CC BY
16
mmmiiuh] antiquitas perennis hiuuuii
PHILOLOGIA CLASSICA
VOL. 17. FASC. 1. 2022
UDC 821.14
Two Greek Paratext Poems from the Manuscript Q No. 2 of the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences*
Dimitrija Rasljic
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy,
18-20, Cika Ljubina, Belgrade, 11000, Republic of Serbia; dmtr@rasljic.xyz
For citation: Rasljic D. Two Greek Paratext Poems from the Manuscript Q No. 2 of the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Philologia Classica 2022, 17 (1), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.110
This paper sheds new light on two Greek texts accompanying Aeschylus' Prometheus Vinctus, in the fifteenth-century manuscript Q No. 2 of the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg. The first text is a didactic poem on iambic versification, allegedly composed by Michael Psellos, and the other one is a mixture of book epigrams related to the subject of the Prometheus Vinctus. August Nauck studied the manuscript and published these texts. All further mentions of the manuscript depend on Nauck's readings, which nobody seems to question. In the latest edition of Psellos, prepared by Westerink, the manuscript from St Petersburg has not been taken into account, albeit the editor mentions Nauck's publication. As for the epigrams, they have been published several times, also without taking that manuscript into account. A new study of the codex shows that Nauck's edition contains several minor misreadings, therefore, I propose a new edition, based on the St Petersburg manuscript, as well as other manuscripts bearing same or similar verses, which were, apparently, unknown to him. Analyzing the epigrams on Prometheus, I compare our manuscript with others which contain the same verses (usually in different order). I try to explain some of the mistakes in these texts and correct them, as well as to compare them with other readings. Keywords: manuscript, iamb, iambic trimeter, book epigrams, readings, Nauck, Psellos.
1. Introduction
From the philological point of view, the manuscript Q No. 2 of the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St Petersburg is more than interesting on many levels.
* I thank Elena Ermolaeva and Grigory Vorobyev for their help during my MA thesis writing which led to this article.
© St Petersburg State University, 2022
It contains Pindar's Olympian Odes and two tragedies of Aeschylus: Prometheus Vinctus and Septem contra Thebes.1 Even though these main texts have not yet been scrutinized to a satisfactory level, they are unlikely to yield enormous discoveries on the level of the textual criticism. Beside these texts, the manuscript contains several short paratexts, two of which I will try to elaborate in this paper. Among the manuscripts bearing Greek plays, numerous ones contain, apart from usual paratexts like argumentum, hypothesis or vita, yet another kind of paratext, namely short poems, mostly Byzantine, about the poet or the play, copied before and after the latter; the codex Q No. 2 is one of such manuscripts. Besides, it abounds in Slavic/Serbian short accounts, inscriptions and glosses, which might be interesting for the history of the reception of Pindar and Aeschylus in the Balkans after the fall of Constantinople.2 The manuscript also contains several cryptograms, one of which has been deciphered and others are yet to be researched.3 Occasionally, the codex cites smaller Greek texts of other authors, but such occurrences are rare (one example will be given below)
The manuscript dates from the fifteenth century, 1474 to be precise.4 Where it was copied and by whom, remains unknown. There is no external evidence, nor does the manuscript itself provide information of that kind.5 All we know is that it was in the town of Novo Brdo in the sixteenth century,6 and after that in the Monastery of the Serbian Patriarchate of Pec up to 1857. The hypothesis, made by D. Trifunovic,7 that the manuscript belonged to Demetrius Kantakouzenos, a Greek man of letters who lived in Novo Brdo and wrote in Slavic, is indeed interesting, but could hardly be proven and remains a hypothesis. In 1863, the slavist Alexander Hilferding brought the manuscript to St Petersburg and it is still kept there to this day.
The same year that the manuscript was brought to St Petersburg, A. Nauck published his paper about the codex, mainly focusing his attention on the Greek part of it.8 Almost every other mention of the manuscript depends on his work. His reasoning, even though mostly correct, still needs correction here and there.9 Moreover, nobody seems to have questioned the conclusions he made on the level of textual criticism or his readings of the manuscript. Apparently, apart from Mstislav A. Shangin,10 who published a more general
1 Nauck 1863, 487-518 (488-492); Irigoin 1952, 442; Turyn 1943, 43-46; Шангин М. А. Академическая рукопись Пиндара и Эсхила. Известия Академии Наук СССР, VI серия, 1927, том 21, выпуск 3, 501-502.
2 Васенко П. Г. Сербские записи на греческой рукописи XV в., принадлежащей Библиотеке Академии наук СССР. Известия Академии Наук СССР, VII Серия, Отд. гум. наук, 1928. №. 1; Радо^чиЬ Н. Закон о рудницима деспота Стефана ЛазаревиЪа. Београд, Научно дело, 1962. 11-14.
