A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS AND EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE CRETAN TRAGEDY EROFILI AND ITS INTERLUDES Eleni Lampaki Lucy Cavendish College This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cambridge September 2014 D E C L A R A T I O N This dissertation is my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text and the acknowledgements. This dissertation does not exceed 80,000 words, including footnotes and references, but excluding bibliography. Cambridge, 1 September 2014 Eleni Lampaki i A B S T R A C T In this dissertation, I investigate the textual tradition of the Cretan tragedy Erofili by Georgios Chortatsis (16 th century). The play, accompanied by a set of four Interludes, has survived in three manuscripts and two editions, all originating from the 17 th century. All the witnesses are examined and presented thoroughly, both as autonomous texts and in comparison to each other. The examination of each witness separately sheds light not only on the history of the transmission of Erofili , but also to the production of manuscripts and printed books in Crete, the Heptanese and Venice in general. As far as the condition of the text is concerned, three witnesses preserve the most reliable texts: the second edition and the two manuscripts originating from Crete. The investigation of their relationship shows that two groups can be identified: one includes the two Cretan manuscripts and another one the three other witnesses. Νo important alterations in the plot and the sequence of events are found, so the textual variation concerns mainly the phrasing. There are indications that variation among the witnesses might have resulted from revisions by the playwright himself. The evaluation of the two groups of witnesses shows that it is not possible to consider one of them as superior, and this leads to the question which would be the most appropriate editorial method. Previous editors have followed the eclectic approach, which has many positive aspects, but cannot help the readers to realize all the stages of the transmission of the play. Since various theoretical approaches have appeared during the last decades, it has been understood that no edition can be called “definitive” and that editions following different methods can address different questions and achieve different aims. Erofili, and other texts with a rich and complicated textual tradition, can be edited in various ways and each edition can offer new insight in the history of the production, transmission and reception of the work. ii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor David Holton, for his genuine interest in my work and his help and guidance during the past four years. My work has benefited greatly from his insightful and constructive comments. I am especially grateful for his patience and understanding during the fourth year of my studies (the last weeks in particular). I would also like to thank the A.G. Leventis Foundation for funding my doctoral studies. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Tina Lendari, who inspired my interest in Early Modern Greek Literature during my MPhil studies at the University of Athens and provided help and moral support both before and during my PhD research. I am also grateful to Professor Stefanos Kaklamanis, who generously provided me with copies of the witnesses of Erofili and offered me guidance and feedback. I would also like to thank Professors Elizabeth Jeffreys and David Ricks, the examiners of the thesis, for their remarks and recommendations. My research has benefitted from my participation at the 11th International Cretological Congress and the Neograeca Medii Aevi VII Conference, as well as the Modern Greek Studies Graduate Colloquia in Birmingham (2010) and London (2011) iii and the Modern Greek Seminars of the University of Cambridge and King’s College London. The feedback I received from the audience was very helpful. I would like to thank all my friends from the Modern Greek Section and the Department of Linguistics, as well as my flatmates, for the pleasant time we had during the three years of my stay at Cambridge, their help during the first months and their encouragement when I felt disappointed. I am also grateful to my old friends from Greece, for making me feel like I never left home every time I went back. A special thanks goes to Nikos, for his care and support during the final months of writing-up, and for arranging escapes from work when I needed a break. Finally, words are not enough to express my gratitude to my parents for their love and support and their constant care for my education, as well as to my sister, for her love and interest and for being a source of joy. iv T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Declaration .......................................................................................................................... i Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... v List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... vi Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One: Presentation of the witnesses ................................................................. 16 1. The edition of Kigalas .................................................................................................. 16 2. The edition of Gradenigos ........................................................................................... 38 3. The Athens manuscript ............................................................................................... 60 4. The Birmingham manuscript ..................................................................................... 70 5. The Munich manuscript .............................................................................................. 87 Chapter Two: The relationship among the witnesses ................................................. 102 1. The number of lines preserved ................................................................................ 103 2. Kinds of textual variation ......................................................................................... 104 3. Evidence from missing lines ..................................................................................... 108 4. Common errors .......................................................................................................... 116 5. Paratextual material .................................................................................................. 146 6. Variant readings ......................................................................................................... 155 7. The relation of the witnesses with the Italian models ......................................... 178 8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 193 Chapter Three: Evaluation of the witnesses ................................................................ 197 1. The common errors: Indications of common ancestry? ...................................... 200 2. The longest version = the oldest version? .............................................................. 201 3. Language ...................................................................................................................... 204 4. Style .............................................................................................................................. 208 5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 217 Chapter Four: The task of the editor ........................................................................... 218 1. Presentation of previous editions ........................................................................... 218 2. Theoretical and methodological considerations................................................... 224 3. Suggestions for future editions ................................................................................ 236 4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 250 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 251 Appendix: Illustrations…………………………………………………………………………………………… 255 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….256 v L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S The witnesses of Erofili are abbreviated as follows: K First edition by Matthaios Kigalas (Venice 1637) G Second edition by Ambrosios Gradenigos (Venice 1676) A Ms Θ62 (16) (Historical Museum of Athens) B Ms 742 (Birmingham University Library) M Cod. graec. 590 (Bavarian State Library, Munich) Ded. Dedication Prol. Prologue The Acts are numbered with upper case Roman numerals (Act I, II, III, IV, V) The Interludes are numbered with lower case Roman numerals (Interlude i, ii, iii, iv) vi