HYPERIDES IN THE ARCHIMEDES PALIMPSEST: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO1 Some introductory remarks Among the newly discovered texts in the Archimedes palimpsest, 1 the fragments of two lost speeches of Hyperides, the Against Timandros ( ) and the Against Diondas ( ), identified by Natalie Tchernetska, 2 deserve a special mention from several viewpoints. It has long been assumed that Hyperides did not survive into the Middle Ages. Now the editiones principes of these two speeches lead us to dismiss this well-established conviction. 3 From this starting-point we can now assert that:

My warmest thanks to C. Carey and M. Edwards for having invited me to the colloquium. I wish to thank M. Cannat Fera for useful remarks on different drafts, W. Noel for permission to reproduce highlights from the digital images of the Archimedes palimpsest project. I am also very grateful to P. Easterling and L. Horvth, who sent me their papers on Hyperides transmission before publication, and to M. Edwards who corrected the text and improved the English. 1

Up to now scholars have been able to identify fragments from a Menaion, from a commentary on Aristotles Categories (tentatively ascribed to Alexander of Aphrodisias lost commentary), and from the Life of St Pantoleon; there are still, perhaps, the remains of two further books, not yet identified.

: ed. pr. in N. Tchernetska, New fragments of Hyperides from the Archimedes Palimpsest, ZPE 154 (2005) 1-6; N. Tchernetska, E. W. Handley, C. Austin, and L. Horvth, New readings in the fragment of Hyperides Against Timandros from the Archimedes Palimpsest, ZPE 162 (2007) 1-4; on the text see L. Horvth, Note to Hyperides in Timandrum, AAHung 48 (2008) 121-23; W. Luppe, Zwei Textvorschlge zu Hypereides Rede im neu entzifferten Palimpsest-Codex, ZPE 167 (2008) 5; G. Thr, Zur phasis in der neuentdeckten Rede Hypereides gegen Timandros, ZRG 125 (2008) 645-63, Zu und in Hypereides, Gegen Timandros, AAHung 48 (2008) 125-37; : ed. pr. in C. Carey et al., Fragments of Hyperides Against Diondas from the Archimedes Palimpsest, ZPE 165 (2008) 1-19 (Addendum in 166 [2008] 35-36); on this text see L. Horvth, Dating Hyperides Against Diondas, ZPE 166 (2008) 2734, Hyperides Against Diondas (Addenda), ZPE 166 (2008) 3536; R. Janko, Some notes on the new Hyperides (Against Diondas), ZPE 170 (2009) 16. On the transmission see P. Easterling, Fata libellorum: Hyperides and the transmission of Attic oratory, AAHung 48 (2008) 11-17.3

2

The fact might incidentally give more weight to the controversial sixteenth-century Hungarian accounts about the existence of a Hyperides manuscript in the Matthias Corvinus library and on the alleged fragments from Hyperides in the hands of Pl Bornemissza, bishop of Nyitra: see L. Horvth, The lost medieval manuscript of Hyperides, AAHung 38 (1998) 165-73 and The Hyperides Corvinian codex (forthcoming).

BICS-52 2009 229

230

BICS-52 2009

1. All the ten Attic orators of the canonical list provided by Pergamene erudition (Aeschines, Antiphon, Andocides, Demosthenes, Dinarchus, Isocrates, Isaeus, Lysias, Lycurgus, and now also Hyperides)4 were transliterated. 2. The palimpsest was used for copying a euchologion (a prayer book) finished on 14 April 1229 by Iohannes Myronas; 5 his handwriting suggests that he probably came from the Salentine area. 6 3. As Stefano Parenti has recently argued, the text of the euchologion does not match the Constantinopolitan liturgical tradition; it can be traced back to the Jerusalem area (albeit not directly to the St. Saba monastery). 7 4. This fact strongly suggests that the re-arrangement of the previous codices and the making of the new manuscript may have taken place in the Palestine area. 8

It might be the achievement of Apollodorus of Pergamon, a first-century teacher of Caecilius of Caleacte (Quint. Inst. 9.1.12), author of a treatise on the charakteres of the ten Attic orators: see R. Nicolai, La storiografia nelleducazione antica (Pisa 1992) 250-339 (on the canon of the historians and orators); P. E. Easterling, A taste for the classics, in Classics in progress, ed. T. P. Wiseman (Oxford 2002) 21-37 (at 22-26). On the canon of the orators some reservation in I. Worthington, The canon of the ten Attic orators, in Persuasion: Greek rhetoric in action, ed. I. Worthington (London 1994) 224-63.5 The name is common in the Salentine area during the thirteenth century; see A. Jacob, Lanthroponymie grecque du Salento mridional, MEFRM 107 (1995) 361-79 (at 368-69). As far as the surname is concerned, it is not attested in the Salentine area during the same period (ibid.); in the East, however, is widely diffused (see Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, ed. E. Trapp [Wien 1976-99] nr. 19847-19858), thus I wonder if (rho is a certain reading) in the palimpsest is nothing but a spelling variant of the more common . 4

