were the reason why in the past, at a time when the existence of Y went unnoticed, some scholars thought that Venice 457 (U) was the basis of the Aldine edition: cf. Lewis Campbell, Sophocles 1? (Oxford, 1879) p. xL111; Richard Jebb, Sophocles. The Text of the Seven Plays. (Cambridge, 1914) pp. xxx f.








Ald. (σκαμάνδριοι AU); At. 1028 τὴν om. Y Ald. (habent AU). It seems that only occasionally did Aldus depart from Y; of course, he tried to revise his text and to remove some errors (e.g., Oed. Col. 737 ἀνδρός Y: ἀνδρῶν Aldus), and sporadically made other modifications. The above evidence solves finally the puzzle of the source of the Aldine edition and explains the setup of the Aldine text. Whatever is said below of the character of the Paris text, applies by the same token to the Aldine text as a derivative of Y.

It is a peculiar historical accident that at one time, late in the XV century and early in the XVI* century, Sophocles was represented in Venice by all these three mss. AUY of the Paris class x. We have proof that A was in Venice in 1506 (cf. below, p. 190), U was a former Bessarion manuscript (cf. Manuscripts p. 38), and Y was used by Aldus. We have devoted our attention to AU on a previous occasion (cf. Recension pp. 139 ff.) and we presuppose that the reader knows our views formulated then with regard to the triad in AU. The same holds, of course, also for Y. An analysis of the Paris text x is quite important with regard to the whole text, since one representative of this class, the ms. Y, was the basis of the Aldine edition (1502) and thus influenced many subsequent editions of the XVI* century prior to the Turnebus edition (1552). Then, another witness of the Paris class, the ms. A, was raised to a high importance by Brunck (1786) who hailed its text while destroying the Triclinian vulgate of Turnebus and practically reverting to the Aldine. Thus, the influence of Y, represented by the Aldine, joined the influence of its gemellus A, and the impact of this text 7, even after the rediscovery of L by Elmsley, was very strong in the Sophocles editions during the XIX: and the XX* centuries up to now. Also the agreements AL’, resulting from corrections made in L by the scribe of A, could not fail to enhance undeservedly the prestige of the Paris text. I demonstrated before that the triad in the Paris class x represents the Moschopulean text with many changes and interpolations added by the source of the Paris class. We dismiss the triad of AUY as an unimportant and trivial part in the setup of the Sophocles recension exhibited in the Paris class, and we turn our attention to the remaining four plays: Antigone, Oed. Col., Trachiniae, Philoctetes. Whatever we say about the text of AUY holds true for their common source #. In the subsequent discussion of x readings, I am going to use the com17 Since Y was later on in the possession of Aimar de Ranconet, it is just possible that Turnebus may have had it at his disposal. Even if it were so, it would be difficult to decide whether some Aldine readings in Turnebus — e.g., Antig. 384 ἐκείνη τοῦργον ἐξειργασμένη LR: ἐκείν" (ἐκεῖν᾽ UPY) ἡ rodpyor ἐξειργασμένη AUY, Aldus, Turnebus—

were due to the influence of the Aldine vulgate, or to that of Y, or to the combined prestige of both Aldus and Y.



plete manuscript evidence for the readings discussed. will cover the ancient readings.



Z indicate


The reader will remember that symbols



In particular,


pertains to the first Thoman recension. A series of Thoman symbols (beginning with Z) indicates the Thoman reading. Sometimes, there is a split among the Thoman mss., if different readings were followed by groups of Thoman mss. The Triclinian manuscripts T and Ta are used to cover the Triclinian readings. (For the part Philoct. 472-end, only T is used, because Ta in that portion is not Triclinian and, therefore, is disregarded.) The reader will have to translate properly in his mind the groups of manuscript symbols into a relationship of corresponding recensions. Though we find in AUY many Byzantine interpolations, which obviously were adopted by π, nevertheless, on the whole, we consider the

original stock of x in those four plays (Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil.) to be ancient. This is also suggested by the presence of sparse ancient scholia on those plays in AUY. There are many cases in which AUY share in an ancient reading against a Byzantine interpolation, especially so when the ancient reading is sound metrically and does not, therefore, call for a change. Cf. Antig. 210 ἐκ γ᾽ ἐμοῦ LARAUY: ἐξ ἐμοῦ ZcZZbZf ZgZhZoZp (= Thomas), TTa (= Triclinius); 247 χρὴ LRAUY: χρῆν

ZcZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTa; 493 κλοπεύς LRAUY:

xdoxais ZcZZbZfZgZhZo

ZpTTa; OC 51 ἐκ γ' ἐμοῦ LQRAUY: ἐξ ἐμοῦ ZnZoZpTTa; 775 τοσαύτη LAQRAUY: τίς αὕτη ZnZoZpTTa. — Sometimes, AUY go along with the vetustiores even if the old reading is quite obviously deficient metrically and if this deficiency has been remedied by the Byzantines: cf. Antig. 648 γ᾽ om. LRAUYZcZZbZfZh: y’ habent ZgZoZpTTa; Phil. 196 θεῶν τον μελέτῃ LGQRAUYZgZnZoZp: θεῶν μελέτῃ TTa. This is

symptomatic, because the editor x was quite alert metrically to be able to detect the deficiency of the old reading, e.g., in Antig. 648, but by inadvertence he seems to have overlooked it. We shall see later on how frequent metrical interpolations are in AUY.

Now, if AUY are originally ‘‘old,”’ the question arises whether x belonged originally to the Laurentian tradition A or to the Roman tradition p. In examining the possible affiliations of x, we should keep in mind that a versatile scholar, which the editor of x certainly was, would remove many errors or blemishes of his source simply by comparing it

with other recensions.

Still we shall find several cases of x sharing in

errors or defects of ἃ or p, as the case might be, in errors which x neglected to remove. And, moreover, in the case of a split between ἃ and p caused by possible variants, the alternate reading followed by x indicates the

origin of the Paris class in a given section. I believe that in Antigone and Oedipus Coloneus (at least, for the most








part of Oed. Col.), the Paris recension followed the Laurentian tradition X, while in Trachiniae and Philoctetes it followed the Roman tradition p. Of course, it is hard to make a positive statement on Trachintae, because R is incomplete in that play, so that we lack material from p for comparison with ἃ (GQ do not contain Trachiniae at all). Anyway, since x had both traditions at his disposal, there are in that class varying allegiances, or inconsistencies of affiliation, in each play. For Antigone and Oedtpus Coloneus, cf. these agreements of AUY with LA: Antig. 108 ὀξυτόρῳ LAAUY: ὀξυτέρῳ MIR ; 151 θέσθε LAAUY: θέσθαι R; 370/1 ἄπολις ὅτῳ LAUY: ἄπολις δ᾽ ὅτῳ R; Oed. Col. 278 μοίραις LAUY: μώρους OR; 737 ἀνδρῶν LAU, ἀνδρὸς Y: ἀστῶν QR; 861 ὡς TTa, Pearson] καὶ QR: om. LAUY; 1118 τοὐμὸν ἧσται viv βραχὺ QR: τοὐμὸν ἔσται (νῦν om.) βραχὺ LAUY. For Trachiniae and Philoctetes, cf. these agreements of AUY with GOR (as their evidence is available): Trach. 67 μύθοις el L: μύθοις γ᾽ eb RAUY (y’ paululum infra lineam in A); Philoct. 1037 ἔξοιδα δ᾽ LA: todd γ᾽ GQRAUY; 1209 νόος L: νόσος GRAUY (partem versus om. Q). Also some errors of L are avoided by AUY: cf. Trach. 7 ναίουσ᾽ tv L: valovo’ ἐνὶ RAUY; Phil. 288 εὕρισκε L: ἐξεύρισκε GQRAUY; 414 ἀλλ’ om. L: habent GQRAUY ; 1051 μου om. L: μου GRAUY: με σὺ Q. Yet, there are cases of affiliations which differ from the above pattern. For example, from Antigone and Oed. Col., where x basically goes along with LA, I can quote cases of AUY joining the Roman tradition p: cf. Antig. 193 τῶνδ᾽ LA: τῶν RAUY; 353 ἀκμῆτα LA: ἀδμῆτα RAUY; 998 τῆς ἐμῆς σημεῖα L (also ZcZfZh) : σημεῖα τῆς ἐμῆς R (also ZZbZgZoZpTTa), AUY. Of course, x may have noticed here the metrical flaw of L and may have been influenced not only by R, but also by the Byzantines. Then, cf. OC 780 τῆσδ᾽ ἡδονῆςL: τῆσδ᾽ ἂν ἡδονῆς QRAUY ; 792 ἐκ LA: καὶ QRAUY;; 945 κἄνανδρον LA: κἄναγνον QRAUY. This leads to the conclusion that, while the basic pattern of affiliation as indicated above was followed in general by x, yet he occasionally used the Roman tradition even in Antigone and Oedipus Coloneus, where he primarily relied on the Laurentian tradition. I should say that in the last third of Oedipus

Coloneus he possibly shifted his text to his Roman source: cf. OC 1333 καὶ θεῶν L: πρὸς Oey QRAUY ; 1640 φέρειν LA: φρενὶ QRAUY. At any rate, the above evidence bears out the general diagnosis that = used both traditions for his recension. The systematic disclosure of the Roman text in its entirety will reveal a very interesting fact that some valuable and correct readings which hitherto were credited to A, actually are genuine Roman readings. My analysis of the triad in AU has illustrated the habit of their source m — or of A or U individually — of interpolating the text from

Suda or Thomas or Triclinius (cf. Recension p. 145).

We have now to



scan the text of AUY for Byzantine interpolations in the remaining four plays. Even a hasty perusal of the manuscript evidence will show that readings of AUY often coincide with Byzantine readings that differ from

LAGQR and are carried by all or some of the Thoman mss. and possibly by Triclinian mss., or by Triclinian mss. only. Of course, sometimes those Byzantine readings are excellent corrections, and the fact that A was known to exhibit some of these interpolations greatly contributed to its prestige. We realize, however, that even in those few cases such interpolations are a recovered correctness, not the primary genuineness of the “‘old’’ tradition as transmitted by the early medieval archetype w. I can quote below some examples of AUY following a Byzantine reading: Antig. 5 οὐχὶ LARZcZZbZfZg'!Zh: ob ZdZoZp (Thoman mss.), TTa (= Triclinius), AUY; 235 πεπραγμένος LA: πεφραγμένος RZcZZbZgr’Zo Zp: δεδραγμένος Z2°ZrZbrZfZgZhZpTTaAUY (cf. above, p. 61); 386 els μέσον LARZc: els (és) δέον Zee! ZZbZfZgZhZ0oZpT TaAUY ; 420 ἔνθ LR: ἐν δ᾽ ZcZZbZfZgZhZoZpTTaAUY; 727 ὑπ’ LR: πρὸς ZcZZbZgZhZoZp TTaAUY (παρ᾽ Zf); 863 πατρῷαι LRZc: ματρῷαι ZZbZhZoZpTTaAUY, μητρῷαι ZiZg; 1114 τὸν βίον σῴζοντα LARZcZZbZ{Zh: σῴζοντα τὸν βίον Zg ZoZpTTaAUY ; 1228 ποῖον LRZcZZbZfZoZp: οἷον ZgTTaAUY ; Oed. Col. 34 αὐτῆς ὁρώσης LOR: αὑτῆς θ᾽ ὁρώσης ZnZoZpTTaAUY; 174 ὦ ξένοι LOR ZnZoZp: ὦ ξεῖνοι TTaAUY (in anapaests); 351 δεῦρ᾽(ο) LOR: δεύτερ' ZnZoZpTTaAUY; 391 τοιοῦδέ γ᾽ ἀνδρὸς QR: τοιοῦδ᾽ ἀνδρὸς L: τοιοῦδ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀνδρὸς ZnZoZpT TaAUY 188 444 del LA, Ο (versibus 443-454 altera manu scriptis in Q), R: ἔγώ ZnZoZpTTaAUY; 640 οἰδίπου LOR: οἰδίπους ZnZo ZpTTaAUY; Trachin. 30 διαδεγμένη LRZgZo: διαδεδεγμένη ZnZpTTa APU, διαδεδεμένη AY : δεδεγμένον Suda (sub II 2046) ; Philoct. 10 xarelxer’ LGQRZnTTa: xareix’ ZgZoZpAUY ; 30 καταυλισθεὶς LAGOR: κατακλιθεὶς ZgZnZoZpTTaAUY; 171 μὴ LGOR: μηδὲ ZgZnZoZpAUY (cf. schol. vet. p. 356.7 Papag. μηδὲ ὁρῶν) : μηδ᾽ ab TTa; 220 κἀκ ποίας πάτρας LAG? QZgZnTTa, κἀκ ποίας πέτρας GR: ναυτίλῳ πλάτῃ ZOZpAUY ;™™ 737 οὕτως om. LGQRZgZn: οὕτως habent ZoZpTAUY; 814 μ᾽ om. L'GORZgZn: μ᾽ habent ZoZpTAUY; 901 ἔπαισεν LGOR: ἔπεισεν ZgZnZoZpTAUY ;™ 1231 τί χρῆμα τί δράσεις LGOR: τί χρῆμα δράσεις ZgZnZoZpTAUY; 1310 5° om. LGQRZn: 8’ ZgZoZpTAUY; 1332 αὐτὸς ἑκὼν LGORZgZnZoZp: ἑκὼν αὑτὸς TAUFY (ἑλὼν αὐτὸς U»).