3 For the deciphered cryptogram see Shangin 1927, 499. The other cryptograms are listed below in the present paper.
4 On exact date see Shangin 1927, 500.
5 The manuscript might have contained some information on its initial folios, but those are now lost. More precisely, around 8 initial folios are missing.
6 It is quite probable that the codex might have been copied there. Indeed, the economical and cultural importance of Novo Brdo rose in the period around the fall of Byzantium.
7 ТрифуновиЬ Димитрще Кантакузин, Београд, Нолит, 1963, 23-24, 165.
8 Nauck 1863, 487-518.
9 This is also true for the main texts and its later editors. Nauck thought that our manuscript is closely related to the Paris. gr. 2782A, which is true, but not completely. Comparing them, first we see that they have not so few different readings, in the text of Pindar at least, but also different mistakes. Paris. gr. 2782A dates from the XVI century and is, by no means, apographos of our manuscript.
10 Shangin 1972, 499-510.
article on the whole manuscript in 1926, nobody has studied the Greek part of the manuscript thoroughly after Nauck. Nauck also published both poems which are the main matter of this article. His edition is mostly correct, but nonetheless ought to be somewhat revised. In his aforementioned article, Shangin corrected some of the mistakes Nauck made, but not all of them, and, most importantly, deciphered the cryptogram concealing the exact date when the scribe finished his work. Though Shangin's article is also quite important, it is not free from flaws. I will only point to a particular misreading of Shangin, who published several Greek passages fromain texm the manuscript that had been left out by Nauck.
Namely, top margin of the f. 91r reads (original orthography preserved):11
apxn aofi(a;) fo^o; K(upio)u fna! TK 6<£>i-0i av^p si youv aoft(ac) K(a!) au 6 nai5iov o;12 a yaGov anavt«<v> Kputov<a> (Ka!) u^r^otspa
Shangin, on the other hand, published this text as follows:13
apxn aofifopo; Ka! fr|at ti; Gsio; av^p si yovu aofia; Ka! au 6 nai5iov o; ayaGov anavta Kputovo; u-yr^otspa
Shangin read interlinear cryptograms (f. 14v of!|14 vra^a uoiap ; -, f. 15r vta ya uo : -15, f. 18v a n|!16; f. 19r npi|o|u17 | (ox v| ss : -,18 f. 19v va Kpae19), but couldn't decipher them. He also does not mention these cryptograms:
f. 15r: +|pn£tai s^avai np|i|ouo Zt^osvs- xoatpvi t^pus; a|vuo (Kai) tAaaauoi xaiK a^ou^itaZ- uovto| :- aXnviot!t nsGaas- np|io u|oot|(o£vs :-f. 51v:20 GoupKayatonpon^svto; y... f. 120v: +as5aifiaK«tGtoG21 ■ nsa^wviotaia:
2. A poem on iambic versification
Folios 1r-54r contain Pindar's Olympian Odes.22 On f. 54v, before Aeschylus, a 19-verse-long poem is copied.23 Pindar's text is mostly copied by one hand. Yet, these verses, on the other hand, as well as the epigrams on Prometheus, are written by hands different from the main text. The text of the iambic instruction has now partially faded out, which makes it somewhat difficult to read. These verses are found in at least fourteen
11 The handwriting is different from that of the main text. cf. ms. London, BL, Harley 5624, f. 210r.
12 Should be
13 Shangin 1927, 505.
14 Or opi|i.. .This line is written between 5' sati aofoi; apatov and Kaaofoi; ou Siw^w Pi. O. 3, 44.
15 Written below autiK' ayysXiav Pi. O. 4, 5.
16 Or ata|ii.. .Between suXoyiav npotiGs!;, |iatsu and an Gso; ysvsaGai : — vZ Pi. O. 5, 24
17 Bellow ¿Kiv5ivoi 5' apsta! Pi. O. 6, 9.
18 Bellow out' ¿v vaua! Pi. O. 6, 10.
19 Above |iavtiv t' ayaGov Pi. O. 6, 16.
20 Written in monocondylia.
21 A sign resembling a mirrored abbreviation for -sv is written supra lineam above the last letter (d).
22 With minor lacunas, and without the 11th ode.
23 Besides, that folio abounds in Serbian inscriptions, but none of them, as also in many other cases throughout the manuscript, are related to the Greek text. They date from the mid-sixteenth century as one can read from their initial lines which usually begin with 'In the year X I...'
