Alciphron, Letters of the Courtesans: Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ALCIPHRON LETTERS OF THE COURTESANS ALCIPHRON LETTERS OF THE COURTESANS EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY BY PATRIK GRANHOLM Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Ihresalen, Engelska parken, Humanistiskt centrum, Thunbergsvägen 3, Uppsala, Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 14:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Abstract Granholm, P. 2012. Alciphron, Letters of the Courtesans: Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. 265 pp. Uppsala. This dissertation aims at providing a new critical edition of the fictitious Letters of the Cour- tesans attributed to Alciphron (late 2nd or early 3rd century AD). The first part of the introduction begins with a brief survey of the problematic dating and identification of Alciphron, followed by a general overview of the epistolary genre and the letters of Alciphron. The main part of the introduction deals with the manuscript tradition. Eighteen manuscripts, which contain some or all of the Letters of the Courtesans, are described and the relationship between them is analyzed based on complete collations of all the manuscripts. The conclusion, which is illustrated by a stemma codicum, is that there are four primary manuscripts from which the other fourteen manuscripts derive: Vaticanus gr. 1461, Laurentianus gr. 59.5, Parisinus gr. 3021 and Parisinus gr. 3050. The introduction concludes with a brief chapter on the previous editions, a table illustrating the selection and order of the letters in the manuscripts and editions, and an outline of the editorial principles. The guiding principle for the constitution of the text has been to use conjectural emendation sparingly and to try to preserve the text of the primary manuscripts wherever possible. The critical apparatus has been divided into a main apparatus below the text, which reports variant readings from the primary manuscripts and a small selection of conjectures, and two appendi- ces which report scribal conjectures from the secondary manuscripts and conjectures by mo- dern scholars with bibliographical references. A third appendix has also been added which lists all conjectures adopted into the text. The parallel translation, which is accompanied by brief explanatory notes on names and places, is literal and serves as a complement to the commentary, which primarily deals with matters of textual criticism. In the commentary problematic passages are discussed, especially where an emendation has been adopted or where the present edition differs from previous editions. After the three appendices the disser- tation ends with a bibliography. Keywords: Alciphron, letters of the courtesans, Greek letters, fictitious letters, critical edition, parallel translation, commentary, textual notes, textual criticism, manuscript studies, manuscript tradition Patrik Granholm, Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics and Philology, Box 635, SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden. © Patrik Granholm 2012 Cover illustration: Jean-Léon Gérôme, Phryne before the Areopagus (1861) © Hamburger Kunsthalle / bpk, Berlin / Elke Walford urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-183681 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-183681) Printed by Elanders Sverige AB, 2012 οὐ μακρὸν δίδωσιν ὁ δαίμων χρόνον τοῦ ζῆν· μὴ λάθῃς τοῦτον εἰς αἰνίγματα καὶ λήρους ἀναλώσας. Acknowledgements I set out on this journey almost exactly a decade ago and had I known then how long and difficult it would be I would probably have given up then and there. But perseverance, or perhaps plain stubbornness, kept me going and has now finally brought me ashore. I am very grateful to all my supervisors who, as time dragged on, had to be substituted not once but twice due to retirement, moving abroad and, sadly, demise. My first years were guided by prof. Jan fredrik Kind- strand and Dr Dimitrios Iordanoglou, and resulted in a licentiate thesis which i defended in April 2006. i would like to thank my opponent, Prof. Karin Hult (Göteborg), for her many valuable suggestions. The post licentiate period was supervised by Prof. Jan Olof Rosenqvist and Prof. Tomas hägg (Bergen) and lasted until the summer of 2009 when I decided to take a break. I resumed work on the dissertation in the summer of 2011 under the supervision of Prof. Ingela Nilsson and Prof. Dr Diether Roderich Reinsch (Berlin) who generously stepped in to replace the late Prof. Hägg. Their encouragement and valuable input was pivotal in bringing this work to a completion and I will be forever grateful for their efforts. I would also like to thank the regulars of the Greek seminar in Uppsala who have read and commented on more drafts than I care to remember: Eric Cullhed, Dr Mats Eriksson, Prof. Monica Hedlund, Prof. Hans Helander, Johan Heldt, Terése Nilsson, Dr Eva Nyström, Per Sandström, Prof. Denis Searby, Docent Ove Strid, Dr David Westberg. this dissertation would not have been finished