S. Luc, Su due sinassari della famiglia C*: il Crypt. D.a. XIV (ff. 291-292) e il Roman. Vallic. C 34iii (ff. 9-16), Archivio Storico per la Calabria e la Lucania 66 (1999) 51-85. This manuscript is now included in the updated list of Salentine palimpsests provided in D. Arnesano, Libri inutiles in Terra dOtranto. Modalit di piegatura dei bifogli nella realizzazione del Laur. 87.21, in Libri palinsesti greci: conservazione, restauro digitale, studio, ed. S. Luc (Roma 2008) 191-200 (at 200). The hand can be compared with Barb. gr. 350, f. 119v (f. 119v is reproduced in P. Canart, A. Jacob, S. Luc, and L. Perria, Facsimili di manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Vaticana, 1. Tavole [Citt del Vaticano 1998] tav. 72, nr. 100), a typikon written by Hierotheus ieromonachus at St. Nicolas in Casole in 1205 (though phi and kappa do not match Myronas handwriting). An interesting parallel is also the Gospel Lectionary (twelfth/thirteenth century) written by Nikolaos (subscription at f. 303r) in the Centre I. Duicev D ms. gr. 350 (it is the upper script of a palimpsest: the lower script is a Menaion written in a ninth-tenth century sloping majuscule): see A. Durova, Rpertoire des manuscrits grecs enlumins (IXe Xe s.) (Centre Ivan Dujcev, Sofia 2006) 130-43 and pl. 115-32; a full description of the item in D. Getov, A catalogue of Greek liturgical manuscripts in the Ivan Dujcev Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 279) (Roma 2007) 472-91 (at p. 490 he quotes a private communication by E. Gamillscheg, who recognizes a resemblance of the upper script with the so-called Epsilon-Style of Palestinian origin; this last issue needs to be investigated more deeply).7 See S. Parenti, The liturgical tradition of the Euchologion of Archimedes, Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, s. III, 2 (2005) 69-87; a twin of this euchologion is the Sinat. gr. 973 + Sankt Peterburg, Rossijskaja Nacionalnaja Biblioteka, gr. 418, written by the priest Auxentios in 1152/53 (see Luc, Su due sinassari della famiglia C* [n. 6, above] 57). 8 See Parenti, The liturgical tradition of the Euchologion of Archimedes (n. 7, above) 78. Other manuscripts in Italo-Greek scripts realized in the Palestine area are listed in Luc, Su due sinassari della famiglia C* (n. 6, above) 57 n. 20.

6

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

231

5. We cannot rule out the possibility that the scribe might even have re-used books carried away from his own country (the Salentine area?); 9 at any rate, it is a reasonable assumption that all the manuscripts (including our Hyperides) were at the same place in the Palestine area when they were re-used for the palimpsest. 6. Hyperides is preserved in 5 bifolia. In the editio princeps of the Against Diondas we are told that all the folios come from a single quire, probably a quaternion. 10 As observed by Pat Easterling, two scribal errors in this speech, namely the confusion of alpha ~ omicronupsilon (p. 1.21) and mu ~ kappa (p. 2.31) lead us to hypothesize a minuscule manuscript as the model from which our manuscript was copied. 11 I am now going to focus on some questions, mostly still open, raised by the new Hyperides. 2 Dating and place of writing The dating and place of writing of Byzantine manuscripts are highly-controversial issues. The provenance of a manuscript can sometimes differ from its origin: the books could travel alongside their owners. 12 Dating The handwriting is an upright, small minuscule (sometimes sloping to the right) and pending from the line. The overall quality is by no means outstanding. Formal elements useful for the dating are: 13

See L. Perria and A. Luzzi, Ricerche sulla cultura greca nelle province orientali dellimpero bizantino (VI-XIII secolo) (Messina 2001) 97; L. Perria, Libri e scritture tra Oriente bizantino e Italia Meridionale, RSBN (= Giornata di studio in ricordo di Enrica Follieri, Roma, 31 maggio 2002) 39 (2002) 157-87 (at 177), makes the case of the copyist Bartolomaeus from Bruzzano (South Italy), who wrote a section of Barb. gr. 319 (ff. 175-98; 205-14) during a pilgrimage in the Holy Land between 1157/58 and 1167/68 (for more details see P. Schreiner, Handschriften auf Reisen, Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata [= . Miscellanea di studi per il LXX compleanno di mgr. Paul Canart, I, ed. S. Luc and L. Perria] 51 [1997] 145-65 [at 146-52]).10 11 9

Thus Carey et al., Fragments of Hyperides Against Diondas (n. 2, above) 1-2.

See Easterling ap. Carey et al., Fragments of Hyperides Against Diondas (n. 2, above) 15; noteworthy is the confusion in a minuscule script between mu ~ kappa: it implies a model with a kappa majuscule (see J. Bast, Commentatio palaeographica, in G. H. Schaefer, Gregorii Corinthii et aliorum grammaticorum libri de Dialectis Linguae Graecae [Leipzig 1811] 721-22; F. Ronconi, La traslitterazione dei testi greci [Spoleto 2003] 128). In this case, the exemplar from which this manuscript was copied was not in pure minuscule, as the early ninth-century manuscripts, but it was perhaps the product of a later age, when the re-introduction of majuscule letters had been increased (see infra).12 Cf. Perria and Luzzi, Ricerche (n. 9, above) 97-98 and Perria, Libri e scritture tra Oriente bizantino e Italia Meridionale (n. 9, above) 177. 13 For the frequency of letter-forms and ligatures in the tenth-eleventh century manuscripts I rely on the figures provided by E. Follieri, La minuscola bizantina dei secoli IX e X, in La palographie grecque et byzantine (Paris 1977) 139-65 (= Byzantina et Italograeca. Studi di filologia e paleografia, ed. A. Acconcia Longo, L. Perria, and A. Luzzi [Roma 1997] 205-48); P. Canart and L. Perria, Les critures livresque des XIe et XIIe sicles, in Paleografia e codicologia greca. Atti del II Colloquio Internazionale (Berlino-Wolfenbttel, 17-21 ottobre 1983) I, ed. D. Harlfinger and G. Prato (Alessandria 1991) 67-118 (= repr. in P. Canart, tudes de Palographie et de Codicologie II [Citt del Vaticano 2008] 933-1000); M. L. Agati, Nuove osservazioni sulla minuscola bizantina del X secolo, Scriptorium 57 (2002) 199-224; P. Orsini, . Le minuscole greche informali del X secolo, Studi medievali 47 (2006) 549-87.

232

BICS-52 2009

Figure 1a: f. 138r+135v, l. 16 fin. -

Figure 1b: f. 145v+144r

Figure 1c: f. 137v+136v, l. 1

Figure 1d: f. 138r+135v

Figure 1e : 176v+173r, l. 7

Images the owner of the Archimedes Palimpsest. Reproduced by courtesy of the copyright owner.