manuscripts, including our codex. L. G. Westerink did not know about some of them, such as Vat. gr. 224, fourteenth century, which has the verses in question (17 lines) on f. 220v;24 Madrid, Biblioteca nacional, 4576, f. 38v-39v; Palermo, Archivio di Stato, Pergamene varie, 70, f. 1v, as well as other two, both from the Vatican, which I will mention below. Several codices 'recentes', quite similar in readings between each other, attribute these verses to Michael Psellos. Namely, manuscripts Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 125 (f. 81v); and Vienna, ONB phil. gr. 287 (f. 25r-v) have the title as follows: Tou аофштатои ^eAAou orixoi оцою1 nepl тои la^ptKou цетрои. In the Baroccianus, the verses are copied after the work 'On Meters' by the grammarian Trypho. In the codex Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A 110 sup. (f. 56r), the poem is copied after other anonymous metrical works and bears the title: Tou ^eAAou nepl тои аитои цетрои. Yet another codex attributes this text to Psellos.25 It is now held at the National Library of Russia in St Petersburg, Ф. № 906 (Gr.) 731, f. 2r. It was earlier known as codex Lesbius Leimonis 267.26 The manuscript itself dates from the fifteenth century, but it is important to mention that the first three folios (verses are found on f. 2r) were added later.27 In this manuscript the poem has the following title: Tou аофштатои ^eAAou цебобо; nepl тои юц^кои цетрои. The same title is found in the codex Vat. Barb. gr. 71, f. 45v (not mentioned in Westerink's edition either. In the latter manuscript, there is also another work on iambic meter, on folios 38r- 36r. Besides, two manuscripts attribute our poem not to Psellos, but to a certain monk Ioannicius. One of them is codex Ambrosianus H 22 sup., f. 299г, (тои цovаxou кирои 'I^avviKiou), but the name in that manuscript is added, most probably, by a later hand, which makes the attribution questionable.28 Vat. Pal. gr. 72 (also not mentioned by Westerink) has the same title (f. 122v). Psellos is known for his vast erudition and diverse writings, often reflecting his didactic approach to literature. Thematically it is out of the question that a polymath as he was could write another poetical instruction on versification. But as it is known that numerous works are attributed to him only because of his importance and popularity, it might well be that the real author is left unknown. As this paper is not meant to deal with the authorship itself, we will focus more on the text rather than its author.
I give the text accompanied with an apparatus criticus which has readings from the manuscript Q No. 2 and is based mostly on Westerink's edition and other manuscripts, not mentioned by him. These verses were first published (from the codex Florence, BML, Conv. Soppr. 20) in 1853 in Paris by N. Piccolos.29 After Nauck's 1863 edition the poem was published in 1886 by W. Studemund30 from the codex Vienna, ONB, phil. gr. 287. In 1890 G. Cozza-Luzi published his readings from the twelfth-century manuscript now in Palermo, which contains just seven verses from this poem.31 Nauck's mistakes and conjectures are also mentioned in the apparatus.
24 Franchi de' Cavalieri & Mercati 1923, 294.
25 M. Richard says in his catalogue that the codex Lesbius is lost, cf. Richard 1958, 139-140. Westerink didn't know about this manuscript since he thought that it was lost (cf. Westerink 1992, 22).
26 Паяаб6яои\о;-Керацей; А. Маироуорбатею; ВфАло9г|кг| i^TOi yeviKo; яер1ураф1ко; катаХоуо; rwv ¿v таи; ava r^v Avaтo\^v рфАло9г|ка1с; ейрюкоц^^ £AAr|viKwv хефоураф^ катартюбеТаа ка1 аотшхбеТаа кат' ¿vtoA^v тои ¿v Kwvaшvтlvouя6\el 'EAAr|viKou Ф1\о\оу1кои EuWoyou, ¿v К^от^тгуоия6\е1, тйяок; Б.Ч. Воитйра (Lorentz & Keil), 1884, 123.
27 Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1884, 123.
28 Westerink 1992, 236-237.
29 Piccolos 1853, 218-219.
30 Studemund 1886, 198-199.
31 Cozza-Luzi 1890, 22-35, (24-25).
Manuscripts containing this text with Westerink's and my sigla:32
jp33 — Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci (gr.) 125, XVI cent., f. 81v;
Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A 110 sup., XV/XVI cent., f. 56r; Vienna, ONB, phil. gr. 287, XVI cent., f. 25r-v;
ja — Florence, BML, Conv. Soppr. 20, 1341, f. 73v;
jb — Vienna, ONB, phil. gr. 279, XV cent., f. 86r;
Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 26 sup., XVI cent., ff. 160v-161r;
j1 — Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, H 22 sup., XV cent., f. 299r;
Va34 — Vatican, BAV, Vat. gr. 224, XIV cent., f. 220v;
Vb — Vatican, BAV, Barb. gr. 71, XVI cent., f. 45v;
M — Madrid, Biblioteca nacional, 4576, XV cent., f. 38v- 39v;
P — Palermo, Archivio di Stato, Pergamene varie, 70, XII cent., f. 1v;
Vc — Vatican, BAV, Pal. gr. 92, XV cent., f. 122v;
L — St Petersburg, National Library of Russia, № 906 (Gr.) 731, XV cent., f. 2r (ex-Lesbius Leimonis 267);35
y — St Petersburg, Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Q No. 2, XV cent., f. 54v; ac — ante correctionem; pc — post correctionem.