The inference is clear: the editor of x had a critical alertness of mind and a sharp look for metrical correctness of trimeters. He simply adopted very many Byzantine interpolations which either were obvious 48 Perhaps the true reading would be: τοιοῦδ᾽ ἔκ γ᾽ ἀνδρὸς. Cf. Antig. 210 & γ᾽ ἐμοῦ LAR. Ὁ Cf. Aristoph. Ranae 1207 (= Euripides, fr. 846.2 Nauck?). The reading Phil. 220 ναυτίλῳ πλάτῃ is an obvious interpolation from Aristophanes. 1” The reading of the veteres may be understood thus: ‘Surely it cannot be that my

disgusting disease has impressed you so strongly as not to take me aboard now?”




metrical corrections or offered a reading that appealed to him more than the genuine “‘old’’ reading. The practical result of this diagnosis is of a far-reaching importance. For this means that wherever AUY conflict with LAGQR (i.e., with those of them which cover the play in question), while agreeing in that different reading with Thoman or Triclinian mss. or even with Suda, then AUY actually follow that Byzantine interpolation and do not represent a genuine reading. In some cases, only if necessary, one may adopt for the Sophocles text to be edited such an interpolation, but then this should be properly marked in the apparatus as a conjecture of the Byzantine source in question (or simply of Byzantinus quidam). Yet we should exert ourselves to the utmost to test the acceptability of the ancient reading in every controversial case, without our being influenced by the fact that possibly a different reading of AUY has infected our past editions through the agency of Aldus and Brunck. The suggestiveness of traditional modern printed readings creates a very insidious bias. Therefore, this should .be a rule for future editors—not to adopt Byzantine interpolations exhibited in AUY unless we have to do it. Even when a deficiency of the old text compels us to correct it, even then we should not be too prone to acquiesce in a Byzantine interpolation of AUY, but rather we should explore other conjectural possibilities. Any other conjectures would carry as much (or as little) authority as those of Thomas, Triclinius, or AUY. If we adopt a Byzantine interpolation, though it be exhibited also in AUY, we should give credit for it to the earliest identifiable interpolator, Thomas, or Triclinius, as the case may be. I think that the editor = is a product of the advanced Palaeologean era, and that he edited his text after the Triclinian edition had already appeared. If there are few traces of his editorial activities in the lyrics, it may be due to the fact that few

scholars of that time possessed the Triclinian spirit of tampering with lyrics. Just in this connection, I should like to point to a very interesting case: OC 138 ἐκεῖνος ὁρᾶν ἐγὼ LZnZoZp: éxetvos ὁρᾶν ORTTa: ἐκεῖνος ἐγὼ AUY, and this is also the reading of the Michigan Papyrus 140.19 Triclinius recognized here the anapaests, and x may have compared the reading of L with that of QR, and may have decided to choose rather ἐγὼ than ὁρᾶν for his text. The coincidence of AUY with the authentic correct reading of the Michigan Papyrus is purely accidental, and only in Michigan Papyri vol. III. Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection, edited by John Garrett Winter (University of Michigan Studies. Humanistic Series. vol. XL. Ann Arbor, 1936) p. 23. — The comparison of the three readings shows that obviously at some stage of the Sophocles transmission there were two alternate variants (a double reading), ἐγώ and ὁρᾶν, scil.: ὅδ᾽ ἐκεῖνος ἐγώ (cf. Soph. Phil. 261 85° εἴμ᾽ ἐγώ σοι xetvos) — and 86’ ἐκεῖνος ὁρᾶν (cf. Aristoph. Equit. 1331 85° ἐκεῖνος ὁρᾶν; cf. F. W. Schneidewin-

August Nauck, Sophokles III: Oidipus auf Kolonos® (Berlin, 1883] p. 49). tion in L is a conflation of the two variants.

The corrup-



shows that the editor x through his critical acumen conjecturally recovered in this case the authentic reading. The problem of the relative chronology (or succession) of = and Triclinius can be solved positively, though there are comparatively few cases in which interpolations that are exclusively Triclinian reappear in AUY (as, e.g., Phil. 1332: see above). Mostly we find in AUY Thoman or Thomano-Triclinian interpolations — the latter means that a Thoman reading was adopted also by Triclinius, but of course we may guess that

already the Thoman edition caused the editor x to adopt the interpolation in question. Yet, I should like to quote also this example: Phil. 200 χρῆν LGQRZgZnZoZp: χρῆναι TTaAUY (in anapaests). This is a correction in lyrics, and we cannot help recognizing here its Triclinian

spirit and Triclinian origin.

It means

that the edition x was post-


Once we have established that x was interested in textual criticism and in versification (let us say, in the versification mainly of iambic lines), we should expect to find some exclusive corrections of AUY caused by metrical flaws of some corrupt old readings. Cf. Phil. 222 πάτρας ἂν ὑμᾶς ἢ γένους LGORZgZnZoZp: πάτρας ἂν ἢ γένους ὑμᾶς TT a: πάτρας ὑμᾶς ἂν ἢ γένους AUY. Here, Triclinius recognized the metrical flaw and rem-

edied it by a transposition of words.

For the same reason (or because

Triclinius showed an awareness that something was wrong in the line),

the editor x tried another transposition.

— Phil. 1235 δὴ non habent

LGQRZgZnZoZpT: a monosyllabic word © is missing: δὴ AUY: but δὲ proposed by Blaydes seems even better. — Phil. 285 οὖν LGORZgZn ZoZpTTa: δὴ AUY for metrical reasons: also νυν Wecklein or γοῦν would be possible. — Phil. 559 ἅπερ ἔλεξας LAGQRZgZnZoZpT: ἅπερ γ᾽ ἔλεξας AUY for metrical reasons.’— OC 1415 φιλτάτη σὺ κοῖον QR: φιλτάτη (σὺ om.) ποῖον LATTa: φιλτάτη μοι ποῖον ZnZoZp: φιλτάτη τὸ ποῖον AUY (also K). The metrical gap in the LA reading was supplemented conjecturally by Thomas and, in a different way, by AUY — something en-

tirely superfluous in view of the correct authentic reading of QR. — OC 327 δύσμορ᾽ ὁρᾶν LOR: δύσμορ' ἐσορᾶν ZnZoZpTTa: δύσμοιρ᾽ ὁρᾶν AUY. Thomas’ interpolation shows that he was aware of the metrical flaw of

the text.

The correction of AUY is excellent and deserves special recog-

nition in view of the fact that π refused to be overwhelmed by the interpolation of Thomas (followed by Triclinius) but, in spite of this, searched

independently for a better remedy. — Trach.

118 ὥστε LRZgZnTTa:

ὥσπερ τι ZO, ὥσπέρ τε Zp (probably suggested by the ancient scholium p. 286.5 Papag. καθάπερ τι): ὥσπερ AUY. This is a metrical correction made to equalize the quantity of this word with the corresponding word 18 Cf. J. Jackson, Classical Quarterly 35 (1941) 166 f. Jackson p. 167 gives an excellent evaluation of the actual character of AU.








in the antistrophe: but this could be done only after Triclinius made his analysis of the strophic structure of the song in question. This correction of AUY was, therefore, made after the Triclinian edition came into existence, and it was manifestly engendered by the Triclinian spirit. Once more, I wish to state that the recension x is to be considered a postTriclinian product.

Being so sharp a textual critic,

« made




Cf. Antig. 681 κεκλίμεθα RRiemZcZZbZfZgZhZorZprTTa: κεκλήμεθα LZo*Zp*: κεκλίμεθα et κεκλήμεθα M'™: κεκλέμμεθα AUY. It seems that the corrupted reading in the medieval archetype was xexAluefa. But the editor x restored the correct reading κεκλέμμεθα probably from the ancient scholia (p. 251.1 Papag.): ef μὴ τῆς φρονήσεως ὑπὸ τοῦ γήρως σεσυλήμεθα LMR (and σεσυλήμεθα Le!Yel). — Another excellent correction of π is OC 786 ἄναιτος LQ, Suda (sub A 2206), ZnTTaAr’UrYr, ἄνακτος R: &veros ZoZp: &varos AUY. This is a splendid emendation. Cf. Photius Berolin. p. 123.25 Reitzenstein. This word appears a few times in Aeschylus (Suppl. 356, 359, 410). The editor x may have associated the ancient scholium (p. 437.22 Papag.) — ἀντὶ ἀβλαβής --- with the me-

dieval gloss of &varos (Phot. Berol. ävaros- ὁ ἀβλαβής), and with Suda A 2102 8. v. ἀνατί. I can quote some more conjectures of αὶ in those plays: OC 16 ὡς ἀφεικάσαι LiA!: ὡς ἀπεικάσαι L*A°OR, Suda (sub I 600), ZnZoZpTTa: ὡς σάφ᾽ εἰκάσαι AUY. To be sure, -¢- in L!A! may be significant. But the reading of x is a conjecture, to which the editor x (considering the range of medieval learning) could not be led by any speculations on the possible meaning of an ancient variant QEAPEIKAZAI (I mean the possible lack of consonant gemination). — Trach. 247 ἀρίθμιον LFRrZgZnZoZpTTa AvPeUrY7? (ἀρίθμειον 1,50, ἀρίθμιος R“): ἀνήριθμον AUY (on the basis of the scholia p. 294.23 Papag.). These and a few other corrections represented exclusively by AUY, if they are kept in the text by Sophocles editors, should be marked properly in the apparatus as Byzantine conjectures. Suda was very popular among medieval scholars and copyists. No wonder we shall find some influence of Suda also in the Paris class, e.g. : Phil. 949 με δρᾶν LGOQRZgZnZoZpT: ποεῖν Sudae (sub K 165) codd. AVM, ποιεῖν Sudae F, Sophoclis AUY. — Phil. 1319 τούτοισιν LGQR ZgZnZoZpT: τούτοις Suda (sub T 1233), AUY. But I am sure that x would have found this metrical correction even without being inspired by Suda. By the way, if all mss. of Suda exhibit τούτοις (especially if this is the case with Suda’s oldest manuscript V), it would mean that the

author of Suda knew how to correct defective trimeters, and the same 18 In Aesch. Agam.

1211 it is a conjectural emendation by Canter. Cf. Fraenkel,

Aeschylus Agamemnon III p. 556.



would go for Byzantine scholars of that time, i.e., approximately of the time of L. Sometimes AUY

diverge while some of them

and the other ones embrace a Byzantine

follow the old reading


Cf. OC 941

ἐξέπραξα LORUY: ἔπραξα ZnZoZpTTaA. Here, a blunder of Thomas, followed by Triclinius (in spite of the resulting metrical flaw), is embraced by A, while UY go with the vetustiores. Also cf.: Ant. 15 dpyelwy

L'RZcZZbZ{Zh*UY : ἀργεῖος ZdZgZh'ZoZpTTaA;


1241 ἐν LARZc

ZZbZfZgZoZpA: ev TTaUY. Quite possibly, some Byzantine readings were in such cases marked in the master copy of x as optional variants, and the gemelli AUY individually made different choices. I think we have had above enough proof of the interpolated character of x and of its Byzantine spirit. The recension x was not only later than Moschopulus, from whom =~ took over the triad; it was made later than the Thoman recension and even later than the Triclinian recension. The editor x used (for Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil.) two ancient texts, one of the class ἃ and one of the class p, and compared both of them, thus removing their specific blunders in favor of the preferred text of the other family. Moreover, he had copies of the Thoman text and also of the Triclinian text. He drew heavily on all these sources and introduced into his text innumerable interpolations. Apart from this, the editor of τ — a Byzantine scholar probably of the first half of the XIV century, permeated with the spirit of textual criticism of that period — made many original conjectures, some of them quite felicitous corrections, some of them just worthless interpolations. Regardless of our evaluation of a Paris reading in a given case, we should never forget that we have before our eyes a Byzantine interpolation.

This analysis reverses an element of the Sophoclean text tradition which historically — so far as modern times are concerned — has played an important role in modern editions of Sophocles. Twice in the history of the printed Sophocles the Paris class gained an undeserved recognition. The ms. Y through the medium of the Aldine edition dominated the Sophocles editions during the first half of the XVI* century, in the



up to the Turnebus edition.

Late in the XVIII*

century, Brunck (1786) revived the influence of the Paris class by reverting to the Aldine — i.e., virtually to Y — and claiming recognition for A. This entailed also a continued anchoring of Moschopulean elements in the triad, since the triad in the Paris class is Moschopulean. To be sure, it was a great merit of Brunck that he destroyed the Triclinian vulgate of Turnebus, and my criticism should not dim Brunck’s achievements in this respect. Yet, we should finally realize the Byzantine

interpolated character of the Paris class x and arrive at a correct evaluation of its readings that often are just specious interpolations.






Here I give descriptions and analyses of some unimportant mss., some of them being apographs of extant mss. or even transcripts of Renaissance

editions, then of some Jess important

Byzantine mss. that were not

treated previously, and of some composite volumes which did not fit in a decided way into one definite category. Thus this chapter is somehow an appendix to part one as well as part two of this book. I am trying below — so far as this is possible — to arrange the following descriptions according to some common features, if any, of single groups of mss., or

according to some other links of such groups. APOGRAPHS


Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2886. Paper, XVI* cent., 165 x 111 mm., 301 foll., 20 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1” arg. I to Oed. Col.; 2% Oed. Col.; 48” arg. I to Anttg.; 49° Antigone; 83° arg. to Trach. (from Apollodorus) ; 86” Trachiniae; 119: poem Labors of Heracles; 120° prose argument to Phil.; 120"-158" Philoctetes. Written by Arsenius of Monembasia (the former Aristobulus Apostolides) ; cf. above, p. 162. The ms. is copied from L, with occasional changes and interpolations from other sources.™ The derivation of Paris 2886 from L is shown, e.g., by these concordant readings of L and Paris 2886: OC 51 ἅτιμός γ᾽ &« γ' ἐμοῦ, 358 σ᾽ om., 426 οὔτ᾽ ἐξεληλυθὼς, 492 δὲ] δ᾽ αὖ, 1125 τό γ᾽] τοῦτό y’, Antig. 160 ἄγαγε, 865 δυσμόρῳ, 920 κατασφαγάς, 1336 ἐρῶ (-μεν om.), Trach. 162 μέλεσθαι, 314 με κεκρίνοις, Phil. 23 τόνδ᾽ hr’ ἄλλῃ, 685 ἴσως ἐν ἴσοις, 705 πόρον. Also a part of the Aeschylean portion in the Paris 2886 is transcribed from the same ms. Laur. 32, 9.1% Lp = Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2799. Paper, ca. 1500 a.p., 230 x 168 mm., vi + 164 foll., 24 lines to a page for the Sophocles scholia. The ms. was owned (but rot written) by Marcus Musurus,'!® according to notes in Musurus’ handwriting: (on fol. At) μουσούρου καὶ τῶν χρωμένων, and (on fol. EY) μουσούρου xréap ἦν" εὖτε 745’ ἔγρἀάφετο. Musurus himself made some corrections in the ms. and supplemented some omissions of the original scribe. The next owner was Ianus Lascaris.'” On fol. Ar, 4 Cf. Chr. Cavallin, Sophoclis Philocteta (Lundae, 1875) pp. xxxv f. 6 Cf. Turyn, Aeschylus pp. 21 f. ı# On Musurus, cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber p. 290; Turyn, Aeschylus pp. 69 f.; Turyn, Manuscripts p. 34. wt Cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber Ὁ. 157 note 2; Wilhelm Weinberger, Wegweiser durch die Sammlungen altphilologischer Handschriften (Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 209. Band, 4.