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

233

1. Letter-forms: cf. in the shape of number three (cf. f. 145r+144v, l. 7 [-/]). 2. Size: the contrast between broad and narrow letters is notable (see against in f. 138r+135v, l. 16 fin. - [Figure 1a]; against the small majuscule in f. 138r+135v, l. 22 ). 3. Shape: letter-forms are commonly rounded, even if they appear to be more squeezed (cf. f. 138r+135v, l. 19 ) and angular (f. 145v+144r [Figure 1b]). 4. Ligatures: cf. the angular rho-omicron (f. 137v+136v, l. 1 [figure 1c]), not widely attested before the middle of the tenth century; 14 the double -- with the second looking like gamma seems to be no more in use after 995 (f. 138r+135v, l. 1 ). 15 5. The use of majuscule:16 the enlarged majuscule (sporadically in use between 910-950), (f. 138r+135v, l. 17 with the arms detached from the vertical stroke), (f. 138r+135v in. ), (f. 138r+135v, l. 23 ), and the tall majuscule (f. 137v+136r, l. 1 [figure 1c]) attested from the middle of the tenth century onwards.17 6. The ductus: ranges from a more calligraphic (cf. f. 138r+135v [figure 1d]) to less formal degree (such as in ff. 137r+136v; 138v+135r, ll. 16ff; 176v+173r, l. 7 [figure 1e]). This cursive tendency resembles a large group of hands comparable with the so-called Ephraim-script (middle of the tenth century onwards). These elements lead us to insert this unpretentious hand into a large group of rounded handwritings, more or less formal. The calligraphic type is usually referred to as Perlschrift: it is widespread between the tenth and the eleventh centuries. 18 Again, (4) seems to point towards a dating not before the middle of the tenth century. It is not easy to find suitable material for comparison; among other manuscripts, I quote:

Albeit sporadically used in early ninth-century minuscule manuscripts (thus P. Canart, La minuscule grecque et son ductus du IXe au XVIe sicle, in Lcriture: le cerveau, loeil et la main, ed. C. Sirat, J. Irigoin, and E. Poulle [Turnhout 1990] 307-20 [at 310] [= repr. in P. Canart, tudes de Palographie et de Codicologie II [Citt del Vaticano 2008] 881-94 [at 88h]]). See also Follieri, La minuscola bizantina dei secoli IX e X (n. 13, above) 143 (=Byzantina et Italograeca 210).15 16 14

Cf. Orsini, (n. 13, above) 573.

For the use of the percentage of majuscule letters as a tool for dating minuscule manuscripts see E. Follieri, La reintroduzione di lettere semionciali nei pi antichi manoscritti greci in minuscola, Bullettino dellArchivio Paleografico italiano 3.1 (1962) 15-36; R. Valentini, La reintroduzione dellonciale e la datazione dei manoscritti greci in minuscola, in Scritti in onore di Carlo Diano (Bologna 1975) 455-70. Nevertheless, despite meticulousness in collecting such data, I am not quite sure that such criteria could lead to dating manuscripts with an unquestionable degree of precision. See Orsini, (n. 13, above) 570.

17 18

For well-founded reservations on this terminology see G. Cavallo, Metodi di descrizione della scrittura in paleografia greca, Scrittura e Civilt 15 (1991) 21-30 (at 29); A. Iacobacci and L. Perria, Il Vangelo di Dionisio (Roma 1998) 41.

234

BICS-52 2009

(i) Athos Lavra 70 (= 446) (finished on 30 August 984), a commentary on Psalms (copied in the margins) alongside Actes Iviron 6 (a donation act of a chrysobollos by Basilius II from Athanasius to Johannes Iberus, December 984), both written by Johannes from Athos; 19 (ii) Coisl. 928 (second half of the eleventh century), St. Maximos; 20 (iii) Ottob. gr. 422 (middle of the eleventh century, written by Theophanes monk of Iviron), homilies and lives of saints; 21 (iv) Athos Lavra 426 (1039, written in Constantinople), 22 patristic biographies; (v) Sin. gr. 595 (written by two hands around 1000), 23 Menaion. Judging from these examples, which can be dated around the eleventh century, with a greater or lesser degree of confidence I agree with the dating suggested by N. Tchernetska for our Hyperides: tenth-eleventh century. In comparison with the other folios palimpsested (Archimedes [second half of the tenth century], the liturgical books [tenth century], the commentary on Aristotles Categories [ninth century]), Hyperides handwriting seems to be the most recent; what strikes me is the fact that all the books which were re-used are not of great antiquity, as one might expect in a palimpsest. Provenance Here the matter is more puzzling. I worked only on the superb digital images put up on the website, 24 thus I have not been able to detect any codicological hints (quality of the parchment, ink, rules) which could be useful for my purposes. Therefore, the writing is the only

See K. Lake and S. Lake, Dated Greek minuscule manuscripts to the year 1200, Facs. I-X (Boston Mass. 1934-1939) III ms. 89, pl. 157; J. Irigoin, Pour une tude des centres de copie byzantins (suite), Scriptorium 13 (1959) 177-209 (pl. 20); E. Lamberz, Die Handschriftenproduktion in den Athosklstern bis 1453, in Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio, Atti del Seminario di Erice (18-25 settembre 1988) I, ed. G. Cavallo, G. De Gregorio, and M. Maniaci (Spoleto 1991) 25-78 (pl. 4). For the document see J. Lefort, N. Oikonomids, D. Papachryssanthou, and H. Mtrvli, Actes dIviron, I.1-2 (des origines au milieu du XIe sicle) (Paris 1985) 135-40 and pl. XV-XVI. On this monk see Lamberz (ibidem) 30-35, 74-75 (who argues for a Constantinopolitan origin of his graphic education); P. Orsini, Quale coscienza ebbero i Bizantini della loro cultura grafica?, Medioevo Greco 5 (2005) 215-48 (at 236-38); M. Losacco, Su alcuni codici crisostomici affini alla produzione di Giovanni di Lavra, 4 (2007) 123-42.20 See B. Crostini, Towards a study of the scriptorium of the monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis: preliminary remarks, in The Theotokos Evergetis and eleventh-century monasticism, ed. M. Mullett and A. Kirby (Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, 6.1) (Belfast 1994) 17697 (at 183-84). The hand working at ff. 1-16 is a small and rounded Perlschrift, rather conservative, with some elements predating more evolved forms. 21 Plate in E. Follieri, Codices graeci Bibliothecae Vaticanae selecti temporum locorumque ordine digesti commentariis et transcriptionibus instructi (Citt del Vaticano 1969) Tab. 27 (Ottob. gr. 422, f. 48v). For the book production of Theophanes, who used a peculiar and unpretentious Perlschrift (comparable with our folia to a certain extent) see Irigoin, Pour une tude des centres de copie byzantins (suite) (n. 19, above) 200-04. 22 23 19

See Lake and Lake, Dated Greek minuscule manuscripts (n. 19, above) III ms. 100, pl. 174-75.