Note that the manuscript Q No. 2 (y) generally omits iota subscriptum and sometimes it is difficult to differentiate si from a, 'lying' s from n, and n from si. to |expov ouxw xwv id|P«v |oi vosi-
Ka! tou; no5a; |sv ^ |sXiaaa 5siKvuta> twv auAAa^wv 5s t^v apiG|naiv kukxov tov Zw5iaKov siaopwv |dvGavs |oi. 5 |sXXwv 5s |stpsiv Ka! att^ou; nXsKsiv, fiXs, anaaav ¿v vw tou aKonou t^v siKova npoaXa^pdvwv apiata tou; ati^ou; nXsKs. npwtov |sv ouv Ka! tpitov ^ ns|ntov no5a 'ia|Po; ^ anov5sto; sutpsmZstw, 10 tov 5sutspov 5s Ka! tstaptov a^tw; ia|Pov anXouv siafspwv Etol|daslc;, sKto; 5' ia|Pw tspnstai Koa|ov fspwv Ka! nuppiX-W t^v Kdpav u^ou f spsi. satwaav ouv aoi nuppixio; |sv Xoyo; ■ 15 anov5sto; Aia; ¿k |aKpwv xpovwv 5uo ■ Ad^n; 5' 'ia|Po; Ka! Xspn; au Ka! Gswv. i5ou to nav siXnfa; ¿v Ppa^st |stpw . |aGwv to |stpov, sufuw; nXsKs atixou[;]. {i5s |stpov ia|PiKov 6 fiXo; 65s.)
32 The apparatus is based mostly on Westerink's edition, with the addition of readings from the manuscript Q No. 2 and other manuscripts not mentioned by Westerink, found in Moore 2005, 490-491.
33 These are grouped together since there are practically no differences between them.
34 The sigla from Va to y have been introduced by myself (they are not found in Westerinks edition).
35 Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1884, 123.
1 to ^¿Tpov out« ] tw ^£Tpw tout« Vb 1 (ioi ] om. Nauck 1 vosi ] jbjv, vo[a y, ^¿Tpou L, ^¿Tpsi cet. 2 (isAiaaa ] ^sXitta Vb 2 Ssikvtut« ] SsiKvusi Nauck, Ssikv[ut« y 3 5s ] ^sv Vb 3 kukAov ] kukAo; Vb, kukAo[v y 4 («SiaKov ] («SiaK&v Lyac 5 ^sAA«v ] 0sA«v y jb, ^sAA«v cet. 5 fiAs ] f[iAs y, fiAou; jaL, fiAo; cet. 6 ¿v vw ] ¿v w Vb 6 aKonou ] ctkotou Vb 7 npoaAa^Pdv«v ] npoAa^Pdv«v jaVc ji 7 tou; ] Kal jpVbL 8 TpiTov ^ ns^nTov ] noSa ^ ns^nTov L 9 ia^Po; ^ anovSsio; suTpsmisT« ] ia^Pov ^ anovSsiov suTpsmZs ^oi ja, sunpsmisT« y 11 ¿Toi^dasi; ] y jb, anapTiasi; cet. 12 ia^P« ] id^P« jajiVc, ia^Po; y, Id^Pou cet. 13 u^ou ] uyi Nauck 13 fspsi ] fsposi ypc, fspoi yac, fspsi cet. 14 saT«aav ] saTi ^sv y jb, saT« ^sv L 14 aoi ] o y 15 A'ia; ] y jaVc jb jiy, AtAa; cet. 16 Adxnc ] xdAnc JpVbL 16 au ] ts y jb 17 Ppa^st ] Ppaxu VbL 17 ^¿Tpw ] jpVb, ^¿Tpoc jaVc(ac)L, -ov yjb, Aoy«
2 — ^eAiaaa because the bee has six feet, just as the iambic trimeter has six metrical units. It could also be understood as a word-play since ^eAiaaa is a metaphor for poet, cf. Pind. P 4.60, Aristoph. Ec. 974, Idem Av. 748;
3-4 — kukAov tov («SiaKov; 12 months of the Zodiac, because of the 12 syllables in the (Byzantine) iambic trimeter.
12 — i'a^Po; in our manuscript is mistakenly understood with Sktoc; Skto; however would presuppose nouc; the verb TspnsTai goes with dat., so the correct reading should be id^Pw;
13 — nuppixiw, i.e., nou; n. a pyrrhic; a foot consisting of two short syllables, used in a war-dance.
14-16 — Aoyo; etc.; it may seem curious, why exactly this word is chosen to represent two short syllables, and other words respectively, but it seems that there is no connection between their meanings.
Below, I give my translation, without any poetic pretension, just for the sake of understanding the author's instructions.