(= Rheinisches Museum

1930) p. 75; Giovanni Mercati, Opere minori III ἢ. 185

65 [1910] 318).




there is his well-known monogram A’, and the mark of this ms. in his library was N XXX VIIII de la 8” (i.e., no. 39 in box 8), the numbers being marked by the hand of Nicolaus Sophianus. On fol. Ev, the contents of the volume are indicated by the hand of Matthaeus Devaris. This ms. is listed under the same numbers, as n° 39 della 8 (capsa), in the posthumous inventory of the Lascaris collection.!® Folios 217-22 (schol. Oed. Col. pp. 396.4—402.25 Papag. κὠμη)ὴ were written, to judge from the handwriting, by Aristobulus Apostolides. Since the two folios are covered fully with writing and look normal (with the same number of lines to a page as the rest), it is to be inferred that this is not a replacement of lost folios made by Aristobulus to fill a gap, but that Aristobulus wrote them while intending to cooperate on this copy. Obviously he abandoned this intention almost at once. Nonetheless, this gives a chronological clue for the origination of the copy. Then, the death of Musurus (1517) is a terminus ante quem. The ms. contains Laurentian scholia: fol. 17-19" on Trachtniae ; 21:--38: on Oedipus Coloneus ; 38” arg. III to Oed. Col. ; 417-51" scholia on Philoctetes ; 52: prose arg. and metrical arg. to Philoct.; 75'*-105" scholia on Atax; 107’-124" scholia on Electra; 125: arguments I, II, to El.; 127-142" scholia on Oedipus Tyrannus; 142° χρησμὸς δοθεὶς τῶ κάδμω (Anthol. VI 1 Cougny) ; 147'-163” scholia on Antigone; 164: arg. I to Antigone. There are many blank folios in the parts occupied by the Sophocles scholia (195-205; 39*-40"; 46”-47";

52-56"; 70°-74"; L05%-106"; 125%-126"; 143-146";



space was left between the scholia on single plays to be filled subsequently with arguments. The scholia and arguments are copied directly from the Laurentian ms. 32, 9 (L), as the comparison of the two mss. shows without any doubt: e.g., cf. schol. p. 6.26 Papag. ἀπῆρξα LLp; p. 8.21 νεκρὸν LLp. Since the scribe of Lp copied the ms. L as it was around 1500 a.p., also later medieval interpolations or corrections or additions made in L by other hands from various sources were transcribed by Lp and appear there. Moreover, in the scholia on Atax, I have noticed in Lp two 8 Cf. Pierre de Nolhac,

“‘Inventaire des manuscrits

grecs de Jean



langes d’arch£ologie et d’histoire 6 (1886) 259. On Nicolaus Sophianus and Matthaeus Devaris,

cf. Vogel-Gardthausen,

op. cit. 356 f., 294 f.; for specimens

of their


writing, cf. Omont, Fac-similés de manuscrits grecs des X V* et X VI* sidcles page 14 and plate 40; Omont, Inventaire sommaire IV (1898), facsimiles Nos. 1 and ıt. Pierre de Nolhac, La bibliotheque de Fulvio Orsini (Bibliotheque de l’Ecole des Hautes

Etudes. Sciences historiques et philologiques. 74. Paris, 1887) p. 151 note 1, states that the ms. Paris 2799 belonged to the collection of Cardinal Ridolfi. This would mean that this ms. was among the Lascaris mss. acquired by Ridolfi. On the Ridolfi collection, cf.: H. Omont, “Un premier catalogue des manuscrits grecs du cardinal Ridolfi,”” Bibliothöque de l’Ecole des Chartes 49 (1888) 309-324; Omont, Inventaire sommaire IV, Introduction p. xxv1; Giovanni Mercati, “Indice di manoscritti greci del cardinale Ridolfi,”” Opere minori III pp. 126-129 (= Mélanges d'archéologie et d’histoire 30 [1910] 51-55);



“La biblioteca del cardinale




contributo di notizie e di documenti,” Bibliofilia 31 (1929) 173-193.









Byzantine scholia taken from a different source (on At. 17 pp. xu/XIII Dind. ταύτην τὴν σάλπιγγα πρῶτον οἱ τυρσηνικοὶ ---- μέσον κολλῶν λαλεῖ, and on At. 14 p. xıı Dind. τέσσαρες εὐθεῖαι εἰσὶ ---- οὗ προβολὴ ἡ φρόνησιΣ). But

such interpolations by the scribe of Lp were quite unusual, for that copyist transcribed the scholia of L as faithfully as he could. Of course, if the legibility of the original, i.e., of L, was poor or difficult, the scribe of Lp

would simply omit a passage.

Musurus himself collated Lp with L and

supplemented in the margins some scholia and glosses omitted in the original text of Lp. Perhaps Musurus’ interest in the Sophocles scholia was connected with the edition of scholia which was planned by the Aldine press.!% The copy Lp is worthless, for the legibility of L in those few folios at the beginning of L that are slightly worn was at that time not any better than now, and the reading skill of the copyist of Lp was rather poor. A partial copy of Paris 2799 (Lp) is to be found in the ms. Laur. Conventi Soppressi 142 (Lf), which was subsequently copied — also partially —in the ms. Roudnice VI.F.e.43 (Lr); see below. And the scholia of Lp were partially propagated also through a mixed ms. Parma, De-Rossi gr. 8, and its descendants: Montpellier H.429 and Paris 2885;

see below, pp. 197 f. Lf = Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 142. Paper, ca. 1500 a.p., 217 x 161 mm., 181 foll.; 22 lines to a page for the scholia on At., Tr., OC, Phil., OT, Antig. ; 30 lines for the scholia on Electra;

22-25 lines for the poetic text of Trachiniae. There is an ownership entry (on fol. 15): Monasterij Angelorum petrus candidus.™ Fol. 1° Vita; 3: arg. to Aiax (both from an unidentifiable source); 4” scholia on Azax; 27" arg. to El. ; 275-407 scholia on Electra ;45"-69° scholia on Trachtniae ; 70° arg. III to Oed. Col. (Anthol. IV 86 Cougny); 705-93" scholia on Oedipus Coloneus ; 94" prose and metrical arguments to Philoct. ; 94"--1077 scholia on Philoctetes; 108" arg. II to Oed. Tyr.; 108° χρησμὸς δοθεὶς τῶ

Κάδμῳ (Anthol. VI 1 Cougny); 109-128" scholia on Oedipus Tyrannus; 129-150" scholia on Antigone; 150” arg. I to Antig.; 151'-152" arg. to 19 Cf. Recension Ὁ. 96 note 8. *°Qn Petrus Candidus of the Monasterium Angioli

in Florence) — fl. ca.

1496 A.D.—,


cf. de


(i.e., Santa La


bibliothéque de

degli Fulvio

Orsini pp. 150, 151, 171, 171 note 3, 344, 345. — Aristobulus Apostolides wrote the second text of Electra in the ms. Riccardi 77, in 1496, probably for the same man: Πέτρω φλωρεντίνω τῶ μοναχῶ (cf. below, p. 189 note 201). This may have been the same

Petrus Candidus. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber Ὁ. 457, and Wilhelm Weinberger, Beiträge sur Handschriftenkunde 11 Kaiserlichen Akademie der

(Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Wissenschaften. 161. Band [Wien, 1909] 4. Abhandlung)

pp. 41f., confused this Petrus Candidus and an earlier humanist, Pier Candido Decembri








Lombardia,’” Archivio Storico Lombardo 20 (1893) 5-75, 359-441.

e l’umanesimo





(from Apollodorus) ; 153”-181” the poetic text of Trachiniae;

181" poem Labors of Heracles (Anthol. Planud. XVI 92 Diibner). I have examined partial samples of the scholia in Lf for the beginning of each play, and the poetic text of Trachiniae in full. The ms. was written by several hands. The beginning: Vita, arg. to Atax, scholia

on Atax, and the end: the poetic text of Trachiniae with the preceding argument, were written — to judge from the handwriting — by Aristobulus Apostolides (the later Arsenius of Monembasia). For Sophocles mss. written by Aristobulus, cf. above, pp. 68, 162, 184; below, p. 189; see above, p. 185, on his participation in Lp. Scholia on Electra are written by two different hands. And another hand wrote the scholia on Trach., Oed. Col., Philoct., Oed. Tyr., Antigone. In Lf, the scholia on Aicx and Electra were transcribed directly from L (Laur. 32, 9) in a quite obvious manner, with many errors that resulted

from misreading the original.

The direct derivation of Lf from L in that

portion (Aiax, Electra) is so manifest that I forego quoting specific agreements between the two mss. It should be noted that abbreviations of L are faithfully imitated by the copyists of the Electra scholia. Also the poetic text of Trachiniae, along with shorter scholia, was transcribed in Lf directly from L. Cf., e.g., these concordant readings of Land Lf: Trach. 7 valovo’ tv, 87 κατήδην, 162 μέλεσθαι͵ 314 με κεκρίνοις, 932 ὁ παῖς om. Of course, Aristobulus occasionally corrected some blunders of L in transcribing in Lf the text of Trachiniae. The scholia on Trach., Oed. Col., Philoct., Oed. Tyr., Antigone, were written in Lf by one copyist and possibly formed originally a separate fascicle before being bound together with the other parts of the volume. Now, these scholia in Lf (Conv. Soppr. 142) were copied directly from Lp (Paris 2799), and the only conspicuous change by Lf consisted in a rearrangement of the arguments (cf. the descriptions above of Lp and

Lf). This scribe of Lf left out the scholia on Aiax and Electra exhibited in Lp and transcribed the scholia on the other five plays in the same sequence as they appeared in Lp; he only shifted the arguments to the beginning of the respective scholia portions (except for Antigone). Since Lp was copied directly from L, this part of Lf being an apograph of the corresponding part of Lp presents an indirect descent of the Laurentian scholia of L. Indeed, the scholia on the above mentioned five plays in Lf are Laurentian scholia, burdened with characteristic errors of Lp, which of course reappear in Lf. It will suffice to quote a few examples of agreements LpLf which demonstrate the derivation of Lf from Lp: cf. schol. Trach. p. 278.2 Papag. (lemma) λόγος μὲν ἔστ᾽ ἀρχαῖος L: λόγος μὲν ἔστ᾽ ἀν(θρώπ)οις LpLf; 278.5 ἁψίκορον L: ὑψίκορον LpLf; 278.9 δείκνυσι πάντα τὸν πλοῦτον L: om. LpLf; 278.13 ἠρώτα L:

ἡρώτα LpLf; schol. Oed. Col. Ὁ. 395.8 τὸν L: om. LpLf; 396.8 διδάσκουσιν





L: διδάσκειν LpLf; schol. Phil. p. 350.17/18 τῇ διαβιβρωσκούσηι L: om. LpLf; 351.4 τῆς ἀκτῖνος L: τῆς ἀκτῖνος τοῦ ἡλ(ίου) LpLf; schol. Oed. Tyr. p. 161.15 παιᾶνας L: πριᾶνας LpLf; 161.15 ἐπταικότες Lascaris] éadwxdres L: ἐνεγκόντες LpLf; 162.7 αἰτίας L: εὐθείας LpLf; schol. Antig. p. 213.15 ὡσεὶ ehey(ev) L: om. LpLf; 214.2 ἀλγεινόν L: ἀλγηρὸν LpLf. Naturally, Lf shows some more blunders of its own. The same scholia on these five plays: Trach., Oed. Col., Phil., Oed. Tyr., Antig. (incomplete), were copied directly from the ms. Conventi Soppressi 142 (Lf) by the ms. Roudnice VI.F.e.43 (our symbol Lr). Lr = Roudnice nad Labem, Lobkovick4 Knihovna, VI.F.e.43. Paper, XVI* cent., 21 x 16 cm., 398 pages, 21 lines to a page for the Sophocles scholia. I have a complete photographic reproduction of the Sophoclean part of this ms. The ms. contains Laurentian scholia: page 17 scholia on Trachiniae; 67 arg. III to Oed. Col.; 68 scholia on Oedipus Coloneus ; 119 prose and metrical arguments to Philoct.; 120 scholia on Philoctetes; 149 arg. II to Oed. Tyr.; 150 χρησμὸς δοθεὶς τῶ κάδμω (Anthol. VI 1 Cougny) ; 151 scholia on Oedipus Tyrannus; 196-206 scholia on Antigone (1-164, ending p. 227.19 Papag. ἐξαιρέτως). The rest of the scholia on Antigone seems to have been lost in this ms.

The Sophoclean scholia in the Roudnice ms. (Lr) are directly transcribed from the ms. Conventi Soppressi 142 (Lf). Accordingly, Lr is an indirect descendant of L, since the propagation of the Laurentian scholia on the five plays in question progressed from L to Lp to Lf to Lr. A decisive proof of the direct derivation of Lr from Lf appears in several characteristic and peculiar errors of Lf repeated in Lr: cf. schol. Trach. p. 281.11 Papag. κατὰ LLp: τὰ LfLr; arg. III to Oed. Col. p. 17.14 Dindorf δυσώλυκτοι LfLr; schol. Oed. Col. p. 396.20 Papag. ἀκατάρτους LfLr ; 400.17 ἱδρῶσθαι LfLr; schol. Phil. p. 351.15 govoüro LfLr; 393.18 ἑρκύου LfLr; schol. Oed. Tyr. p. 161.16 ἀποιμάζουσι LfLr; 163.18 κώμαις LfLr; 164.24 ἐνδιδαχθεὶς LfLr; schol. Antig. p. 216.13 ἐπιβριοῦσα Lf ἐπικρυοῦσα Lr. Of course, blunders of Lf which originated in Lp (cf. above, p. 187) reappear in Lr. E.g., cf. these concordant readings of LpLfLr: schol. Trach. p. 278.2 Papag. λόγος μὲν ἔστ᾽ ἀν(θρώπ)οις, 278.5 ὑψίκορον, 278.9 δείκνυσι πάντα τὸν πλοῦτον om., 278.13 ἡρώτα; schol. Oed. Col. 395.8 τὸν om., 396.8 διδάσκειν; schol. Phil. 350.17/18 τῇ διαβιβρωσκούσῃ om., 351.4 τῆς ἀκτῖνος τοῦ ἡλίου; schol. Oed. Tyr. 161.15 πριᾶνας LpLf πριᾶναι Lr, 161.15 ἐνεγκόντες, 162.7 εὐθείας; schol. Antig. 213.15 ὡσεὶ ἔλεγεν om., 214.2 ἀλγηρὸν. The Roudnice ms. is, of course, an entirely worthless copy. SOME










(cf. Recension


155 f.; cf.


above, pp. 27, 65).


Paper, 1496 a.p., 210 Χ 155 mm., 198 foll. Written by

Aristobulus Apostolides; he subscribed the (latter) Electra (on fol. 94”) in Crete, on January 22, 1496, Πέτρω φλωρεντίνω τῶ μοναχῶ (cf. Vitelli, Studs Italians 2 [1894] 525) ;*! only fol. 183*-198* are written by another hand. The ms. contains: Aicx, Electra (1-567), Electra (complete), Antigone (1-839), Philoctetes (1-876), Oed. Col. (1-854). Short selected

Laurentian scholia on Philoctetes and Oed. Col.

This is a composite vol-

ume; it has been partly analyzed by me on a previous occasion (Recenston, loc. ctt.). Atax and the former Electra are Moschopulean. The latter Electra and Antigone are Thoman and transcribed from Zc (Vatic.

1333). Philoctetes (1-876) is transcribed from Venice 468 (V), as is shown by


peculiarities of V and Riccardi 77: cf. Phil. 27 εἶπας οἷον, 64

λέγ᾽, 101 δόλῳ τὸν φιλοκτήτην, 104 οὐκοῦν Ricc. 77; 107 λαβόντ᾽ ὡς, 112 ἐλεεῖν ὡς V Ricc. 77% (ἐλεεινῶς Ricc. Phil. was copied from V: cf. p. 29.6 personae dramatis ἄγγελος - &uropos

θράσους νη Ricc. 77; 106 οὐκ οὖν V τι om. V® Ricc. 77; 869 ἐξήχησ᾽, 870 77°°7*), Also the prose argument to Dind. prius μάντει V μαντεῖα Ricc. 77; LGOR: ἄγγελος ὁ καὶ Euxopos V Ricc.