Facs. in D. Harlfinger, D. R. Reinsch, and J. A. M. Sonderkamp, with G. Prato, Specimina Sinaitica. Die datierten griechischen Handschriften des Katharinen-Klosters auf dem Berge Sinai, 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert (Berlin 1983) pl. 52-53.24

At the address .

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

235

available tool, though it is not sufficient, as the material for comparison come from different areas. When the handwriting of a manuscript seems in no way peculiar to a particular place, scholars are uncertain whether it is from Constantinople or from the peripheries (South Italy/Near East). Let me explore which of these solutions turns out to be the most attractive. 1. South Italy. In my opinion, it is hard to demonstrate that the manuscript containing Hyperides comes from South Italy, as no palaeographical or cultural evidence points to this area. From the palaeographical viewpoint, eleventh-century rounded hands are well attested in the West: see the so-called Rossano minuscule, attested in the eleventh-twelfth centuries; later on, we find the Reggio script, marked by a strong contrast between broad and narrow letters, which seems to derive from the Rossano minuscule. 25 However, it is disputed whether the latter is merely a local stylistic evolution (from scripts previously attested in this area), or if it ought to be linked with the influence of the Constantinopolitan Perlschrift. 26 Again, even if some folios of our Hyperides show resemblance with scripts of a contrastive type (see supra), there is no compelling proof for connecting the item with Italo-Greek contrastive scripts (later evolved into the Reggio script). We also have manuscripts in Perlschrift (of uncertain location) with squeezed letter-shapes, strictly recalling the contrastive style of the Reggio script: see Paris. gr. 1457 (Metaphrastes), written by the monk Antonius at the end of the eleventh century (dating by H. Hunger).27 As for the cultural argument, very few classical manuscripts can be referred to South Italy with a certain degree of confidence, despite previous views supporting massive classical book production in this area. 28 These few items are school texts, such as lexica and grammars; in addition, we have novels or entertaiment readings (Aesop, Achilles Tatius, Physiologus). 29 At a medium educational level we can put items such as Paris. gr. 3032, a collection of

25

On the Reggio script cf. recently M. Re, Lo stile di Reggio ventanni dopo, in LEllenismo italiota dal VII al XII seclo. Alla memoria di Nikos Panagiokatis (Atti del Convegno, Venezia, 13-16 novembre 1997) (Atene 2001) 99-124; P. Degni, Sullo stile di Reggio: lapporto delle testimonianze documentarie, Archivio storico per la Calabria e la Lucania 69 (2002) 57-81; M. Re, Considerazioni sullo stile di Reggio, 2 (2005) 303-11.

26 It is a controversial issue: see S. Luc, Rossano, il Patir e lo stile rossanese. Note per uno studio codicologicopaleografico e storico-culturale, RSBN 22-23 (1985-1986) 93-170 (with several arguments for a local evolution of these scripts); G. Breccia, Dalla regina delle citt. I manoscritti della donazione di Alessio Comneno a Bartolomeo da Simeri, BBGG (= . Miscellanea di studi per il LXX compleanno di mgr. Paul Canart, I, ed. S. Luc and L. Perria) 51 (1997) 209-24 (suggesting a Constantinopolitan influence). 27 RGK (= Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten, 800-1600, parts 1-3, Wien 1989) 2A Nr. 36; see facs. of f. 56r in RGK 2C Taf. 20. H. Hungers remarks on this handwriting run as follows: eine gewisse Nhe zu Stil von Reggio (RGK 2B, p. 20). 28

See the important, although controversial, sketch provided by G. Cavallo, La trasmissione scritta della cultura greca antica in Calabria e in Sicilia tra i secoli X-XV. Consistenza, tipologia, fruizione, Scrittura e Civilt 4 (1980) 157-245; some valuable classical manuscripts, of doubtful origin, are claimed to be Italo-Greek by J. Irigoin, Lapport de lItalie mridionale la transmission des textes classiques, in Histoire et culture dans lItalie Byzantine. Acquis et nouvelles recherches, ed. A. Jacob, J.-M. Martin, and G. Noy (Rome 2006) 5-20 (at 11-14).

See the fresh and updated overview provided by S. Luc, Note per la storia della cultura greca della Calabria Meridionale, Archivio Storico per la Calabria e la Lucania 74 (2007 [2008]), pp. 43-101 (at 54-60); on the issue see also S. Luc, Dalle collezioni manoscritte di Spagna: libri originari o provenienti dallItalia greca meridionale, RSBN n.s. 44 (2007) 39-96 (at 62-64).