This is how you should apprehend iambic meter; And the bee shall show the feet; As for counting the number of syllables, Look at the Zodiac cycle and learn from there. 5 If you want to measure and weave verses, my friend, Bearing in mind the whole picture of the scope You shall weave the verses the best way. So, for the first, third and fifth foot Iamb or spondee should be acceptable. 10 And second and fourth you will properly Prepare by introducing plain iamb. Sixth, bringing its adornment, enjoys iamb And holds its head proud high with pyrrhic. Now, for pyrrhic you should consider Aoyoc;; 15 For spondee A'ia;, forming two long syllables; Adxnc for iamb as well as AsPnc and 0£«v. There, in short time you have learned completely your meter. Having learned this meter, weave now beautifully verses. Look, my friend, at this iambic meter.
Only our manuscript adds the last line i'Ss ^eTpov ia^iKov 6 fiAo; 65s. That verse metrically does not fit in. Nauck thinks that this is because the versificator does not know
the meter well.36 Now, after line 17 in the manuscript a large interlinear space is left. Apparently, this was the end of the instruction. Indeed, the verse i5ou to nav s'Anf a; ¿v Ppaxsi |etpov seems to be a logical conclusion. Moreover, after the word |etpov one can read a usual sign marking the end of a passage (or text), i. e. [. :], and other manuscripts usually have 17 lines, without the additional two. Nauck does not mention this probably because those lines were written with the same ink as the previous ones and, most likely, by the same hand. It might be that the scribe was copying text from another manuscript and then tried to add his own lines at the end. Line 18 |aGwv to |etpov, sufuw; nAeKe atixou; logically repeats atixou; nAeKs/-siv from lines 5 and 7. The manuscript from Palermo is interesting in this regard, because it has a similar line which is not found in other manuscripts but is thematically close to ours. It reads:37
Aoinov atoixiZs Ka! atixou; oAou; ypdfs38
However, the last line of our manuscript's text does not seem to be completely wrong. It just scans as anapaestic dimeter with catalexis. After the last line one can barely read the text because of the faded letters, but quite certainly it reads ...teAo; ^AG<s>, which can testify that the last line is not a later addition, but that it was written as a whole.
Endings of some words have faded out. The manuscript reading fsposi emerged from a scribal correction.39 Our manuscript, among several others, lacks metrical signs at lines 14-16, which read, in jp and partly in ji.
In the codex Q N2, the instruction on iambic meter is followed by usual paratexts, i. e. Vita Aeschyli and an argumentum to the Prometheus Vinctus. The main text of the tragedy is copied thereafter.
3. Book epigrams on the Prometeus Vinctus
After the Prometheus, on folio 94r, the manuscript has a poem which consists of four epigrams mixed together. This paratext is a mixture of so called 'book epigrams' written in dodecasyllables.40 Such short poems, which can, e. g. represent literary merits of the poet, are not rare. They were composed as early as in Alexandrian times, throughout late antiquity and until late Byzantium. Apparently, A. Nauck did not know about the occurrences of these epigrams in other manuscripts, hence his edition needs correction. All the known manuscripts are listed below, together with a complete apparatus. Our manuscript is textually closest to the codex Vienna, ONB, phil. gr. 197 (dated 1413), f. 180r, albeit the order of epigrams is different. In the manuscript Q No. 2, the text of the epigrams is much easier to read than the iambic instruction published above, since the ink is much darker and the writing is more professional. Indeed, these lines were written by yet another hand, i. e., neither by the one that copied the main text, nor by the one that wrote the verses on iambic trimeter. Some parts of it are decorated with red ink.41 These epigrams were