77. The short ancient scholia on Phil. in Riccardi 77 seem to be derived from L (which was used in Ricc. 77 for Oed. Col.), but were selected by the copyist and sometimes modified. Apostolides used to make occasionally some changes and corrections: cf. Phil. 52 ὧν om. V: habet

Riccardi 77. Oedipus Coloneus (1-854), along with the arg. I and the poem IV 92 Cougny, and the selected Laurentian scholia, are copied from the ms. L: cf. OC 51 ἄτιμος γ᾽ & γ᾽ ἐμοῦ L and Riccardi 77. I checked only a part of the play, OC 1-178 (fol. 179-183"), and did not see the rest (which is reported to be written by a different hand).

A part of this ms. was written in Crete, as is indicated by the subscription

(on fol. 94”), which

refers to the latter Electra only.


Antigone was copied from the same source as the latter Electra, it must have been written at the same place.

This also shows that in 1496 a.p.

the Vatic. 1333 (Zc) was in Crete. The rest of the Riccardi 77, must have been written, at least for the parts derived directly from

Vatican Library, cod. Vatic. graec.


L, in Italy.

Paper, XV/XVI*


280 x 225 mm., 229 foll., 20 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. The handwritten part of the volume was written by Scipione Forteguerri of Pistoia (1466-1515). — Fol. 118” prose argument to Philoct.; 119r143" Philoctetes (1-1020). Sparse marginal notes of a late character

(not copied from G).

The argument and the text of Philoctetes 1-880

are transcribed from Laur. Conventi Soppressi 152 (G), while Philoctetes 881-1020 is copied from Laur. 32, 2 (Zg). Here is the proof. ™ Cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber p. 42; cf. above, p. 186 note 200.








In the first part, Philoct. 1-880, these are, e.g., concurrent errors of G and Vatic. 1948: Philoct. 47 πάντας) παρόντας, 73 πρωτοστόλου, 192 τι κἀγὼ, 252 οἶσθ᾽ obxore, 265 τῶδ᾽, 350 θανέντος, 365 ἀνήρ] ἄν, 570 τε om. For the part Philoct. 881-1020, I can quote, e.g., these concordant readings of Zg and Vatic. 1948: Philoct. 895 τοὐθάδε Zg”° and Vatic. 1948; 917 rio’ εἴπω, 942 χεῖραν, 997 ὁμοίως, 1014 ἐθέλονθ᾽. Milan, Ambros. B 65 sup. Paper, XVI* cent., 212 x 148 mm., III + 59 foll., 11 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1: Anonymus περὶ κωμῳδίας (Aristophanis comoediae A XV Cantarella); 1’-4" arg. to Atax; 9"-59r Atax. This ms. was transcribed from Madrid 4677 (N), as is shown by these blunders of the two mss.: Aiax 52 ἐμβαλοῦσα N, ἐκβαλλούσα Ambros. ; 42 ἐπιπέμπει N and Ambros. ; 62 συνδήσας δεσμοῖσι N, σὺν δήσας (ex δύσας) δεσμοῖσι Ambros. The Ambrosian copy was made from N, when N already had the lines Atax 1-32 supplemented by Constantinus Lascaris (cf. above, p. 147): cf. Ai. 8 εὕρινος N and Ambros., 15 σου om. N and Ambros. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, graec. 546. Paper, 1505 A.D., 205 x 146 mm., 72 foll. Written by Paolo de Canale (καῦλος ὁ δεκαναλεύς) and subscribed (on fol. 177) in Venice on January 28, 1505.%? This date in the Venice calendar corresponds to Jan. 28, 1506. — Fol. 26'-27* arg. to Philoct., and Philoctetes (1-36). This beginning of Philoctetes is transcribed directly from the Paris 2712 (A) with which it agrees exactly. Cf. especially this common error of the two mss.: Phil. 34 ἐρῆμα] to A and Munich 546. Incidentally, this transcript shows that in 1506 the ms. A was in Venice. There are many more apographs of A. I have shown (cf. Recension pp. 148 ff.) that the following mss. are copies (total or partial) of A: Escorial 2.1.9. The seven plays were transcribed directly from A. Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana, 34. Also cf. above, pp. 27, 67, 92. In this ms., Trachiniae, Philoct., Antigone, Oed. Col., are transcribed directly from A. Berlin, Phillipps 1588. Also cf. above, p. 27. This ms. is a copy of Florence, Riccardi 34 (see above) and, therefore, is an indirect copy of A in Trachiniae, Philoct., Oed. Col., Antigone. London, Harley 5743. In this ms., Trachiniae and Philoctetes are directly copied from A. There is an apograph of a part of the ms. Vienna phil. gr. 48 (Y: cf. above, p. 173) in the ms. Brussels 11343: 2 Cf. Aubrey Diller, Transactions of the American Philological Association 67 (1936) p. 235 note 6; Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griech. Schreiber p. 377. On Paolo de Canale, cf. Firmin-Didot, Alde Manuce et I'hellénisme ἃ Ventse pp. 447 f. According to Diller, the ms. Munich 494 was also written by Paolo de Canale.

This notice should have been

added to the description of Munich 494 in Manuscripts p. 26 and Recension Ὁ. 161.



Ya = Brussels, Bibliothéque Royale de Belgique, 11343. Paper, XV‘ cent., 232 x 158 mm., 216 foll., 14 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1’ arg. I, IV, to Oed. Col.; 25 Oedipus Coloneus ; 67" arg. to Trach. (from Apollodorus); 69: Trachiniae; 115” prose arg. to Phil.; 116-129" and 176-216" Philoctetes ; 130° arg. III, I, to Antig.; 131"-175”


Sparse ancient scholia.


four tragedies are directly

transcribed in text and scholia from Vienna phil. gr. 48 (Y) and, therefore, represent the Paris tradition +. The ms. Ya agrees with Y very closely and repeats the errors of Y. These are, e.g., concordant erroneous readings of Y and Ya: Antig. 169 ἐνπέδοις Y ἐν πέδοις Ya; 207 φρόνιμα YYa; 255 οὐδὲν yap YYa; 334 πολιουοῦ YYa; Oed. Col. 737 ἀνδρὸς YYa; Trach. 39 τῇδανάστατοι YYa; Phil. 19 ἀμφιτρῆρος YYa. Of course, the Brussels text agrees with its source in general in readings of the class x, as represented by AUY (cf. above, p. 175). It is to be considered a worthless copy. SOME



To the Moschopulean manuscripts which I listed previously (cf. Recension pp. 152 ff.), I have added, in the list presented in this book (above, pp. 27 ff.), a few other mss. which I have recently recognized to be likewise Moschopulean. I ought to justify the addition of these items by offering an analysis of the mss. in question. Here it is: Brescia, Biblioteca Civica Queriniana, B.VI.24. Paper, XVI* cent., 23 x 17 cm., v + 272 + 11 foll., 8 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1? Vita; 2* arg. to Aiax; 2" Prophecy (cf. above, p. 88); 37-867 Aiax; 88: arg. to El.; 89"-178" Electra; 179: arg. I, II, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 180-272: Oed. Tyr. There are Moschopulean scholia in the original version (not in that of the Triclinian commentary) and some Thoman scholia on the three plays, and also some Triclinian metrical scholia with occasional modifications, e.g., schol. metr. OT 1 (cf. Turnebus, Scholia p. 53). Among the scholia, there are also some insertions from other sources, to judge, e.g., from a scholium on El. 1 (= Thomas Magistros, Ecloga vocum atticarum pp. 408.17 Ritschl — 409.6 ἐπαγομένη»). The poetic text is basically Moschopulean: cf. At. 58 ἐμπιτνῶν, 61 πόνου, 75 ἀρεῖς (&pns, 112 ἔγώ σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι, El. 61 μὲν οὐδὲν, 132 οὐδ᾽ ἐθέλω, OT 29 καδμείων, 34 ξυναλλαγαῖς, 42 εὑρεῖν ἡμὶν, 50 στάντες τ᾽, 77 80’ ἂν. Occasionally, the copyist also drew a few interpolations from

Triclinius: At. 161 μικρῶν (σμικροτέρων — yet, close to it, Ai. 166 ἄναξ stands in the text contrary to Triclinius. Cf. also these Triclinian readings in the Brescia ms.: El. 139 γόοις οὐ λιταῖς (γόοις οὔτε λιταῖς, 145 ὅστις. There appears also a reading of φ



and Thomas: As. 160/1 ἂν δράση καὶ.

There are some corrections by a

later hand, e.g.: Atax 82 ἰδεῖν, probably drawn from Thomas or Triclinius (the original reading here must have been ὄκνῳ, and there are here and there some readings inconsistent with the Moschopulean

text: e.g., Ai.

80 els δόμους Brescia



veteres, Thomas,

Triclin. (ἐν δόμοις Moschop.). The conclusion is that the Brescia ms. was a transcript of a Moschopulean ms. containing Moschopulean text and scholia, with which the Brescia copyist combined some Thoman scholia and also a few Triclinian

metrical scholia and some text interpolations from a Triclinian source. The Brescia ms. is, of course, without value.™ El Escorial, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo, Y.IV.15.

Paper, XV“

cent., 20 x 15 cm., 135 foll., 13 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles.™ — Fol. 62" personae dramatis to Ai. ; 63"-116" Atax; 118-135” Electra (1-469). Scholia, on Aiax and Electra (1-218), are Moschopulean and Thoman. The poetic text is basically Moschopulean, but occasionally

Triclinian interpolations were adopted.

For the Moschopulean character

of this ms., cf.: As. 496 Av, 524 γένοιτό 108" οὗτος, 565 ἐνάλιος, 969 πῶς, 1011 ἥδιον, 1113 ἐνώμοτος, El. 42 μακρῷ χρόνῳ. For the admixture of Triclinian

readings in this ms., cf. At. 1409 σὺ δὲ rat rod πατρὸς ὅσον ἰσχύεις (=TTa), El. 139 ob λιταῖς. Moscow, Gosudarstvenny! Istoricheskil Muzel, from the former

kovskaia Sinodal’naia Biblioteka gr. 504. Aiax, Electra, Oed.




Paper, XIV“ cent. Vita,

to Atax and




was unable to obtain photographs of this ms. and, therefore, have to rely only on the limited information which was published in the editions of Erfurdt, Erfurdt-Hermann (on the three plays), and of Elmsley (on

Oed. Tyr.: Lipsiae, 1821; Oxonii, 1825). A collation of this ms. was made by Matthaei in a Sophocles copy (of the Johnson edition), which belonged afterwards to the Dresden Library (as Dresden ms. Da.65.66), but was destroyed during the last war. This Dresden copy with Matthaei’s colla-

tion was the source of information on Moscow readings in the editions just mentioned. The symbol used was Mosg.a — or, in Elmsley and Erfurdt’s Oed. Tyr.1, Mosq. The Moscow 504 has a Triclinian argument to Aiax, as was shown by Dindorf, Scholia pp. 26-28 footnotes. But the text of the three plays in Moscow 504 is Moschopulean, to judge from

the evidence published in the older editions (provided the readings of that ms. were reported there correctly): cf. Atax 727 σύναιμον, 969 πῶς, 994 πασῶν, 1036 ἂν, 1113 ἐνώμοτος, 1230 ἐφώνεις, 1339 οὔκουν, Electra 42 %8 Cf. Aubreton, Démétrius Triclinius Ὁ. 233. 4] owe to Professor Manuel F. Galiano (Madrid) additional details on this ms. and a collation of several readings from it.



μακρῷ χρόνῳ, 1141 ξέναισι, Oed. Tyr. 297 ὁ ἐξελέγξων, 763 οἵ] ὅδε γ᾽, 1348 ποτὲ (ἄν om.). Class ἔπι: As. 1368 σὸν γὰρ ἄρα, El. 1264 ὅταν, OT 630 μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ οὐ σοὶ, 1213/4 χρόνος ὃς δικάζει. According to Matthaei,™ the first 8 folios in this ms. are paper leaves, while the rest is bombycine. It should be checked whether these 8 initial folios are written by the main hand, or are a later addition. If this be

the case, it would explain the Triclinian argument to Aiax as an extraneous addition to the otherwise Moschopulean manuscript. Vatican Library, cod. Palatin. graec. 131. Paper, XIV*b cent., 202 x 140 mm., 116 foll. — Fol. 1" Asax (1040-end); 11" arg. to El.; ancient

scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papag.); 11” Electra; 51" arg. I, enigma, to Oed. Tyr.; 527-90" Oed. Tyr. Written by different hands. Sparse Moschopulean scholia. The ms. is not strongly consistent, but shows a basically Moschopulean text: cf. Aiax 1070 λόγων (τ᾽ om.), 1081 πάρα, 1127 δεινόν γ᾽, Electra 42 μακρῷ χρόνω, 61 μὲν οὐδὲν, 890 λοιπὸν Iv’ ἢ, 985 μὴ λιπεῖν, 1029 πάθης, Oed. Tyr. 42 εὑρεῖν ἡμῖν, 77 ὅσ᾽ ἂν, 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἐμοῦ συνειδότος, 804 συνηντίαζον. This Moschopulean text belongs to the class £p: OT 840 ἐκπεφενγοίμην. There are sporadically in this ms. quite many old readings. Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, graec. 514 (No. di collocazione 771). Paper, XV“ cent., 215 x 152 mm., 448 foll., 15 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 47: arg. to Aiax; 48:-93" Azax. Moschopulean scholia. Written by two different hands (the other hand begins on fol. 70, from A#. 678 on). The ms. is Moschopulean: cf. Atax 112 ἔγώ σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι, 227 οἴμοι, 259 φρόνιμον, 301 ὑπαΐξας, 307 διοπτεύοι, 496 ἣν, 519 πᾶσ᾽, 524 γένοιτό ποθ᾽ οὗτος, 534 γέ τ᾽ (in γ᾽ ἔτ᾽ correctum) ἦν ἄν, 705 ξυνείης, 727 σύναιμον, 951 ἄγαν γ᾽, 1011 ἤδιον, 1081 πάρα, 1113 ἐνώμοτος. Class tm: Ai. 725 ἔνθεν κἄνθεν καὶ οὔτις, 1368 σὸν γὰρ ἄρα. At the beginning of this ms., there are some interpolations from other

sources, and the poetic text of Aiax 41-85 (fol. 49”-50”) seems to depart from the Moschopulean tradition and to follow some source from which V (Venice 468) and O (Leiden Voss. Aiax (Venice 514 is even closer to O 47 ἡμᾶς VO! and Venice 514%; 52 πρόσωψιν O and Venice 514 (πρόσοψιν 84 re O and Venice 514 (γε V).