29

236

BICS-52 2009

rhetorical handbooks (Hermogenes and his commentators), which might have been produced in the South Italy. 30 However, some manuscripts, which are authoritative for the textual transmission of rare classical authors (such as Paris. suppl. gr. 388 containing Theognides, Dionysius Periegetes, Colluthus) and previously thought to be Italo-Greek items, have now been referred with strong arguments to a Constantinopolitan milieu. 31 2. Palestine. As we have seen, our manuscript is likely to have moved to Palestine, before its re-using. Are we entitled to argue for a Near East origin? I find this suggestion, although fascinating, far from convincing. Several books claimed to have originated in this area show no peculiar hint, from a palaeographical point of view; 32 this fact might well account for the unremarkable appearance of the handwriting of the Hyperides. Anyway, more compelling reservations from a cultural point of view strongly suggest that we should dismiss this solution. Book production implies patronage and people eager to acquire books. In this case, who transcribed or requested a copy of a manuscript containing Hyperides in Palestine between the tenth and the eleventh centuries? Greek culture flourished in Palestine during the seventh/eighth centuries, 33 as Cyril Mango and Lidia Perria have convincingly demonstrated. The circulation of Greek manuscripts (especially philosophical and scientific texts) in the East is also assured so far by the translations into Syriac and Arabic; indeed, it is worth stressing how there is no proof of local translations of rhetors and orators. 34 After the eighth century the scarcity of evidence does not allow us to get a clear-cut picture of the cultural environment. The extant book production, which can be referred to the tenth and the eleventh centuries, mostly relies on liturgical books copied for the religious needs of the local Greek-Arabic monks. In the present state of our knowledge, the only profane manuscripts produced in Palestine seem to be a schoolcopy of Homer, Iliad (equipped with paraphrasis), a copy of the Herbary by Pedanius Dioscorides, and some juridical and medical books. 35 Again, we have two interesting palimpsests from Jerusalem, which were produced there by taking apart manuscripts bearing classical texts, namely:

30 Status quaestionis in C. Frstel and M. Rashed, Une recontre dHermogne et de Cicron dans lItalie mdivale, 3 (2006) 361-71.

F. Ronconi, Il codice parigino Suppl. gr. 388 e Mos del Brolo da Bergamo, Italia Medievale e Umanistica 47 (2006) 1-24; also Luc, Note per la storia della cultura greca della Calabria Meridionale (n. 29, above) 59 n. 46.32 33 34

31

See Perria, Libri e scritture tra Oriente bizantino e Italia Meridionale (n. 9, above) 169-70. Survey in Perria and Luzzi, Ricerche (n. 9, above) 96-99.

See the valuable book by D. Gutas, Greek thought, Arabic culture: the Graeco-Arabic translation movement in Baghdad and early Abbasid society (2nd-4th/8th-10th c.) (London 1998) (for a table of the Greek works translated into Arabic see pp. 227-30). For Syriac translators cf. now also A. Corcella, Due citazioni dalle Etiopiche di Eliodoro nella Retorica di Antonio di Tagrit, Orientalia christiana periodica 74 (2008) 389-416 (at 408-09). Cf. G. Cavallo, . Riflessioni su cultura del centro e cultura delle periferie a Bisanzio, in Byzantina-Metabyzantina. La pripherie dans le temps et l'espace (Actes de la 6e sance plniere du XXe Congrs international des tudes byzantines) (Paris 2003) 77-106 (at 93); L. Perria and A. Luzzi, Manoscritti greci delle province orientali dellimpero bizantino, in Atti del VI Congresso Nazionale dellAssociazione italiana di studi bizantini (Catania-Messina 2-5 ottobre 2000), ed. T. Creazzo and G. Strano, = SicGymn n.s. 57 (2004) 667-90. A new attribution (the Scorial. R-III-1, medical collection) to the Palestine area is in M. Ceresa and S. Luc, Frammenti greci di Dioscoride Pedanio e Aezio Amideno in unedizione a stampa di Francesco35

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

237

(a) the well-known Jerusalem palimpsest of Euripides (Hieros. Bibl. Patriarch. 36+Sankt Peterburg, Rossijskaja Nacionalnaja Biblioteka, gr. 261); it is written in an informal handwriting of the tenth century resembling the so-called Ephraim script; 36 (b) the Libanius-Heliodorus palimpsest (Hierosol. S. Crucis 57); it is formed by two manuscripts which were re-used for making a Gospel in the late twelfth century: judging from the only available reproduction (concerning Libanius), the handwriting should probably be assigned to the eleventh century. 37 At any rate, we do not know whether these classical manuscripts were in fact produced in the Palestine area or elsewhere. As for the Euripides palimpsest, its Ephraim-script occurs in Coisl. 51, written with a high degree of confidence in Palestine. 38 This fact suggests that such cursive scripts were attested in this area, but it is not a conclusive proof for supporting a local production of this manuscript. On the other hand, however, we should keep in mind that other attributions of profane books to this area, suggested in more recent years, seem to be even more doubtful. 39 Thus, in the current state of our evidence, there is no firm proof supporting a Near East origin of the Hyperides. 3. Constantinople. As was pointed out by Natalie Tchernetska, the Hyperides folios show 32 lines written in one column, resembling the so-called 32 line-manuscripts of historical writers and Plutarch, studied by the late Jean Irigoin. Irigoin claimed that these manuscripts were produced at Constantinople between the tenth and the eleventh centuries, probably for an outstanding patronage. 40 Of course, we cannot take for granted that the 32 line-format was used exclusively by scribes working for Imperial circles in the late tenth century; it is conceivable that this format mirrored a more ancient minuscule model. Similarly, the 32 line-format of our Hyperides might derive from its model.

Zanetti (Roma 1576), in Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae XV (Citt del Vaticano 2008) 191-229 (at 207).36 37

See Cavallo, 96-97; Perria and Luzzi, Ricerche (n. 9, above) 98-99.

According to the plate (from f. 31r) published in A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ierosolymitike Bibliotheke, III (En Petroupolei 1897) 114, we have to reckon with an informal minuscule sloping to the right, probably of the eleventh century. As far as Heliodorus is concerned, there seems to be no plate in the extant collections of specimina. For the circulation of some ancient novelists such as Heliodorus in the East see the valuable study by Corcella, Due citazioni dalle Etiopiche di Eliodoro nella Retorica di Antonio di Tagrit (n. 34, above). Thus Perria and Luzzi, Manoscritti greci delle province orientali dellimpero bizantino (n. 35, above) 676.