36 Nauck 1863, 493.
37 Note that the Palermo manuscript has only 7 verses (verses 8-13 plus an additional one).
38 For more information about this manuscript see Perria 1981, 1-24 and Acconcia-Longo 1981, 25-59 (28-29).
39 Nauck 1863, 493.
40 Byzantine version of iambic trimeter. For more information see Tomadaki & Opstall 2019, 193-220.
41 Byzantine book epigrams are often decorated with ink different from the main text; cf Tomadaki & Opstall 2019, 194.
first published by Cougny42 and later by Herington.43 The latest edition was prepared by L. Spyridonova and A. Kurbanov in 2021,44 but even though they mention the manuscript Q No. 2 (Sp p. 526.), none of its readings appear in the apparatus, nor is anything said about the order of epigrams in this codex. In fact, our manuscript provides four lines (11-14) which are absent from Cougny's edition. The first epigram can be read in several other manuscripts, and some manuscripts have the epigrams mixed, as in the case of our manuscript. The codex Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, No. 175 sup. (fifteenth century), as well as the Vat. gr. 1332 attribute these epigrams to John Tzetzes.45 A. Allegrini also argues that these three epigrams were composed by Tzetzes because of his polemical tone, direct addresses and expressions like àv0' wv and ó^oxpónwv.46
The known manuscripts containing these epigrams are:
B — Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 31.3, XIV cent., f. 181r;
D — Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, G 56 sup., XIV cent., f. 76v;
N — Madrid, Biblioteca nacional de España, 4677, XV cent., f. 152v-153r;
O — Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss. gr. Q° 4A, XIII cent., f. 13v;
P — Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2787, XV cent., f. 39r;
Y — Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss. gr. Q° 6, XIV cent., f. 8r;
H — Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Pal. gr. 18, XIII cent., f. 111r;
W — Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1332, XIII-XIV cent., f. 88v;
Wb — Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. gr. 155, XV cent., f. 33v;
Lc — Cambridge, University Library, Nn. III. 17, XIV cent., f. 30v;
V — Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, gr. Z. 468 (coll. 653), XIV cent., f. 59r;
Sa — Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, suppl. gr. 110; XIV cent., f. 23v;
Nc — Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 28.25, XIV cent., f. 70v;
X — Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 31.2, XIV cent., f. 46v;
Xa — Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, N 175 sup., XV cent., f. 21r;
Xc — Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Conv. Soppr. 98, XIV cent., f. 126r-207v;
Ya — Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, phil. gr. 197, 1413, f. 180r;
Yb — Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, phil. gr. 279, XV cent., f. 8r- 8v;
Yc — St Petersburg, Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Q , 1475, f. 94r;
Yd — Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2787A, XVI cent., f. 126v;
Fd — Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 91 sup. 5, XIV cent., f. 40r;
Rc — Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Conv. Soppr. 7, XIV-XV cent., f. 39r;
Zb — Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, Rep. I 43, XV-XVI cent., f. 49r;
àv9' wv to nùp SéSwKac; àvGpwnwv yéva, TP^xn ßia fápaYYi npoansnr|Y^évo;.
42 Cougny 1890, 414.
43 Herington 1972, 240-241.
44 Spyridonova & Kurbanov 2021, 524-537.
45 Tomadaki & Opstall 2019, 196 agree and explain it with its author's irony and criticism.
46 Allegrini 1971-1972, 219-233 (227-229). For more information about the authorship cf. Spyridonova & Kurbanov 2021, 531-533.
то пир, Процг|0£й, о вротоТ; ¿xapiaw, йХг| про; aKa^avTov ейр£9г| фХ6уа 5 брул; ката аой про; 9swv nupaou^svn^. А'ю^йХе, Ti ф^с; той; Gsou; аои проафера; naa^ovTa; а1ахрй; ¿к 9swv 6цотр6пшу; ка! пй; ара ХеХпЭа; аauт6v si; теХо; 0£ой aspa^wv той; паб^той; T^v фйа^ 10 ка! ц^ бигуатой; ¿кфиу£гу ицшр^а;;
кХе^а; то пир пареа^е тот; GvriToT; уера ка! каптета1 ^аиу^ таТ; Дю; таХа;-^suswvu^dv ХеХоух£ T^v кХ^а^ ^vo;. процг^а; бшш уар ^ провоиХ!а;. 15 а! а! Процг|0£й, ^d^ov ойа! аои цеуа-Хар|^ врот^ уар ^пат^аа; t6v Д!а ка! Ха0ра тойтои пй; то пир ¿к£кХ6ф£1; ат' ойб' ¿пааВп; «v пер ¿aтauрwц£voс t6v ¿квaХ6vтa tov 9р6vwv £lп£Тv Д!а, 20 тй toi кера^о; ¿к п6Хои кaтr|YЦ£voс £рYov т!9г|а1 а^трфл; ае t6v TdXa<v>. a'iaZs Totvuv- тойто уар пареат! ао1.
3 вротоТ; ] врото!а1 P, вротой W 4 am^avTOv ] dкdцaтov BLcNcFdH, dкdцavтov DNPS-jHaXYaYd 5 ] versum om. P 5 пuраouц£vr|C ] пuрYouц£vr|C Fd 6 А'ю^йХе ] а'ю^йХо; Lc
8 ХеХпба; aauт6v ] aauт6v ХеХпба; Nauck, auT6v Fd 9 0£ой ] 0£ой; cet. 10 пцшр^а; ] BNPFdYa, пцшр!^ Ycpc cet. 11 уера ] NHaYaYd y уера; cet. 12 каптета1 ^атгу^ ] Yd, шцпета1 цаат1^1 Ha, шцптета1 цаат1^1 Ya 13 ^£u6wvu^3v ] ^еибшуйцш; Y, -ov cet. 13 ^6vo; ] ^6vov Y 14 процг^а; ] проц^е^а; y 14 ^ провоиХ!а; ] ^ провоиХ!а Y 15 а! а! ] ойа! BNcWVYa, а! а! Sj а! Yd 15 ^d^ov ] крш(шу Nc, кра!^ SjWV, ^d^ov YaYd, ^di^v B 15 ойа! ] а! ai yac 15 аои ] Yd ypc , ао1 yac cet. 16 Д!а ] 5tav W 17 пй; ] пш; Cougny 18 ¿пааВп; ] ¿пааба; H 19 ¿квaХ6vтa ] ¿квaХoйvтa DVXa 19 tov 9р6vшv ] YaXaXc, t6v 9р6vov BNcW, той 9р6vou Cougny 20 п6Хои ] SjYaYd, поХХой BNcHW 21 аитутрфл; ае ] а^трфлае BD 22 Toivuv ] Tivuv Yd
2 — pia фdрaYYl cf. Aesch. Prom. 15.