Q 6) drew their texts in that part of in the portion in question): cf. Aiax βαλλοῦσα VO and Venice 514; 70 V); 83 μὴ om. VO and Venice 514;

SOME COMPOSITE MANUSCRIPTS Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, Da.22. The ms. was presumably damaged during the last war and subsequently was lost; it is not τ Cf. Christianus Frid. de Matthaei, Accorata codicom graecorom mss. bibliothecarom Mosqvensiom Sanctissimae Synodi notitia et recensio | (Lipsiae, 1805) p. 238.








extant in the Library now. I am trying to determine the character of this ms. on the basis of the information published in older editions. Cf. Manuscripts Ὁ. 14; Dindorf, Scholia p. 408. Paper, XV‘ cent. After a Euripidean triad (Hecuba, Orestes, Phoentssae), there was Triclinian metrical matter and the scholium περὶ rod εἰδώλου on Eurip. Hecuba; obviously, these two elements should be referred to the preceding Euripidean portion of the ms. Thereupon followed: Aiax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus (1-1355). Readings of this ms. were reported by Erfurdt and Hermann (for Atax and Oed. Tyr.), and in Elmsley’s Oed. Tyr.; below, I rely only on that information published. There were also scholia (cf. Dindorf, Scholia p. 408). Dindorf (Scholia p. xıx) mentioned a Moschopulean scholium on Electra 449 which was extant in the two Dresden mss., i.e., in the Triclinian ms. Da.21 (our symbol Tb — cf. above, p. 76) and in this ms. Da.22. It is a Moschopulean scholium (it had been published by Johnson, and I have checked its presence in the ms. X). Of course, in the Triclinian ms. Da.21 it was included in the usual Triclinian commentary, but in Da.22 it seems to have been tied up with its Moschopulean character. The readings of Da.22 that were reported from Atax point to the Moschopulean character of the Aicx text in the Da.22: cf. At. 488 τινες, 951 ἄγαν γ᾽, 969 πῶς, 1230 ἐφώνεις, 1339 οὔκουν. Yet there were many departures from the normal Moschopulean text (e.g., Ai. 1141 ἀλλ’ Da.22 with Loy: σὺ 5° GOR, Moschop., Thomas, Tricl.). I do not know anything about the Electra text of Da.22, but we may surmise that its Moschopulean scholium on El. 449 indicates that also the Electra text in this ms. was likewise Moschopulean. This would mean that Aiax and possibly Electra in the Dresden Da.22 were Moschopulean, though occasionally interpolated from other sources.

But Oed. Tyr. in this ms. must have been an old text: cf. OT 50 στάντες (τ᾽ om.), 659 φυγεῖν, 763 of’) ὅδ᾽, 935 παρὰ, 976 λέχος, 1266 ἐπὶ, and it belonged to the deteriores probably of the class y: cf. OT 827 ὃς ἐξέθρεψε κἀξέφυσέ pe (also ENOVWHA), 957 σὺ om. (also VHA), 1084 τοιόσδε dis οὐκ (also Wa). At the same time, there were in this portion many interpolations from other sources, especially from Moschopulus. We do not

know anything more precise on the scholia of this ms., except for Dindorf’s statement (Scholia p. 408) that the ms. is in than the Triclinian ms. Da.21 — and except p. XIX) to the Moschopulean scholium on Εἰ. The above analysis is tentative, especially systematic collation of this ms. was published

this respect less important for his reference (Scholia 449. in view of the fact that no in the older editions.

Vatican Library, cod. Vatic. graec. 49. Paper, XV“ cent., 211 x 143 mm., 11 + 185 foll., 13 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 2: Vita; 3" arg. to Atax; 4: Atax; 59° arg. to El.; Electra; 116% arg. I, enigma, arg. II, to Oed. Tyr.; 1177-175" Oed. Tyr. There is a mixture



of ancient, Moschopulean, and Thoman scholia, but in Electra and Oed. Tyr. Thoman scholia prevail. This is a composite and peculiarly interpolated ms. which, moreover, underwent many corrections taken from a source resembling the Thoman ms. Zc or perhaps from Zc itself (cf. El. 36 τε om. Zc, delevit Vatic. 492). Therefore, the characterization of its text cannot be adequately precise. In this ms., I stress the importance of watching the original readings which often have been changed with an effort to conceal the primary readings. In general, I should consider the Aiax section to be basically Moschopulean: cf. At. 519 πᾶσ’, 524 γένοιτό ποθ᾽ οὗτος, 634 κρέσσων a.c., 1369 γ᾽. Electra seems to stem from a Jena source: El. 293 τινὸς om. a.c., 450

μὲν om. a.c. But at the same time this section was strongly influenced by the original Moschopulean recension. Oed. Tyr., on the whole, is Moschopulean: cf. OT 630 μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ ob col, 637 σύ τ᾽ οἴκους a.c., 659 φυγὴν, 804 συνηντίαζον.

Many interpolations and corrections distort the picture of the text of this ms. to a considerable degree. Vatican Library, cod. Reginensis graec. 153. Paper, XV* cent., 216 x 141 mm., 104 foll., 13 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1" Atax (130-end) ; 49-104” Electra (1-1442). Moschopulean scholia on Aiax 869-1225 and on Electra 65-122; Thoman scholia on Atiax 1242end, Electra 1-24 and 405-1028. This is a composite volume. Aiax 130 — ca. 1365 is Moschopulean: cf. Ai. 227 oluoı, 259 φρόνιμον a.c., 1081 πάρα, 1127 δεινόν γ᾽, 1146 ναντίλω, 1214 ἀνεῖται, 1339 obxouv, 1368 σὸν γὰρ apa, 1369 γ᾽.

It seems that from Aiax ca. 1366 on (from fol. 47”) the ms. shifts over to a Thoman source. Accordingly, Aiax 1366-end and Electra are Thoman: cf. Ai. 1377 φίλον (as L!Zc), El. 159 ἐν om., 345 θάτερον ἢ, 973 μὲν οὗν, 1257 σῶζε, 1294 οἱ, 1383 εὐσεβείας, 1424 κυρεῖ Ye.

The ms. drew scholia from both sources, as indicated above. The poetic text is not entirely consistent, and there are interpolations: cf. At. 161 μικρῶν (from Triclinius). Vienna, Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, cod. philos. philol. graec. 164. Paper, XVI*® cent., 224 x 168 mm., 159 foll.; 13 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles in Atax; 12-14 lines in Electra; 14 lines in Oed. Tyr. — Fol. 17-51% Atax; 53" arg. to El., and scholium ἀπειρόκαλον (p. 97.2-12 Papag.) ; 535-106: Electra ; 107" arg. I, II, to Oed. Tyr. ; 108"-159r Oed. Tyr. Different hands added scholia on Aiax and Electra. Basically, these are Jena scholia, but there are also some scholia added from other sources (from Moschopulus, Planudes, Thomas), and even some special short notes. This is a composite manuscript, the text of which is heavily interpolated against the basic stock of a given section. Aiax is Moschopulean: cf. At. 75 ἀρεῖς, 112 ἔγώ σ᾽ ἐφίεμαι, 259 φρόνιμον


THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF THE TRAGEDIES OF SOPHOCLES, 717 μετεγνώσθη, 969 πῶς, 1146 ναυτίλω. Among some extra interpolations, there is, e.g., Ai. 161 μικρῶν (from Triclinius). Electra presents a Jena text: cf. El. 44 ὡς, 76 ἐργάτης, 293 τινός om., 583 θάνοις γ᾽ ἂν, 1385 ἅρμα. Oed. Tyr. at first is Thoman: cf. OT 18 οἱ δ᾽[[ἐ]] ἠΐθέων, 30 ἀΐδας. Then, it shifts to the Moschopulean recension: cf. OT 130 rd, 136 θ᾽, 250 γένοιτ᾽ ἐμοῦ, 630 μέτεστι τῆσδ᾽ ob col. Afterwards, the rest of Oed. Tyr. follows a source of the class ¢: cf. OT 827 ἐξέθρεψε κἀξεφυσέ με, 957 φὴς ὦ ξέν᾽ (also EN), 989 εὐλαβεῖθ' (εὐλαβεῖσθ᾽ EF'NO), 1386 ἥκιστ᾽ ἀλλ᾽. Throughout the whole text of Oed. Tyr., there are many interpolations and inconsistencies. SOME



Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2531. Paper, late XV‘ or early XVI* cent., 215 x 160 mm., 363 foll. The ms. was partly written by Michael Suliardus, and the Sophoclean part seems to be in his handwriting (cf. Omont, Fac-similés de manuscrits grecs des X Κ et X VI siécles plate 38). — Fol. 38*[39*] Vita (cf. p. 1.14 Dindorf ἐν πολιτεία συζῶν) ; 3940] argument to Atax. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2662. Paper, XIV‘ cent., 215 x 145 mm., 123 foll. — Fol. 101" and 56-61" some late Byzantine comments on Aiax 815-1403. The commentator knew ancient and Moschopulean scholia. Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, Fondo De-Rossiano graec. 8. Cf. E. Martini, Catalogo di manoscritti greci esistents nelle biblioteche ttaliane I 1 (Milano, 1893) pp. 200 ff. I have some photographic samples of this ms. and I rely below on data from my photographs and on the informa-

tion published by Martini. — Paper, end of the XV*

cent. or early

XVI* cent., 31 x 22 cm., 159 foll., 30 lines to a page. Written by three copyists (fol. 1-3, 4-113, 114-158). Scholia: 1" on Aicx; 39" on Electra; 70" on Oed. Tyr.; 98" on Antigone; 119" on Oed. Col. ; 134: on Trachiniae; 150-158" on Philoctetes. The Parma ms. divides into two sections. The first section, written by two copyists (fol. 1"-113”), contains scholia on Atax, Electra, Oecd. Tyr., and a larger part of Antigone. These scholia are a mixture of ancient and Byzantine scholia and some worthless later comments. The Byzantine scholia in this portion are selected Thoman scholia on the tetrad, Moschopulean scholia on the triad, and some Triclinian metrical scholia on the four plays in question. In the ancient scholia of this section, at the beginning, there is some influence of the Paris 2799 (Lp:

cf. above, p. 184); cf. schol. vet. At. 1 p. 2.4 Papag. γενήσεσθαι Lp and Parma.

There appear also some interesting conjectures: cf. p. 2.2 Papag.


εἰ habet Parma.




As to the Triclinian scholia in the Parma ms., this ms.

shows the Triclinian metrical scholium on Aiax 1 (p. 383 Dindorf) with that peculiar graphical error τρίμετροι, ἀκατάληκτοι, υβ' which we have noticed in TfTg! (cf. above, p. 84). The second section of the Parma ms., written by the third copyist,



comprises fol. 114’-158" and contains

the end of the

scholia on Antigone and the scholia on Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct. These scholia in the Parma ms. are ancient (Laurentian) scholia. A comparison

with the Paris 2799 (Lp), which is just a transcript of the Laurentian scholia from L, reveals clearly that the Parma ms. in the section just indicated — containing scholia on Antig. (end), Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct.

— is a direct apograph of Lp. This transcript of Lp begins in the Parma ms. on fol. 114" (according to a communication which I have received from Professor Vittorio De Marco), with the writing of the last copyist. To prove this relationship of the Parma ms. to Lp, it is enough to note, for example, such agreements: schol. vet. Anttg. 1303 p. 275.25/26 Papag. αὐτῆς L: om. Lp and Parma; schol. Trach. 21 p. 280.19 Papag. ἄβλητος L: ἀπόβλητος Lp and Parma; schol. Oed. Col. 100 p. 404.9 Papag. μήτε!ϊ,: μὴ Lp and Parma; schol. Oed. Col. 1760 p. 468.11 Papag. παραφύλαξον L: παραφύλαξαι Lp and Parma. Several scholia on Philoct. reported to be written in the Parma ms. in the margin appear to be written in Lp in the same way. The titles of the scholia to single plays in both mss. agree in their wording. The Parma ms. has, however, some errors where Lp

is correct: e.g., cf. schol. Phil. 17 p. 351.7/8 Papag. ἀπολαύειν Lp: ἀπολαβεῖν Parma; schol. Phil. 1453 p. 393.21 Papag. ξύμφερον Parma.

The scholia of Lp copied directly by Lf the Roudnice ms. Lr the above section of the group LpLfLr.

(lemma) ξύμφρουρον Lp:

on Oed. Tyr., Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil., were (Conv. Soppr. 142), which then was transcribed by (cf. above, pp. 186 ff.). It is, therefore, natural that the Parma ms. coincides in many peculiarities with

The Parma ms. is, in large part, an indirect descendant of L. On the whole, it was a compilation directed by some versatile humanist (written by three hands), drawn from many sources, but in the main section deriving from Lp. Since Lp has a part written by Aristobulus Apostolides (Arsenius of Monembasia), this fact provides a terminus post quem for the Parma ms., which was probably written around the close of the XV“ century or early in the XVI* century.

There is a direct copy of the Aiax portion of the Parma ms. in the ms. Montpellier H.429, and an indirect copy in the Paris 2885. Montpellier, Faculté de Médecine, H.429. Paper, XVI‘ cent., 185 x 130 mm., 74 foll., 22 lines to a page for the Sophocles scholia. The








volume contains scholia on Atax of the same mixed character as the scholia on Atax in the ms. Parma, De-Rossi gr. 8 (see above). I have a photographic sample of the beginning of the Montpellier scholia: they agree most exactly with the Parma ms. It seems that the Montpellier ms. is a direct apograph of the Parma ms.: cf. schol. Tricl. metr. As. 1 (p. 383 Dindorf) συστηματικῶν] συστατικῶν Parma and Montpellier; schol. Thom. Ai. 1 (p. 329.4 Dindorf) συντόμως Z: σύντομον Parma and Montpellier ; schol. Mosch. At. 3 (p. 196.24 Dindorf) κλήσιαν Parma and Montpellier ; schol. Thom. Ai. 42 (p. 330.18 Dindorf) πολεμῶ σοι Z: πολεμῶσι Parma and Montpellier. The Parma scholia are exactly duplicated in the Montpellier ms. Then, there is an apograph of the Montpellier H.429 in the Paris 2885. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2885. Paper, XVI* cent., 137 x 98 mm., 167 foll., 16 lines to a page for the Sophocles scholia. — Fol. 17-128" scholia on Atax. There are ancient and Byzantine scholia, and some later comments,of thesame kind asare to be found in the Parma De-Rossi 8 and in the Montpellier H.429. Actually, this ms. Paris 2885 is transcribed directly from the Montpellier H.429 with which it agrees most closely. Cf. these common errors of the two mss.: schol. vet. p. 2.2 Papag. προῦφαρ πᾶσαι; ibidem, σπουδάξεις ; schol. Thom. p. 329.12 Dindorf ἔξωθεν] Exwhev; Ὁ. 329.13 Dindorf κάρα] xepa. The Paris 2885 has some blunders of its own: schol. At. 2 τὸ δὲ θηρώμενον, ἀντὶ τοῦ θηρῶντα Parma, Montpellier : — θηρῶνται Paris 2885; schol. vet. p. 3.5 Papag. φθέγμα γὰρ Montpellier (correctly) : φλέγμα γὰρ Paris 2885. I need not explain that all these mss., Parma Paris 2885, are entirely worthless. TRANSCRIPTS




Montpellier and


There are a few manuscripts of the XVI* century which exhibit transcripts of Sophoclean plays, in most cases of single plays, copied by some Western students of Greek literature and language directly from printed editions and mostly supplied with Latin glosses or translations. This is, of course, worthless material, and I give below proofs of the actual character of those copies simply in order to eliminate them from any future consideration. ss ] have compared samples of the mss. in question with the following editions: Aldus


= Σοφοκλέους

com commentarits. M.DII.) Junta!