38 39

See e.g. Bodl. Barocc. 50. Despite current views on its Italo-Greek provenance, mainly supported by Irigoin (cf. lastly Irigoin, Lapport de lItalie mridionale la transmission des textes classiques [n. 28, above]), F. Ronconi, La miscellanea che non divenne mai silloge: il caso del Bodl. Barocci 50, in Selecta colligere II, ed. R. M. Piccione and M. Perkams (Alessandria 2005) 295-353, argues for a Palestinian origin, but I share the doubts about this claim cast by some scholars: see F. Pontani, rev. of Selecta colligere II in JHS 127 (2007) 176-77 (at 177); Luc, Note per la storia della cultura greca della Calabria Meridionale (n. 29, above) 60 n. 47 and 101 (the latter points to a Constantinopolitan origin). Accordingly, we should suspend judgement on this issue for the time being.40

Cf. J. Irigoin, Les manuscrits de Plutarque 32 et 22 lignes, in Actes XIVe Congrs International des tudes byzantines (Bucarest, 6-12 sept. 1971) III (Bucarest 1976) 83-87 (repr. in La tradition des textes grecs. Pour une critique historique [Paris 2003] 329-35) and Les manuscrits dhistoriens grecs et byzantins 32 lignes, in Studia codicologica, ed. K. Treu (Texte und Untersuchungen 124) (Berlin 1977) 237-45 (repr. in La tradition des textes grecs. Pour une critique historique [Paris 2003] 295-309).

238

BICS-52 2009

From a cultural and historical view-point, Constantinople is a much more suitable place for a minuscule Hyperides to be copied. During the first Byzantine Renaissance in the ninth century onwards we find some scholars and intellectual readers looking for old and unusual texts of ancient authors. The book production of classical texts is well-attested. Thus, Hyperides might have been copied at Constantinople or nearby. 3 New questions This last point leads us to explore other questions closely linked to each other: did this manuscript contain only Hyperides and how many speeches were copied? What do these folios tell us about Hyperides circulation at Byzantium? What was the arrangement of Hyperides speeches in the palimpsest? Is there a relationship between the new find and Photius highly controversial account of Hyperides? What follows is an attempt to give an answer to these questions and to draw a fresh picture of the textual transmission of the Attic orators with the help of the new Hyperides. 1. Did this manuscript contain only Hyperides? How many speeches were copied? First of all, I would pay attention to the textual transmission of the other Attic orators. All (or almost all) of Demosthenes and Isocrates have come down to us, because they served as stylistic models in the schools. As for Aeschines, we have three speeches, which are the only extant genuine works circulating during the Roman age. 41 It is the same for Andocides. The extant corpus of the other orators is much more reduced and the textual transmission depends on a few items, which can be dated between the tenth and the fourteenth centuries. The most relevant are (see table 1): 42 (i) Coisl. 249, written by two hands of the tenth century, 43 contains all of Aeschines (1-3) alongside Gorgias Helen, Lysias Epithaphios, and a corpusculum of late antique authors

41 For Aeschines reputation in antiquity see J. F. Kindstrand, The stylistic evaluation of Aeschines in antiquity (Uppsala 1982).

For claritys sake I shall not take into account the textual and philological relationships of the manuscripts, as this topic falls ouside the purpose of the present paper: a first account can be found in some recent studies on the textual transmission of the orators (e.g. for Lysias see G. Avezz, Lisia, Contro Eratostene [Padova 1992] 29-51; and C. Carey, Lysiae orationes cum fragmentis [Oxford 2007] xi-xviii; for Alcidamas R. Mari, Alkidamas: ber diejenigen, die schriftliche Reden schreiben, oder ber die Sophisten. Eine Sophistenrede aus dem 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. eingeleitet und kommentiert [Mnster 2002] 10-12, who is greatly indebted to G. Avezz, Alcidamante. Orazioni e frammenti [Roma 1982] xix-xxv). Analogously, I refer to the catalogues of each collection for a detailed description of the items. My own concern here is simply to explore how some orators were transmitted and how their speeches have been assembled together into a coherent set of texts (corpus or corpuscula). The selection of manuscripts under discussion is merely subjective: I have omitted other relevant items of the first half of the fourteenth century such as Vat. gr. 2207, on which see G. Avezz, Il Ms. Vaticano Gr. 2207 nella tradizione dellEpitafio lisiano e degli oratori attici minori, BIFG 3 (1976) 184-220; I. Prez Martn, El Patriarca Gregorio de Chipre (ca. 1240-1290) y la trasmisin de los textos clsicos en Bizancio (Nueva Roma 1) (Madrid 1996) 332, 336, 242-43, 351; full description in S. Lilla, Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 2162-2254 (Citt del Vaticano 1985) 168-74.43 Cf. M. L. Sosower, Palatinus Graecus 88 and the Manuscript Tradition of Lysias (Amsterdam 1988). One of these hands has been identified by Nigel Wilson also in Vat. gr. 1298 (Aelius Aristides); see N. G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983) 140.

42

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

239

(Marinos of Neapolis, Vita Procli, and some works by Sinesius). 44 The physical composition of this item is puzzling. It is worth taking into account an old hypothesis of Avezz, according to which this manuscript was assembled by two different sections produced separately: the latter might have contained a larger rhetorical anthology than the one transmitted in Pal. gr. 88, with some texts now lost in Coisl. (except Lysias Epithaphios), but copied into the Vat. gr. 2207 (Alcidamas, Antisthenes, Demades, Gorgias Helen). 45 (ii) Heid. Pal. gr. 88 (written around the middle of the eleventh century) 46 is formed by two corpuscula: 1. a rhetorical anthology with two speeches of Lysias (On the killing of Eratosthenes and the Epitaphios), two speeches of Alcidamas (On the sophists and Odysseus), two speeches of Antisthenes (Ajax and Odysseus), the mutilated text of Demades (On the twelve years); 2. 29 speeches of Lysias (originally thirty) with Gorgias Helen as a tailpiece. 47 (iii) the codex Crippsianus (Burney 95), written at Constantinople during the first part of the fourteenth century by the so-called Metochitesschreiber (now to be identified with Michael Klostomalles); 48 it contains what survived of the other orators: Andocides (4 speeches), Isaeus (11 speeches), Dinarchus (3 speeches), Antiphon (6 speeches), Lycurgus (the Against Leocrates alone); then, we have 2 speeches of Gorgias (Helen and

44

A summary description in R. Devreesse, Bibliothque Nationale, Dpartement des Manuscrits: Catalogue des manuscrits Grecs II, Le Fonds Coislin (Paris 1945) 228-29.