4 — drn^vTov; metrically incorrect.
6 — той; беой; аои; I wouldn't strongly argue that the author meant 'pagan gods' when he wrote 'your gods'; he might rather mean 'gods in your play; gods as you represent them'.
9 — 0еой; a mistake that makes no sense. There is no occurrence of the verb аероцац аерш, аерй(ш with gen. It has to be беой;
10 — т1цшр!а;; ¿кфейуш is attested with both gen. and acc.
12 — шптетац шптш 'to gulp down' is very rare and does not really make sense here. It should be шцптетаи
15 — ойа!; the word is mostly attested in the Septuagint and the New Testament; ойа! usually goes with dat.; аои is a trace of later Greek influence, a! (expressing sorrow or surprise) usually goes with voc. or nom.
15 — крй^; this seems to be a better reading than attested in some manu-
scripts.
19 — ¿KPaAovTa; future participle, ¿KPaAouvTa, seems to be better here. At the end of the play Prometheus, predicting the future to Io, did not name the one who will dethrone Zeus.
19 — twv 0pov«v is better than tou 0povou since it prevents hiatus.47
20 — ¿k noAou (axis; celestial sphere) is better and it should be kept. ¿k noAAou is lectio facilior, which does not quite fit metrically.
Since you have given the fire to the human race, You are now suffering, fastened to a cliff by force. The fire, Prometheus, which you have kindly given to mankind, Turned out to be brushwood for an unwearying flame, 5 For the wrath of gods blazes against you.
Aeschylus, what are you saying? You portray your gods Shamefully suffering at the hand of same-tempered gods? And how didn't you notice in the end that you Worship gods that are by nature prone to suffering 10 And are not able to escape punishment?
Having stolen the fire, he gave a gift to the mortals And is bowed down by Zeus' scourge; He alone has been falsely named; For he lacks forethought and foresight. 15 Oh, oh, Prometheus, cry now deeply, woe to you; For the sake of mankind you deceived Zeus And how you have stolen the fire without him knowing? And after that you have not obeyed, even though crucified, To tell the name of the one dethroning Zeus. 20 That is why a lightning, rushing down from heaven, Is crushing you much, you wretch. Therefore weep now; for this is all you can do.
The manuscript Ha contains only verses 1-12. It marks with a cross (+) the new beginning at the line 11 (KAe^a; to nup ...), but has only two lines of that epigram.48 In N, the poem starts with KAe^a; to nup... and omits oual npo^0su.... The codex Yd, which is very close to our readings, omits lines 9-10. Lc has verses 1-10 with a new beginning marked at line 6, i. e. aiaxuAoc, Ti f^c ... Nc and H provide a title: Zxixoi si; tov npo^Qsa. X and Fd have just lines 1-10. D has a title for first four epigrams: SMxoi si; tov npo^Qsa tou TZ&rZou. In W, the title reads: Erixoi si; tov npo^Qsa auTou TZ&rZou. W begins with aiaxuAs Ti f^c... and continues with av0' wv to nup... It also has +ndxovTa; aiaxpw;. after oual npo^0su... The text of our manuscript seems to be mostly the same as Yd, Sj and Yd. The main differences are as follows: Sj omits lines 11-14 (KAe^a; to nup...), Ya places the epigram KAe^a; to nup... at the end, which seems, indeed, somewhat more logical.49 It is worth mentioning that our manuscript reads two decorative crosses after
47 Even though the root of the verb einov had a digamma.
48 Note rov deov instead of rolq deoiq and yepa instead of yepaq.
49 Note the shift from 2nd to 3rd person singular.
line 14. Yd bears a marginal note at the beginning of the last epigram: £T(ep)ot naAaioi. It also has the title otîxoi, written in red ink.50 Yd adds this line after the verses:
+ npwTou öpa Spà^aToc; Tsp^a Alo^Aou, + ov npo; npo^nôé' èAAeinovTa npo^r|9tac; :■
The composer of these verses addresses Aeschylus as well as Prometheus in the poem and, as M. Tomadaki & E. v. Opstall argue,51 'warns the Christian reader against too much impudence'.