(at the end: Venetiis in Aldi Romani = Σοφοκλεους



μετὰ σχολίων


Academia παλαιῶν



mense Augusto. καὶ πάνυ ὀφελίμων.

Sophoclis Tragoediae septem. Cum interpretationibus uetustis & ualde utilibus. (at the end: Florentiae per haeredes Philippi Iuntae: anno Domini M.D.xx11. sexto kal.’ Nouembris).



Vatican Library, cod. Ottoboni gr. 284. Paper, 1530 a.p., (according to a note on fol. 12°), 205 x 132 mm., 90 foll. — Fol. 11” personae dramatis to El.; 12'-90" Electra (1-1421), with a Latin interlinear translation. On account of the date of the ms., we turn our attention to the editions of Aldus, Junta’, and Colinaeus, as possible sources. The ms. is clearly a transcript of the Aldine edition: cf. El. 727 συμπταίουσι Aldus (also Junta!, Colinaeus), συμπταίουσι[[»]}] Ottob.; 42 χρόνῳ μακρῷ Aldus (also Colinaeus), Ottob.: but μακρῷ χρόνῳ Junta!. Thus, the Junta! edition is eliminated as a possible source. The Colinaeus edition is likewise excluded, for the Ottoboni ms. is free from its blunders: cf. El. 81 μείνομεν Colinaeus: μείνωμεν Aldus, Ottob. ; 83 πειρόμεθ᾽ Colinaeus: πειρώμεθ᾽ Aldus, Ottob. Holkham (Norfolk), Holkham Hall, Lord Leicester Library, 271. Paper, XVI cent., 222 x 157 mm., 55 foll., 18 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 1” personae dramatis to Oed. Col. 2:--555 Oedipus Coloneus. Latin marginal glosses and notes. This is a transcript of the Aldine edition: cf. OC 6 &udı Aldus and Holkham; 26 μολοῦ σά ποι Aldus: μολοῦ σάποι Holkham. The Holkham ms. agrees with the Aldine everywhere, it suffices to quote a few of their agreements: OC 48 πρὶν ἂν, 110 τό γ᾽, 915 τὰ τῆσδε γῆς. Of course, most of the characteristic readings of the Aldine edition stem from Y and are repeated in the later preTurnebian editions. At any rate, the ms. Y as well as the editions of Junta!, Colinaeus, Camerarius, Brubach, Junta’, are excluded as possible direct sources of the Holkham ms. which does not share in their exclusive features. Milan, Ambros. E 32 sup. (No. 279 in Martini-Bassi). Paper, XVIt: cent., 159 x 116 mm., Iv + 183 foll., 25 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. — Fol. 40° Atax; 69*-99" Electra. To judge from the beginning of Aiax, this is a transcript from the first Junta edition, with which it agrees closely. Cf. Aiax 18 tr’ om. Junta! and Ambros., 55 els πεσὼν Junta! and Ambros. Hamburg, Staats- und Universitäts-Bibliothek, cod. manuscriptus in scrinio 16. Parchment, XVI cent., 155 x 110 mm., 216 foll., 22 lines Colinaeus (1528)

= Σοφοκλέους τραγῳδίαι ἑπτά. Sophoclis tragoediae septem. (at the end:

Ervrdéy ἐν λευκετΐᾳ τῶν παρησίων παρὰ Σίμωνι τῷ Kodwaly δεκεμβρίου μηνὸς tery ἐπὶ δέκα, tra ἀπὸ τῆς θεογονίας ὀγδόῳ καὶ εἰκοστῷ πρὸς τοῖς χιλίοις καὶ πεντακοσίοις.)

Camerarius (1534) = Σοφοκλεους rpaywdıaı ewra. Sophoclis tragoediae seplem com commentarijs ... authore Ioachimo Camerario (Haganoae, M.D.XXXIIII.). Brubach (1544) = Σοφοκλέους τραγωδιαι erra μετὰ σχολίων παλαιῶν καὶ πάνν ὠφελίμων. Sophoclis tragoediae sepiem, cum interpretationibus uelustis & ualde utilibus. Anno xXLuti. (at the end: Francofvrti, ex ofhcina Petri Brvbachii, Anno M.D.XLIIII.) Junta? (1547) = Σοφοκλέους rpaywila: ἑπτὰ μετὰ σχολίων παλαιῶν καὶ πάνυ ὀφελίμων.

Sophoclis tragoediae septem Cum interpretationibus uetustis & ualde utilibus. Florentiae. MDXLVII. (at the end: Florentiae apvd Ivnctam. M.D.xLviI.); preface by Bernardvs Ivncta.








to a page for the text of Sophocles. Cf. Hermann Frankel, ‘Die Handschriften der Argonautika des Apollonios von Rhodos,’’' Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philol.-hist. Kl. 1929,

p. 187. — Fol. 17-16” Atax (719-end).

This is a transcript of the first

Junta edition: cf. Aiax 1127 κεινόν γ᾽ Junta! and Hamburg“ +’ Junta’); 783 κάλκας Junta!, Hamburg (also Junta’).

(but δεινόν

According to Frankel, loc. cit., also some other portions of this Hamburg ms. are transcripts of printed texts. Basel, Offentliche Bibliothek der Universitit Basel, C.VI.33. XVI

and XVII*


cent., in three parts (fol. 1-288, 289-435, 436-601).

XVI* cent. for the Sophocles portion, 200 x 145 mm., 21 lines to a page for the text of Sophocles. In the first part, fol. 259: Ἐπιγράμματα els Σοφοκλέα; 2597 Ὑποθεσις Aravros Μασιγοφορου; 261" personae dramatis; 262:--277" Atax 1-673; 278" Αταχ 794-799. Latin interlinear glosses. This is clearly a transcript of a printed pre-Turnebian edition: cf. Atax 64 κοὐχ. Only Aldus and Colinaeus come into account as possible sources, because the Basel ms. is free from errors of Junta’, Camerarius, Brubach,


I consider the Colinaeus edition to be the direct source of the

Basel transcript: cf. arg. Atax p. 25.7 Dindorf ὥσπέρ Colinaeus and Basel; p. 27.5 Oin Colinaeus and Basel. The arrangement of lines arg. Ai. p. 27.7-9 Dind. in the Basel ms. agrees with the Colinaeus edition: εἶτα durod ἄκουε rou κεκρατηκότον, "> Os δὴ μὴ ὄφελον νικᾷν τοιῷδ᾽ ἐπ’ ἀέθλῳ. dur ἐλυ(σι add. in πιρ.)τέλησεν κτλ. The writer of the Basel ms. occasionally corrected some misprints: arg.

Ai. p. 28.4 Dind. ἄτρωτων Colinaeus: ἄτρωτον Basel. Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, 2546. Paper, XVI* cent. Sophocles portion, II + 223 + 1 foll., 21 x 14 cm., 15 lines to for the text of Sophocles and likewise for its Latin translation. 67-897 Electra (1-323). The ms. exhibits the Sophocles text right-hand pages with an interlinear Latin translation, and

for the a page — Fol. on the another

Latin translation on the left-hand pages facing the Greek text.


Electra text is transcribed from the second Junta edition (1547): cf. El. 19 εὐφρώνη Junta? and Riccardi (but εὐφρόνη Junta!). The agreement of the Riccardi text with Junta? appears quite visibly everywhere. Even

the letter 2 at the beginning of Εἰ. 1 reproduces the illumination pattern of both Juntine editions of Sophocles. Also cf. El. 9 Muxtvas Junta? Riccardi (also Junta!), 42 μακρῷ χρόνῳ Junta? Riccardi (also Junta’), 43 ὑποπτείουσιν Junta? Riccardi (but trorrebcovow Junta’). Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, 89. Paper, 1565 a.p., 163 x 110 mm., 82 foll. Written in 1565 by Lorenzo Giacomini (Λαυρέντιος Ἰακωμίνιος; cf. Vogel-Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber p. 257). — Fol.



5* arg. I, oracle, arg. II, to Oed. Tyr. ; 8"-10” Oed. Tyr. (1-64 κἀμὲ); 27:--57:

Oed. Tyr. (622-end).

This is a transcript of the second Junta edition:

cf. OT 10 φρωνεῖν Junta?, Riccardi; 669 & 6’ οὖν Junta?, 86’ οὖν Ricc.“; 711 otxep Junta? (also Junta’), Ricc. Paris, Ancien fonds grec 2722. This volume contains a few leaves with printed scholia on Philoctetes from the Lascaris edition of the Sophocles scholia (Rome, 1518). As a matter of fact, this item does not belong to manuscripts and is to be disregarded entirely. The present Studtes and my previous paper Recension cover almost all the extant mss. of Sophocles (not later than the XVI* century). However, there are a few mss. of which I am so far unable to obtain photographic samples and, therefore, am not in a position to analyze them. These are the seven mss. which remain to be examined (they are listed _ and described on the basis of published information in my paper Manuscripts): Mount Athos, Mov) Baroreölov, mss. 33 and 671; Mov} ᾿Ιβήρων, 185; Mov} Meylorns Aatpas, unnumbered ms.; Lesbos, Mov) τοῦ Λειμῶνος, 267; Meteora, Movi τῆς Μεταμορφώσεως, 345; Patmos, Mov) ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ Θεολόγου, 424. Eventually, I hope to obtain reproductions of, or data on, these mss., to make my survey of Sophoclean mss. entirely complete.

CONCLUSION Sophocles editorem quidem quotannis invenit novum: qui memoriam eius ad verae artis normam exigeret nondum extitit. —Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Aeschyli tragoediae, 1914, Ὁ. xıu)

We are at the end of a long road. In this survey of Sophoclean manuscripts and the analysis of all the recensions, I hope to have made the results in every chapter sufficiently clear so that it does not seem necessary to formulate now any special conclusions. I should rather like to recapitulate here a few practical suggestions for the future editors of the Sophoclean text and of the ancient scholia on Sophocles. The fundamental setup of the genuine evidence for the poetic text of Sophocles has to rest on the vetustiores LAGQR (including the lemmata of M, if need be). It may be advisable to extend the scope of the manuscript evidence so as to include also a few deteriores of the class ¢, viz., the mss. FN. These codices would support the attestation of the Laurentian family (especially in the scholia) and give representation to the younger medieval tradition. The Venice class y of the detertores should be entirely disregarded both in text and in scholia. Only occasionally

readings from the Venice class y (mss. VW) can be quoted in the triad, if they happen to be good conjectures.

Readings from Moschopulus to the triad, from Thomas to the heptad, from Triclinius to the heptad, and from the Paris class x (mss. AUY) to Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Phil., should be quoted or used only occasionally, as the situation warrants, with the fullest realization of their conjectural or interpolative character. For the ancient scholia on the seven plays, the mss. LAGMRFN (\.e., the vetustiores of the Laurentian family X and of the Roman family p, and deteriores of the class ¢) will cover adequately and broadly the genuine ancient tradition. Additional evidence from other sources should be included for the scholia on Antigone, Oedipus Coloneus, Trachiniae, Philoctetes. The ancient scholia of AUY (the Paris class r) on Antig., Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct., should be taken into account. Then, the ancient scholia of the Triclinian mss. T and Ta on Oed. Col., Trach., Philoct., deserve to be included systematically in the evidence. In order to achieve an actual progress in the constitution of the Sophoclean text, we have: to place it primarily and essentially on the basis of LAGQMR;; to eliminate from the new text the influence of the Paris tradition = initiated by Aldus and continued by Brunck; and to evaluate properly the Byzantine interpolations.






Atax 15: 190 27: 148 28: 48, 123, 159 33: 159, 167 39: 123, 169 42: 190 47: 193 52: 190 $8: 18, 96, 105 61: 18 62: 190 64: 148, 174, 175 75: 18, 96 80: 18 82: 45, 55, 90 83: 116, 148, 193 84: 45, 55, 193 110: 158 n.173 112: 90, 96 115: 148, 167 119: 161

243: 141 243/4: 96 245: 24, 96 256: 73 257: 116, 132 259: 18, 90, 96, 117 272: 117 274: 117 295: 73, 89 300: 96 301: 18, 96 303: 147 304: 93 307: 18 314: 117 320: 149, 155, 160 322: 73 328: 55 348: 55 351: 118 352: 117 372/3: 73

127: 75 n.78, 116, 132

381: 55

129: 123 130: 18 148/9: 55, 96 154: 45, 55, 71, 96 159: 169 160/1: 71, 126, 141 161: 71 f., 73 166: 55, 71 f., 73 168: 122 169: 18, 120 176: 116 178: 89, 167 183: 136 n.151 185: 73 193: 141 196: 174 197: 148 198: 174 199: 129, 133, 141 205: 148, 155, 169 215: 122 222: 18 n.6 227: 18, 96 233: 45, 55 235: 18

389: 393: 396: 413: 419: 421: 427: 441: 459: 472: 481: 482: 488: 496: 499: §01: 516: 519: 524: 527: 531: 534: 538: §43: 546:

236: 90

554>: 89

241: 108, 146 f.