45

See Avezz, Il Ms. Vaticano Gr. 2207 nella tradizione dellEpitafio lisiano e degli oratori attici minori (n. 42, above). Although this reconstruction has later been dismissed (cf. Avezz, Lisia, Contro Eratostene [n. 42, above] 26ff.), I regard it as still worth noticing. On this issue see also G. Cavallo, Conservazione e perdita dei testi greci: fattori materiali, sociali, culturali, in Societ romana e impero tardoantico, IV, Tradizione dei classici, trasformazioni della cultura, ed. A. Giardina (Roma-Bari 1986) 83-172 (= Dalla parte del libro. Storie di trasmissione dei testi classici [Urbino 2002] 49-175) (at 126 [= 112]). Cavallo, Conservazione e perdita dei testi greci: fattori materiali, sociali, culturali (n. 45, above) 127-30 (= 113-16); Avezz, Lisia, Contro Eratostene (n. 42, above) 29ff.

46

47

See Sosower, Palatinus Graecus 88 and the Manuscript Tradition of Lysias (n. 43, above) for a description and history of this item.

48 A full study of this hand is provided by G. Prato, I manoscritti greci dei secoli XIII e XIV: note paleografiche, in Paleografia e codicologia greca. Atti del II Colloquio Internazionale (Berlino-Wolfenbttel, 17-21 ottobre 1983) I, ed. D. Harlfinger and G. Prato (Alessandria 1991) 131-49 (repr. in Studi di paleografia greca [Spoleto 1994] 115-32). The identification of the Metochitesschreiber with the imperial notary M. Klostomalles was first proposed by Erich Lamberz; see E. Lamberz, Das Geschenk des Kaisers Manuel II. an das Kloster Saint-Denis und der Metochitesschreiber Michael Klostomalles, in . Studien zur byzantinischen Kunst und Geschichte. Festschrift fr Marcell Restle, ed. B. Borkopp and T. Steppan (Stuttgart 2000) 155-65; see also M. Menchelli, Appunti su manoscritti di Platone, Aristide e Dione di Prusa della prima et dei Paleologi. Tra Teodoro Metochite e Niceforo Gregora, SCO 47/2 (2000) 141-208 (at 170-75 and pl. 12 for other attributions of manuscripts to this hand); E. Lamberz, Georgios Bullotes, Michael Klostomalles und die Byzantinische Kaiserkanzlei unter Andronikos II. und Andronikos III. in den Jahren 12981328, in Lire et crire Byzance, ed. B. Mondrain (Paris 2006) 33-64 (at 44-47); G. De Gregorio, La scrittura greca di et paleologa (secoli XIII/XIV). Un panorama, in Scrittura memoria degli uomini. Atti della giornata di studi in ricordo di G. Cannataro (Bari 2006) 81-138 (at 95-97). At any rate, we are still lacking a detailed philological description of many items copied by Klostomalles.

240

BICS-52 2009

Palamedes), 1 piece of Alcidamas (the Odysseus alone), 3 declamations of Lesbonax and the ascribed to Herodes Atticus. 49 (iv) Bodl. Auct. T.2.8 is a twin of Burney 95; 50 it bears only a selection from the same model as Burney 95: Dinarchus (3), Antiphon (6) and Lycurgus (1). 51 (v) Ambros. gr. 230 is a composite manuscript, 52 in which we find two codicological unities: 1. (ff. 1-88r; 90-101v, fifteenth century), with a Patristic section, Aelius Aristides (speeches 38-39), Lysias Epitaphios, Gorgias Helen, Aelius Aristides (speech 19, the monody for Smyrna), 53 the 2 extant speeches of the second-century sophist Polemon 54 ; 2. (ff. 89 + 102-118, end of the thirteenth century) with Andocides (3 and 4) and Isaeus (1-2). Table 1. Some manuscripts of the Attic oratorsCoisl. gr. 249 Aeschines (1-3) Gorgias (Helen) Lysias (2) Pal. gr. 88 Lysias (1-2) Alcidamas (On the sophists Odysseus) Antisthenes (Ajax Odysseus) Burney 95 Andocides (1-4) Isaeus (1-11) Dinarchus (1-3) Bodl. Auct. T.2.8 Dinarchus (1-3) Antiphon (1-6) Lycurgus (Against Leocrates) Ambros. gr. 230 Aristides (38-39) Lysias (2) Gorgias (Helen)

Description in Summary catalogue of Greek manuscripts in the British Library (compiled by T. S. Pattie and S. McKendrick) 1- (London 1999) 58-59.50 49

Copied by the same scribe as Vat. gr. 626 (written in 1306/07), according to Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (n. 43, above) 229, with whom I agree: facs. in A. Turyn, Codices Graeci Vaticani saeculis XIII et XIV scripti annorumque notis instructi (In civitate Vaticana 1964) 107-08 and pl. 86.185d.

A brief description in H. O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae pars prima recensionem codicum graecorum continens (Oxford 1853) 766-67. This manuscript shows one or more codicological unities written in different ages and places and assembled in ancient times: for this codicological terminology I rely on J. P. Gumbert, Codicological units: towards a terminology for the stratigraphy of the non-homogeneous codex, in Il codice miscellaneo. Tipologie e funzioni (Atti del Convegno internazionale, Cassino 14-17 maggio 2003) = Segno e Testo 2 (2004) 17-42; M. Maniaci, Il codice greco non unitario. Tipologie e terminologia, ibidem 75-107; P. Degni, I manoscritti dello scriptorium di Gioannicio, Segno e Testo 6 (2008) 179-248 (at 223). It is noteworthy that Aristides in his monody followed a stylistic habit quite different from other speeches, according to E. Norden, La prosa darte antica dal VI secolo a.C. allet della rinascenza, edizione italiana a cura di B. Heinemann Campana, I-II (Roma 1986) I.430-31; thus this text could find its way into an anthology as an example of a different style of writing.54 For the career of Polemon see S. Swain, Polemons Physiognomy, in S. Swain, ed., Seeing the face, seeing the soul, Polemons Physiognomy from classical antiquity to medieval Islam (Oxford 2007) 125-201 (at 126-31). 53 52