They suppose that all of these epigrams were composed after the tenth century, i. e. after the Byzantine selection of Aeschylus' triad, because epigrams are not included in the earliest manuscripts. This seems plausible, but I would argue that the epigram 'Kléfaç to nvp...' (lines 11-14 in our manuscript), might be older. It is probably older than Byzantine. Firstly, this hypothesis can be backed up by the note STepoi naAaioi at the right margin of the manuscript Yd. Secondly, the content and moral of this epigram appear to be pre-Christian. A Christian most probably would have understood well the self-sacrifice for the good of others and would not have reproached it. Indeed, line 14 says that if Prometheus, the benefactor of mankind, had known the outcome, i. e. that he would suffer, he would not have dared to steal fire. In lines 11-14 there does not seem to be any allusion to a divine martyrdom whatsoever. Besides, the shift from the 2nd to the 3rd person singular in lines 11-14 seems very odd and certainly proves that this epigram does not belong here.
References
Acconcia-Longo A. Gli epitaffi giambici per Giorgio di Antiochia, per la madre e per la moglie. Quellen und
Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 1981, 61, 25-59. Allegrini A. Note di Giovanni Tzetzes ad Eschilo. Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia dell' Universita di
Perugia 1971-1972, 9, 219-233. Cougny E. Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina. Paris, Didot, 1890.
Cozza-Luzi J. Delle epigrafi greche di Giorgio ammiraglio, della madre e della consorte. Archivio Storico
Siciliano, ns 1890, 15, 22-34. Franchi dè Cavalieri P., Mercati G. Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codices Manu Scripti; codices Vaticani
Graeci, Tomus I. Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1923. Herington C. J. The Older Scholia on the Prometheus Bound. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1972. Irigoin J. Histoire du texte de Pindar. Paris, C. Klincksieck, 1952.
Montfaucon B. Palaeographia Graeca sive de ortu etprogressu literarum Graecarum. Parisiis, apud L. Guerin, 1708.
Moore P. Iter Psellianum: a detailed list of manuscript sources for all works attributed to Michael Psellos,
including a comprehensive bibliography (Subsidia mediaevalia 26). Toronto, De Gruyter, 2005. Nauck A. Über eine dem Herrn A. v. Hilferding gehörende Griechische Handschrift. Bulletin de l'Académie
Impériale des Sciences de St-Petersbourg 6, 1863, Mélanges Gréco-Romains II, 487-518. Papadopoulos-Kerameus A. Maurogordateios Bibliotheke etoi genikos perigraphikos katalogos ton en tais ana ten anatolen bibliothekais euriskomenon ellenikon cheirographon, katartistheisa kai syntachtheisa kat entolen tou en Konstantinoupolei Ellenikou Philologikou Syllogou ypo A. Papadopoulou tou Kerameos. Konstantinoupolis, Lorentz & Keil, 1884 (in Greek). Perria L. Una pergamena greca dell'anno 1146 per la Chiesa di S. Maria dell'Ammiraglio. Quellen und
Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 1981, 61, 1-24. Piccolos N. Supplément à l'Anthologie grecque. Paris, Librairie de C. Reinwald, 1853.
50 It is important to mention that, just like the manuscript Q No. 2, Ya (Vind. phil. gr. 197) has a cryptogram after the Prometheus, and it is quite similar to the one deciphered by Shangin. It reads: + ysoAw K^A^Pasa«, a^«i>xoAx +, i. e. reXoq npo^Oewq aio^vXov, cf. Montfaucon 1708, 288.; Shangin 1927, 499.
51 Tomadaki & Opstall 2019, 198.
Radojcic N. Mining law of Stefan Lazarevic. Beograd, Naucno delo, 1962 (in Serbian).
Richard M. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs. Paris, C. N. R. S., 1958.
Shangin M. A. Manuscript of the Academy of Sciences containing Pindar and Aeschylus. Izvestiia Akademii
Nauk SSSR, VI seriia, 1927, tom 21, vypusk 3, 499-510 (in Russian). Spyridonova L., Kurbanov A. The Book Epigrams on Prometheus, Ascribed to John Tzetzes. ZXOAH, 2021. 15.2, 524-537.
Studemund W. Anecdota Varia Graeca, Musica Metrica Grammatica. Berlin, Weidmann, 1886. Tomadaki M., Opstall E. v. The Tragedians from a Byzantine Perspective: Book Epigrams on Aeschylus,
Sophocles and Euripides. Medioevo greco; Rivista di storia e filologia byzantina 2019, 19, 65-92. Trifunovic D. Dimitrije Kantakuzin. Beograd, Nolit, 1963 (in Serbian).
Turyn A. The Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Aeschylus. New York, Polish Institute of Arts and Science in America, 1943.
Vasenko P. G. Serbian notes on a 15th century manuscript of the USSR Library of the Academy of Sciences.
Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR, VII seriya, Otd. gum. nauk 1928, 1. (in Russian). Westerink L. G. Michaelis Pselli Poemata. Stuttgart — Leipzig, Teubner, 1992.
Received: 16.11.2021 Accepted: 17.04.2022