§57: 19


117 148 55 116 174, 175 116, 117, 132, 148 145 123 109 136 n.151 117, 132 19, 161 19 19 19, 55 120 45, 55 19, 90, 96, 105, 128 19 89 148 19, 89 108, 109, 154 123 45, 55, 90, 108, 146, 148



Atax (continued) 560: 93

561: 93 565: 19, 96, 105 568: 169 569: 19 574: 136 n.151, 147 579: 105, 158 n.173 582: 19 589: 161 595: 55 634: 19 659: 148 679: 149 689: 19 696: 108, 131, 146, 148, 167 698: 148 705: 19 706: 109, 167 708: 45, 55 710: 129, 141 717: 19,90 725: 24 727: 19,96 733: 74 778: 169 780: 19, 89 791: 123 798: 55, 148, 155, 160 801: 45, 55 805: 19, 49, 55 806: 117 813: 123, 155 830: 55 831: 118 842: 117 855: 96 864: 123 877: 19, 123 888: 55 903: 148, 149 913/4: 56 951: 19, 90, 96 953: 149, 155, 162 962: 161 964: 89 969: 19 973: 90 984: 148, 149, 156 n.171 994: 19, 90, 106, 128 1000: 123 1007: 56 1008: 19 1011: 19, 45, 56 1019: 19 1022: 116, 132


SOPHOCLEORUM 1028: 174, 176 1029: 20

1031: 20 1036: 20, 158 1050: 56 1051: 129, 141, 147 1053: 126, 141, 147 1059: 48, 56, 122 1068: 169 1070: 20, 48, 90 1081: 20, 90 1113: 20 1116: 96, 124 1118: 48, 56 1124: 56 1127: 20, 124, 169 1130: 56 1136: 124, 147, 148, 169 1141: 124, 147, 148, 169 1145: 56 1146: 20 1154: 20 1160: 20, 171 1163: 149, 155, 158, 163 1165: 118 1168: 142 1179: 155, 163 1192: 56 1202: 56 1211: 73 1213: 161 1214: 20, 167, 169 1228: 56 1230: 20, 52, 56, 106, 171 1236: 20 1248: 124 1253: 20 1268: 56 1269: 116 1271: 45, 56 1272: 124 1274: 160 1284: 20 1325: 47 1339: 20, 56 1342: 56 1359: 150, 163 1360: 108, 131, 146, 148, 150, 159, 163 1368: 24 1369: 20, 24, 96, 106, 128, 171 1377: 195 1409: 142, 171, 192 1413: 161 1416:89 1417: 142 1419: 20, 89, 106







373: 57 378:


: : : : : : : : : : :

20, 96, 199, 200 89 160 18 n.6, 142, 144, 148, 162 57 20, 106 160 89 89 20 20 : 116, 132 : 20,96 : 142, 148, 160, 161 : 20 : 57 : 20

: 108, 109 : 108, 126, 142, 156 : 20 : 140

: : : : : :

57 20 24 108, 145, 146 24,96 122

: : : : :

108, 109 148, 156 n.171 116 142 20

: 131,167




422: 20, 106 433: 20, 90, 106 450: 89 454: 24, 90 456: 147, 167 459: 149, 158, 164 460: 142 473: 116 487: 155, 158, 164,


540: 136 n.151, 149 §54: 21 569: 132 575: 24 581: 57 583: 89 584: 57 584-586: 108, 109, 167 588: 21

601: 131, 148, 155, 163

602: 96

608: 126, 148, 155, 158, 163, 169

723: 156, 158, 162, 164, 169 727: 175, 199

208 Elecira 729: 754: 772: 809: 825: 830: 831: 836: 838: 847:




148, 156 0.171 57 57 21, 48, 90, 106, 128

116, 132, 160, 169 : 96 : 73 : 73 .116 : 167 : 116 : 21, 45, 53, 57 : 116 :21 : 151, 158, 169 : 57 : 131, 148, 156, 160, 162, 164 : $7 : 18 n.6, 133, 142, 144, 149, 151 : 169 : 57 : 57 : 21 : 57 : 116 : 57 : 89 : 122 : 18 n.6, 133, 142, 144 : 159, 169

: 73 : 156, 159 : 57 : 21,57 : 51 η.38, 122

:116, 156, 159, 162 :122, 169 : 151, 156, 158, 159, 162, 163, 167 : 132 : 21, 45, 58, 90, 106, 156 : 58 : 58 : 21 : 122 : 142, 144, 149 :21

SOPHOCLEORUM 1168: 103, 108, 109, 131 1169: 116, 131, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 167 1185: 154 1193: 21, 106 1201: 124 1217: 58 1226: 21 1232/3:21 1243: 161 1244: 73 1257: 58 1260: 21, 58 1263: 148 1264: 24 1288: 117 1294: 58 1298: 147, 169 1304: 124, 147 1310: 21, 58. 1323: 160 1324: 161 1324/5:21 1343: 21 1361: 116 1362: 21, 106, 158 1365: 21 1375: 21, 90, 156, 159, 163, 164 1380: 21 1383: 58 1385: 89 1386: 49, 58, 157 1393: 122, 155 n.170 1396: 130, 142, 146, 147, 149, 151, 158 1410: 58 1414: 21 1417: 122 1424: 58 1437/8:58 1450: 122 1453: 90, 148, 156, 159, 160 1456:22 1460: 122 1467: 132, 148, 151, 156, 159, 160 1485-1486: 161, 167 1496: 45, 58 1497: 156, 159, 160, 163 1499: 160 1502: 22 1504: 156 n.171 1506:22 1510:58

Oedipus Tyrannus 13: 18: 20: 29:

58, 61, 149 n.165 45, 58 149 n.165 22



Oedipus Tyrannus (continued) 30 : 58 34: 22 38: 142 40: 149 n.165 41: 161 42: 22, 106, 151 43: 22, 151 194 50: 22, 73, 128, : 160 65: 116 72: 108, 159 77: 22, 106, 151, 158

: 122, 151

: 108, 131, 146, 148, 149, 151


45, 59 59 122 59, 148 45, 59 169 162 147 151, 156, 158, 160, 162

411: 419: 429: 442: 445: 461: 468: 472: 476: 492: 507: 508: 525: 528: 543: 549: 550: 556: 571: 598: 625: 626: 628:

116, 132, 148, 151 22,59 46,59 46 59 158, 159 59

: 22

: 51 2.38, 69

: 122 : 130, 142,

148, 149, 151

133, 142, 144, 147, 148, 149, 151, : : : : : : : : :

59 151, 151 59 22, 158, 47, 160 159

156, 162, 163

160 159 116, 158, 159, 167

: : : : :

22 156 n.171, 169 22, 158, 159, 194 18 n.6, 143, 144 23

:18 n.6, 143

: 130, 143, 147, 149, 169 : : : : :

47, 108, 131, 158, 159 148 149 59 108, 131, 146, 148

: : : : : : : :

143, 151, 194, 196 60 23 24 106, 143, 144 143 158 123





Dedipus Tyrannus (continued) 906/7:24 918: 154 926: 60 935: 23, 194 957: 123, 174, 194, 196 966: 23 976: 23, 194

989: 130, 143, 146, 147, 148, 151, 196 994: 1000: 1001: 1007: 1021: 1024:

60 147 158 158 167 47, 108, 131, 158

1068: 116, 158 1084: 154, 159, 194 1137: 1141:

175 147

1144: 148 1151: 108, 149, 158 1157: 73, 106

SOPHOCLEORUM 1351: 23 1355: 24 1386: 136, 138, 144, 148, 149, 151, 154, 159,



1387: 1422: 1423: 1432: 1438: 1440:

60 23 23 60 136, 138, 151

1472: 1480: 1487: 1499: 1513:

23 47, 108, 158, 159 60 157 157

144, 148,

149, 167

1517: 148 1518: 60, 157

1522: 60 1525: 157 1528: 157

1529: 46, 66

1212: 60 1213/4:24 1225:23 1231:23 1242: 23 1252: 23, 128, 158 1253: 45, 60 1255: 148 1264: 143 1265: 18 n.6, 143, 144

1348: 23 1349: 124 n.142

210: 219: 225: 235: 238:

46, 61, 168, 170, 177, 170 46, 61 61, 167, 179 61

179 n.188

INDEX Antigone (continued) 242: 61 : 46, 61, 177



673: 680:

367: 170 370/1: 178 379: 62 : 62, 176 n.187 : 46, 62, 179 : 63

: 167 : 62

955: 956: 976: 993: 998: 1025 1027 1032

108, 166, 178 : 64 : 64 : 64

1038/9: 171

575: 124 627-629:62 635: 62 637: 62, 171

62, 107, 169, 177 653: 116, 167 655: 169 656: 108 648:

: 64 : 64 : 64 :171 : 124, 166 : 64 : 64

: : : : >

64, 107, 168, 179 64, 172 64 107 171


212 Antigone (continued) 1208: 123 1222: 64 1224: 64 1228: 179 1236: 64 1238: 64 1241: 168, 183 1246: 64 1249: 64 1266: 64 1273: 64 1280: 64 1300: 64 1313: 64 1327: 64 1336: 184 1337: 64 1343: 65 Oedipus Coloneus §: 124 7: 51, 117 16: 116, 175, 182 22: 51 28: 51, 73 34: 179 41: 175 47: 175 48: 199 51: 52, 177, 184, 189 70: 175 76: 175 79: 167 91: 175 110: 175, 199 128: 167 n.181 134: 73 138: 180 174: 179 246: 117 269: 117 278: 108, 178 282: 175 320: 107 327: 181 351: 179 358: 184 391: 167, 179 426: 109, 175, 184 444: 179 492: 184 564: 167 632: 124 640: 179 737: 124, 176, 178, 191 775: 177

780: 178



SOPHOCLEORUM 786: 182 792: 178 818: 117 861: 109, 178 915: 199 941: 183 945: 109, 178 1118: 178 1125: 184 1148: 107 1333: 124, 178 1415: 109, 166, 181 1457: 117 1474: 109, 166 1529: 166 1640: 109, 166, 178 1664: 166 Trachiniae 2: 166 7: 52, 109, 166, 178, 187 30: 179 60: 52 67: 178 76: 73 87: 187 118: 181 143: 175 162: 184, 187 163: 175 179: 168 181: 52 187: 52 205: 74 206: 52 247: 182 289: 168 314: 184, 187 336: 74, 107 351: 117 491: 168 534: 168 736: 52 783: 107 810: 52 890: 52 910: 175 932: 187 1136: 168 Philoctetes 6: 52 10: 52, 179 19: 175, 191 23: 184 27: 189 30: 52, 179 47: 175, 190

52: 189

INDEX Philoctetes 61: 170 64: 189 73: 190 98: 118, 101: 189 104: 189 106: 189 107: 189 108: 166 112: 189 116: 74 118: 118 123: 117 135: 74, 144: 117, 150: 107, 154: 117 171: 52, 192: 190 196: 177 200: 181 220: 179 222: 107, 252:



SOPHOCLEORUM 413: 414: 534: 559: 570: 573: 575: 685: 705: 737: 772: 814: 869: 870: 895: 901: 917: 924: 942: 949: 952: 997: 1014: 1037:


107 170 166 179




117 109, 166, 167, 178 118 181 190 118 118 184 184 179 166, 167 179 189 189 190 179 190 120 190 182 118, 170 190 190 178 166,

261: 180 n.191 265: 190

1117: 120 1123/4: 117

281: 52 285: 181 288: 109, 326: 118

1209: 1218: 1231: 1235:

350: 190 365: 190 380: 118






178 117, 179 181

1310: 179 1319: 182 1332: 179




GENERAL Adolphus Probus Phrisius, 68 Aeschylus, 31 f., 42, 60 η.53, 67, 74.76, 78 n.80, 90, 92, 127, 149 n.164, 163, 166, 182, 184 Aldus Manutius, the Aldine edition, 27, 43,

175 f., 183, 198 f. Anastasius Sinaita, 102 "Ayyekos, θύτης, 67

Apollodorus, argument to Trachiniae from, 33, 38, 75, 101, 102, 104, 153, 174, 184, 187

arguments to Sophoclean plays, 25 f., 30 n.15, 33, 35-40, 74 f. Aristobulus Apostolides (Arsenius of Monembasia), 65, 68, 162, 173, 184, 185, 186 n.200, 187, 189, 197

INDEX Favorinus, 142 Ferrar group of Gospel manuscripts, 115 n.134 Filelfo, Francesco, 67 Forteguerri, Scipione, 189 Frederic II, German emperor, letters of, 111

Georgius comes Corinthius, 173 Georgius Gregoropulus II, 66, 114 n.131 Giacomini, Lorenzo, 200 Hephaestion, 71, 74 Hesychius, 18 n.6, 59, 62 n.55, 107 "Iaxwulvıos, Aaupkyrios,

Aristophanes, 179 n.189, 180 n.191; scholia

Aristoph., 20, 52, 56, 106 Arsenius of Monembasia, see Aristobulus Apostolides ᾿Αθανάσιος ὁ Σπονδίλης, 41 1.31 Athenaeus, 107


Junta editions, 84, 198 ff.

Basilians and Benedictines in Lower Italy,

Kallierges, Zacharias, 67 Kalosynas, Antonius, 91 Κρακπιλλί ), 110 ff. Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ καὶ Παδιάτης,

Bessarion, Cardinal, 176 Brubach, Petrus, 84, 199 f. Brunck, Rich. Franc. Phil., 10, 43, 80, 176,

183 Camerarius, Ioachim, 199 n.206 Canale, Paolo de, 190 Candido Decembri, Pier, 186 n.200 Candidus, Petrus, 186 Charax, Ioannes, 81 f. Colinaeus, Simon, 199 f. Crapiglia, Crapile, see KparıA\( ) Crete, 66, 114 n.131, 173, 189


᾿Ιωάννης ᾿Ασάνης, 94 ᾿Ιωάννης τοῦ ἀπὸ KpartAX( ), 110 ff. Italy, manuscripts from Lower Italy, 110115, 120 f.

Abyotorws, ἱερεύς, 103, 103 n.105, 110-113 112-114




Lascaris, Constantinus, 147, 190 Lascaris, Ianus, 81 n.84, 84, 184 f., 201 Mamounas,

Marcus, 91


scribe, 78


ὁ Σφηνέας,





156 n.171, 159 manuscripts (other than Sophoclean): Cambridge Univ. Nn.3.17 A: 32 n.22 Florence Laur. 86, 3: 146 n.162

Grottaferrata A.a.IV: 111 1.120 Leiden Voss. F 2: 106 n.110 Milan Ambros. M 87 sup.: 103 n.105, 112 Naples II.F.31: 32 n.22 Paris gr. 2626: 106 n.110 Paris gr. 2785: 163 Paris gr. 2800: 164 Vatican Library, Barber. gr. 354: 111 n.120

Darmarius, Andreas, 82 n.86 Δεκαναλεύς, Παῦλος, see Canale, Paolo de Devaris, Matthaeus, 185

Dindorf, Guilelmus, 11, passim Euripides, 31 f., 42, 58 n.50, 67, 90, 127, 163 f., 179 n.189, 194 Eustathius of Thessalonica, 19, 21, 22, 62 n.55, 105, 107, 117, 126, 132, 141, 142, 143, 155 f., 158 n.173

Barber. gr. 541: 114 n.131 Ottobon. gr. 214: 145 215




manuscripts (continued) Vatic. gr. 1070: 114 n.131 Vatic. gr. 1393: 84 n.89

San Benedetto Ullano, 114 n.131 San Pietro in Galatina, 111 n.120,

Vatic. gr. 1824: 32 n.22 Vatic. gr. 2222: 32 n.22 Vienna phil. gr. 261: 174 n.184 Maximus, monk, scribe, 93 Μελέτιος, scribe, 42 Μιχαήλ, scribe, 91

Schott, Andreas, 82 n.86 Sophianus, Nicolaus, 185

Sophronius of Jerusalem, 102 Strozza, Carolus, 91

Michael Apostolis, 77 n.79 Moschopulus,


15-30, 44, 46, 53,

69, 71 f., 89 (., 96 f., 105, 122, 124, 139, 191 ff., 202, passim Musurus,


184 ff.