without the gener- ous financial support from the Göransson-sandviken foundation at Gästrike-Hälsinge nation, Uppsala. A stipend from the Swedish Insti- tute in rome enabled me to spend the spring term of 2008 in rome. Travel grants from the Rausing foundation, the Göransson-Sandviken foundation and the Sederholm foundation at Uppsala University have made it possible to inspect most of the manuscripts in situ. Finally I would like to thank my parents, my sister and her family, and my darling Elise, without whose love and support I would never have made it. P. G. Uppsala 1 November 2012 CONTENTS PREFACE 11 INTRODUCTION 13 I Alciphron 13 II The epistolary genre 15 III The letters of Alciphron 19 IV The manuscript tradition 21 1. Description of the manuscripts 22 2. the primary manuscripts 33 3. the secondary manuscripts 39 4. the stemma codicum 53 V The editions 54 VI Table of manuscripts and editions 58 VII Editorial principles 59 TEXT AND TRANSLATION 61 Sigla 62 COMMENTARY 147 APPENDICES 207 I Appendix critica 207 II Appendix coniecturarum 212 III Appendix emendationum 246 BIBLIOGRAPHY 251 I Abbreviations 251 II Editions 252 III Works cited 253 PREFACE A new critical edition of the letters of Alciphron has long been a desid- eratum.1 The current standard edition by Schepers, which appeared in the Bibliotheca Teubneriana in 1905, has been criticized for adopting far too many conjectures into the text,2 and for its unreliable appara- tus.3 The aim of the present work is to address this need, at least par- tially, by establishing a new text of the Letters of the Courtesans, based on a complete collation of all extant manuscripts which have been examined on microfilm and, with the exception of two manuscripts,in situ. The guiding principle for the constitution of the text has been to try to preserve the text of the manuscripts wherever possible and, where corruption seems to have occurred, to use conjectural emendation sparingly. In general corruptions limited to a few characters or a single word have been emended whereas longer corrupt passages have been left intact and marked with daggers. The critical apparatus has been di- vided into a main apparatus below the text and two appendices in order to keep the main apparatus from swelling excessively with unimportant details and unnecessary conjectures.4 The translation makes no literary claim and should be regarded as a complement to the commentary. Notes have been added to the translation to provide basic information on the names and places mentioned in the text. The commentary deals primarily with matters of textual criticism and should perhaps more properly be called textual notes. In the commentary passages are dis- cussed where an emendation has been adopted or where the present edition differs from the editions by Schepers or Benner-Fobes. The lack of indices is hopefully justified by the fact that this is an unpublished dissertation. 1 Cf. Benner-fobes (1949) 31–2 n. b, ‘Great as schepers’s services to Alciphron have been a new critical edition is much to be desired’, and schmitz (2004) 87, ‘there is no satisfactory modern edition of, let alone scholarly commentary on Alciphron’s writings.’ 2 cf. Wilamowitz (1909) 466, ‘Die Ausgabe des Alkiphron von scheppers [sic] hat das große Verdienst, die Recensio fest zu begründen, was nicht leicht war; aber im Texte hat sie leider nur zu viel von den billigen Correcturen beibehalten, mit denen man den Rhetor beglückt hat, gleich als ob man wüßte, wie correctes At- tisch er hätte schreiben können und wollen.’ 3 See Benner-fobes (1949) 31 n. a. for a selection of errors found in schepers’ apparatus, see n. 170. 4 this approach has been suggested by Kraggerud (2005). for the editorial prin- ciples of the present edition, see p. 59. 11 INTRODUCTION I ALCIPHRON Nothing can be said about the life of Alciphron and even his date is uncertain. There are no internal criteria in the letters which could shed light on this issue.5 It has been suggested, on tenuous grounds, that he was a Syrian, like Lucian.6 He is called ῥήτωρ in the manuscripts and by Ioannes Tzetzes (c. 1110–1180/85) in his scholia to The Histo- ries, or Chiliades.7 eustathios of thessalonike (c. 1115–1195) calls him Ἀττικιστής in his commentary on the Iliad.8 Additional Byzantine tes- timonia to Alciphron are found in a grammatical treatise, possibly by Gregorios pardos (c. 1070–1156),9 a speech by Gregorios Antiochos (12th cent.),10 and in the Etymologicum Genuinum.11 5 Baldwin (1982) suggested the first decade of the third century ad as a termi- nus ante quem, on the basis of the reference in 4.19.7 to the singing statue of Memnon which fell silent after repairs during the reign of Septimius Severus (146–211 ad), but this is rightly rejected by Anderson (1997) 2190 n. 8. 6 the references to Adonis and the Adonis festival (4.10.1, 4.14.3, 4.14.8, 4.17.2), a Syrian merchant (4.11.4), pistachio nuts and dates (3.39.1), the fishing up of a dead camel (1.20.3) and chalybonian wine (3.37.1) are put forth as evidence of his syrian origin by Keller (1862) 404 n.