Nicephorus Gregoras, 143

palimpsests, 102, 103, 113 f. Pantin, Pierre, 82 n.86 Papageorgius, Petrus N., 11

1723: 117, 118 1933: 58 2102: 2206:

A 2769: 20

2875: 2881: 3046: 3224: 3678: 4213: 4320:

105, 158 n.173 55, 73 108 73 108, 131, 146 136 n.151

A 4397: 73

A 4430: 118, 170

Oxyrh. 1805: 107, 168 Oxyrh. 2093: 18

A 4527: A 4684: 57

Oxyrh. 2180: 22, 59 Soc. Ital. 1192: 45 Vatic. Gr. 11: 142 Pearson, A. C., 11 Πέτρος ὁ Δακλώζαος ὁ ῬΡηθυμναῖος, 98 Πέτρος Φλωρεντῖνος ὁ μοναχός, 186 n.200, 189 Petrus Candidus, see Candidus, Petrus Photius, 62 n.55, 143 n.159, 182 Pindar, 49, 154 n.167, 161 Planudes, Maximus, 15, 17, 23 f., 26, 28, 30, 74, 173, 195 Plutarch, 124 Pollux, 62 Prophecy (Προφητεία Σοφοκλέους περὶ rod Χριστοῦ), 87 f., passim Psellus, Michael, 107 Ranconet, Aimar de, 74 n.73, 86, 176 n.187 Rhosus, Ioannes, 79, 114 n.131

173 f.,

Ridolfi, Cardinal Niccold, 185 n.198

Σαλούστιος Πυθαγόρειος, 36 f. Sambucus, Ioannes, 173

44, 106 n.110, 110, 115, 117, 120, 132, 132 n.148, 133, 135, 136, 145, 147, 148, 149, 155 n.170, 167 n.180, 178, 182 49, 55, 117

A 1068: A 1190: A 1664: 59


papyri, 18 n.7 Michigan 140: 180 Oxyrhynchus 22: 123 Oxyrh. 693: 57 Oxyrh. 875: 61 Oxyrh. 1369: 23, 143


Suda, 11, 129, 141, 157, A 249:


Nicolaus, scribe, 197 Νικόλαος ὁ TlepStadpys, 126, 145 f.

Romanus of San n.131


113 n.126



At 133: 18 n.6 B §11: 21


94: 45, 59 109: 23 295: 118, 170 162: 61, 167

A 216:

A A A A E E E E E E E E E E E Es E Z


1399: 124 1642: 136 n.151, 149 1696: 116, 132 1701: 56 255: 122, 155 n.170 510: 20 1551: 117 1583: 24, 123 1629: 20 1846: 21 1862: 21 2637: 52 2833: 19 3695: 35 n.29 4016: 149 46: 18, 116, 123, 132 339: 22, 46, 59 56: 120

GENERAL Suda (continued) H 595: 58 © 480: 19 I 42: 120 1131: 155 I 223: 59 I 457: 55 I 600: 116, 175, 182 K 11: 129, 133, 141 K 165: 182 K 1186: 108, 145, 147 K 1389: 143 K 1841: 45, 55 K 2783: 117 A 234: 45, 58 A 582: 21 A 843: 20, 106 M 538: 116 M 944: 141 M 1169: 19 N 172: 116 = 26: 20 O 116: 45, 55 O 132: 46 O 292: 57 O 571: 22 O 747: 56 Os 90: 73 Oc 146: 116, 117, 132 II 14: 20 II 20: 73 II 21: 117 II 1278: 117 II 1788: 155 It 1870: 142 II 1933: 116, 132 II 2046: 179 Π 2089: 136 n.151, 147 Π 2162: 23 II 2299: 20 Π 2832: 22, 106 II 2895: 118 Π 3069: 19, 45, 56



II 3083: 22 II 3092: 57 Σ 277: 57

Σ 589: 57 Σ 903: 124

Σ Σ = T T T T T

1059: 1276: 1430: 350: 557: 803: 828: 854:

116, 117, 132 155 22 175 20, 106 123 108, 131, 146 109, 166

T 876: 117

T T T T T ᾧΦ W Q

1233: 20, 182 15: 106, 143 455: 19, 117, 132 717: 120 747: 20, 52, 56, 106 704: 73, 136 n.151 105: 118, 170 268: 56

Suliardus, Michael, 77 n.79, 196

Symeon, bishop of Gerace, 41 Σύρος, scribe, 78 Tengnagel, Sebastian, 173 f. Thomas Magistros, 15, 17 f., 31-68, 69, 71 f., 89 £., 124, 141, 179 ff., 202, passsm Triclinius, Demetrius, 15, 17 f., 33-40, 44, 46, 49 ff., 51 n.38, 54, 69-79, 124, 179 ff., 202, passim Turnebus, Adrianus, 43, 48 n.36, 70, 74, 80-86, 174 n.184, 176, 183 Tzetzes, Ioannes, 59, 110, 114, 118, 120, 138, 143, 154

Valla, Giorgio, 81 n.84 Victorius, Petrus, 149 n.165 Vita, Sophoclean, 24 f., 34 f., 74, 88 Zamberti, Bartolomeo, 91


ἄν’ 2



Ageve, MAC HA: 7





ef op oe ᾽


Bibl. Laurenziana,

plut. 32, 9 (=L),

part of fol. 1": Soph. Aiax


I FLV1dg


I] 31vıq :





A ah δεν


wen rndy “τὶ πρλκεπῦ Hpi onpr









mpg Ease hares amine :



ταν nel

hq co

ἐπὶ τὰ




ἐν ο΄ no

oi pat

τα ἕω u" hr pe

Sy >v.


one ar

Alm” σοι μόρον.

πού bone




εχ vA

Te imayp eas τὸν πλοῶ



an τ' oe pole



“ὦ *






ESe E E re


“peti, hr i






pnb -


πον tly


woe au


eee *


st 4)




An =:

τ Sb




AS Sion


Sai στ

eye Eee po


PEN om

μού poe crave Bee:ap

᾿ςonΝῊΡ y Fu ows


Leo pe path oy

Apkerarer My rey ἐμων TOMO Y legs er μος




> σαῖς m, ri Ty




δρῶ δ :

Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, plut. 32, 9 (=1.), part of fol. 41”: Soph. Oed. Tyr. 791-805 (with the line Oed. Tyr. 800 added in the right margin by the scribe of A: cf. his handwriting below, plate 11)


9: y ‚Aue,Ss con

aa educ CoM


Pepa ΟΝ , Nae GAN visa”


ϑενίι- “TABOR:


trend ‚I

vac Aro



be"re did pe zoe”


Hrn \







ἴουτον ὅλλυ αὕσαλεές.

Gy gan ul κοον fle mal σωλίκασ ~
















dx en

vr [EN


Kay Ὶ

ὄχώραον ‘yon. “men cas pdson








τϑ᾽ St τὺ ery? mALLY-




GO ᾿



AT a



- a



m" pSde gd. wwe aie Yn

ende wunvl




Soret Au za Sur Kopay



Canc διόνδυ ἄνισ', |Eae


Ye purelay φενμῶςκ-ςἐς Bora



φύῦε Oo πεάγοισ Tre, WARUVE[4 FE -






Sala" “(daw 8os





Om. condartabne ea”. Toowong,






b> Seca

- dv

He cree 5 WAC



keuno bern



ων w/e

DEN DIE? qa fas PR apa


passen, er

Y ϑαχδαΣ





tone ,







„So Aol Tree wy we »

en PRADIND Ag an.



Woe ee zumsmeht





Paris, Bibl. Nationale, Ancien fonds grec 2712 (=A), part of page 146: Soph. Oed. Tyr. 775-810





sed dinate tones gordon say

Cami Biene







| >



RED, ne eee

“ὦ tegatana:


Sora we ase νου=

ibe ἌΡ y- Gyre


Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 152 (=G; fol. 3%: Soph. Atax 1-12

1282 a.p.)

er, Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 152 (ΞΟ; 1282 A.D.) fol. 4": Soph. Atax 13






le ast Minds an


31v74 IA


αν ns τὰς





Ara OTH t






xB een 2 ’



















SET atu. "Δεν

τῶ σι

olen Fat

va tun Gou''fχα ripe Zero menectres



pps ο.Θ» pars







οὐκ αὐτοὶ ru: πον υεσν ai’var.

‚ya Ἐγ πεδνο pa πίω. ant











ali NT.


ἀνὦ ἀγτι, Gor σοὐμοῦσϊο orΦ' ‘usando

pi teen

ὅττι wou



P40 aan

ans: aio

αυτά. a) am Berafbnemme ‚aseu ae

-ῷ τὸν [θουλεν σαγτι BaeGeroy ry DE ar



καστώσπ οἴου ny at pow En mau τούτω ‚ung et Siow verre mse any erahnen

xe jew ONG εν"τόξο amet












πον ta καὶ Ram mil

Arne tuna rierounrTo. HOAARS στε πον 0 pP: ἐν ΜΝ



OR OR pouTiKase Ste ,

ζ. Yes


172 δος

Beten et tinder:


anne One.

Se Cir ecu

-....΄΄ ...5


wi chen


; ew ας

O¢ or» anne core ul Poe

oman:a tale mn οἱ x Paraniey y tevel as an Asse fess spay EL ENERT


ὦ ἴσκοωτοιγξ ὧν ἐϊσων Ge syeren σπου |

Bibl. Vaticana, cod. Vatic. gr. 2291 (=R), part of fol. 3°: Soph. Atax 1-6





RS oe





iu Sua

Tv rey.



ρους ς μ-


there)” En ἢ. “ἀν aA ἢ









prt: babys rend

aygpc Cullen ἐῷ kin (λυ xed


IP er







bee ey seed τ.










7 2,



so Fr













=| 36 2




Wig’, εὐ





tas Naeem

plut. 28, 25 (=F),


Am Ve

aes SED Er Sa re Was adh 5





’ 2





Bibl. Laurenziana,


>. UN aaa




AliasAbbi dda










orsSEE x


ET, ghia’οὐδὲν Dy Keχ





ς ‘rev

rtp RT

ot ht)


mie ΩΝ

N dio



Bi “ὦ ris Bi,

UNG 5 NaSToa mete
















Kali cf


νῷ okt

Goh Nds; Fe

φDr “αι. ΕΙΣΔ}.


4” ie Poe


| grim




steer LO.

ian nid




yas ee




“τ: VE










fol. 126": Soph. Atax





INA 31v1q


= a. .

erde baad FI ESEL, ERAR re ri = αὔξ ξυνὸ οι e ς SR IKAERN Sl τῆς r e , Je ask 7, fc τ



οὐ “ay, QL




’ otek Ques

Oren pe yj. 4

ΚΣ PL, 2

Berpouniiy 2 BF

of1) Spoilirre δῶ.

wake ua ve. 7





men Cal ihn

Datuk wostsiy eds“



νην OUR


CoE, |

Tome. “dee πῶ

areal ay ik ay




ee seth baat


yam A

ςestar Bie



een, .

Spore pi-mee nelle


7. ie

er ἃ u




tre aos,

> 7





RENTEN Son En ln


Ta Aura ER


Venice, Bibl. Marciana, gr. 468 (=V), part of fol. 81°: Soph. Aiax 1-28

καὶ Zee he








+7 ei Tanne Mg




Ss "ρας

yey STA’

Zt Saini

St Vb pat

aa tr pie ΔῊ Pays

ΩΝ ey



κείνου. ss ἜΣ


ὑπέρ, RL



rieAw ne «ἰς τ τὸ


Ape Lie. tino




Sosa fie Ae i DIY

ead ΤΣῊ




vr Em dome ar ey A ER axis ἌΣ en te νὰ



μένας τ dade





- τῷ,



Soka Ars it






Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 71 (=X, Moschopulean recension) fol. 8°: Soph. Atax 1-19




> =





ἢ bu |

ὩΣ ἀξ



“rhe ve ALA porate ἴω»; ri

te eee THE MXC:




Sr ree





Cow pin!

De nee


᾿ραοὶνκῦ dei



shales hy pen





4 ln. Er

δος bum bev, Kar αἰ tarryσ᾽ 0 kw

=; ἐόνεμκον vay2


werben Soe

"οἰ θεν.

na =~ :

ἱ «pr

ry" . ee



pau aby So ese whet



‘mei δ Αὐπνλ.

“ἢ hPa erase


Darr orBa oni ony ee ponShe





A δὲ eK





af "ior" ent 9400


PRmu cold? Vevp ek” leldcee


aU ad! Tok. ΚΑῚ




[teas de heal 7

Lider eye

EAN pop giv: ul




κοὐ knead


anions veep:




poison en




ee Se οὐ, γί. εἐἰχιξασ











6ς ᾿

AKIOS ἀν Uren Fi ee ,

ERRevs εἰ,

LE Celia






τ ὁ τῇDateien pS.

Kuda BI.


Wier Pi ab nis oe



τος ome τ


ert lias



er Were pu eed „A ne


τὰν Carers


ja ane οἷ,

ame λοάς


* Seale?



Ar > go Sy

ree Beὡς

"aller rc.e canting ieee







RAVE ey FOE OE dei ee δ the 24 ee


τὰ ae): ee Ce ἜΗΙ



. os



x alvıd nn ἢ




Keseou sid


RE Large

wa zw


“Gp rods ome is ey





° ἃδ᾽ defnαὐθαψαε Abe της bu 7 wi ar ¥ es

wa a

wet Usd"74 only


Ou Um






vp “ven

hove we repens lx ae R mewn

dene erser”


« ‘may ΝΕ.

add SE er








εἴσω, ΑΔ

τί τῶ

eK gals




νον dp




iy dian





ν Tri ery


να ἀγὼ γ΄ HR


ὀψέ μβκὼ

τὼ oR

Dre Δὰν



ibe yen




Ber Tan nag.







minal Pye SA Pe rn.

er « ἔνν

rene/lmibr or

g a von ster arO Gr op Teru λαμ,

very”“τὴ eH



Tite Orr ER



Bay“ WR




3 dindSatas yee PY oy

Ge νὼ

Swen! rea’. yin iv


fsres ae



rp add fi winner)




age Qapto






BY salman

φ.»ω. ubapen.





re apales épante


doh Maeldlagelys ma md

Andie a Diag.






ζῶν pane


Howe5.2 KIVITSmoe

ool g gia





-.,.- ey


euere, um τ᾽ nd

_ Keays ‘ pa


δι ‘dw.

Poo yadnoyao, Ἐ ὡνρ-αίζω deli gerne Phung


wh 407.6 eine


οἴ ἣν


rierinavepeches: “rhe nr wm. —

on nape: Sera ΟΝ

- θένα 3 2'VoreA wan


nienh. Py sere)

Arnel yen aap rlorjeia Teir mer λάλον oh Spesvney? #172 Au Free “PL

cava: vn

conte ‘ EN Dräa Seva



OM eratei Dpe





rel nae

ὴν “σὰ as .



n Naples, Bibl. Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, cod. ILF.9 (=D, Moschopuleo-Planudea part of fol. 142°: Soph. Azax 11-20








=3 Wr r% |




Venice, Bibl. Marciana, gr. 472 (=Z, Thoman recension), part of fol. 93": Soph. Aiax 1-14

aLv1g ΠΧ





“τοῦ Tate PER

cots Tle au Tin a





toa EIERN ei

Ye CO DO RAC ove: Dy τὶ bv Rares Se p












© *



ern Idan, racer


ie Sage





j raue







ER dati

fo φασὶ σον I









δ ς






οἱ δ