51

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION [Alcidamas 1-2?] [Antisthenes 1-2?] [Demades?] Demades (On the twelve years) Lysias (3-31) Gorgias (Helen) Antiphon (1-6) Lycurgus (Against Leocrates) Gorgias (Helen Palamedes) Alcidamas (Odysseus) Lesbonax (3 speeches) Herodes Atticus(?) (1 speech) Aristides (18)

241

Polemon (2 speeches) Andocides (3-4) Isaeus (1-2)

[Gorgias, Helen?]

older rhetoricians (Alcidamas, Antisthenes, Gorgias) Attic orators of the canon (Antiphon, etc.) Attic orators not in the canon (Demades) Atticistic rhetors of the Second Sophistic Sections of mss. sharing the same model

Table 2. Loss and survivalAntiquity (Ps.Plut. Vitae decem orat.) Antiphon 60 (35 genuine) Andocides 4 Lysias 425 (233 genuine) Isocrates 60 (25/28 genuine) Isaeus 64 (50 genuine) Aeschines 4 (3 genuine) Lycurgus 15 Demosthenes 65 Hyperides 77 (52 genuine) Dinarchus 64 Middle Ages/ways of selection 6 3 31 21 11 3 1 61 2 3 Speeches concerning homicide (an entire section of a late antiquity edition?) almost the corpus ? almost the corpus of genuine speeches Speeches concerning inheritance (section of a late antiquity edition?) all corpus ? almost the corpus (?) speeches concerning the Harpalus affair

What can we infer from these figures? 1. The quantity of the extant speeches is quite different (see Table 2). As we have said, Demosthenes or Isocrates (with their large corpora), Aeschines (3/3) and Andocides (3/4) survive almost entirely. As far as the others are concerned, the remains are the result of a selection. Sometimes it is easy to detect how this process took place: in the Burney 95 Antiphons speeches involve homicide, Isaeus speeches concern inheritance. They are probably sections of ancient editions thematically arranged. Again, the three extant speeches

242

BICS-52 2009

of Dinarchus involve the Harpalus affair. As regards Lysias, it was not easy to reduce a huge corpus of 233 genuine speeches; thus, the selection might even have happened by chance. Leaving aside the corpora of Demosthenes, Isocrates, and Lysias who formed the more substantial part of a manuscript, the speeches of the other orators were transcribed together with other authors. In Coisl. 249 Aeschines was linked to a philosophical miscellany of late antiquity; in Pal. gr. 88, Burney 95, Bodl. Auct. T.2.8 and Ambros. gr. 230 we have sections of what Friedrich Blass called the rhetorical anthology, assembled for the schools: it contained selected pieces of older rhetoricians (Alcidamas, Antisthenes, and Gorgias in Pal. gr. 88 and Burney 95), five Attic orators (Antiphon, Andocides, Isaeus, Lycurgus, Dinarchus in Burney 95 and partially in Bodl. Auct. T.2.8 and Ambros. gr. 230), Demades, Lysias Epitaphios, and a choice of Atticistic rhetors of the so-called Second Sophistic (Lesbonax, Herodes Atticus in Burney 95; Aelius Aristides and Polemon in Ambros. gr. 230). The latter were included in the canonical list of authors recommended at Byzantium as models of style, alongside the old Attic orators. According to several sources this second canon included Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides, Philostratos, Herodes Atticus, Lesbonax, Polemon, Adrianus and Callinicus. 55 Such a rhetorical anthology could have been assembled in the eleventh century or even earlier (during the Byzantine Renaissance, according to Blass and Avezz; other scholars such as Dover have suggested late antiquity), 56 as we find some sections of it in Pal. gr. 88 (written around the middle of the eleventh century). Even if the five Attic orators are a self-contained textual unity, I find no reason to deny their insertion in this anthology in the Middle Ages. Nigel Wilson suggests that their reappearance in Burney 95 is perhaps due to a lucky find by a scholar of the late thirteenth century, 57 given the scarcity of Byzantine witnesses to these orators: this may be true. Nevertheless, we can rule out that this lucky find involves an old majuscule manuscript: Burney 95 shows minuscule mistakes and this fact implies a minuscule manuscript as the model from which the text of these five Attic orators ultimately derives. 58 2. These short collections did not become standard unities which were fully copied into new manuscripts. As has recently been pointed out, we are generally lacking in comprehensive transcriptions of texts from a miscellaneous manuscript into a new one; Byzantine scribes usually copied sections of the corpuscula which they found in the

Cf. A. Meyer, Psellos Rede ber den rhetorischen Charakter des Gregorios von Nazianz, BZ 20 (1911) 27-100 (at 70-83). Leaving aside authors such as Aelius Aristides (see L. Quattrocelli, Ricerche sulla tradizione manoscritta di Elio Aristide. Per una nuova datazione del Laur. 60, 8, Scriptorium 60.2 [2006] 202-26 and Aelius Aristides reception at Byzantium. The case of Arethas, in Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the gods [Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition vol. 33], ed. W. V. Harris and B. Holmes [Leiden-Boston 2008] 279-94), a proper and careful study of the manuscript tradition of these sophists has not yet been fulfilled; for some of them (as Callinichus and Adrianus) it is still in its infancy (E. Amato, Un nuovo testimone delle Declamationes di Adriano di Tiro, Primum legere 2 [2003] 263-67 is a first attempt to list the manuscripts). See K. J. Dover, Lysias and the corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1968) 2; Avezz, Lisia, Contro Eratostene (n. 42, above) 15ff.57 58 56 55

Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (n. 43, above) 229. See W. Wyse, The speeches of Isaeus (Cambridge 1904) xlvi-xlvii.

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

243

models. 59 For instance, in Pal. gr. 88 we have the two declamations of Alcidamas, On the Sophists and Odysseus; in Burney 95 the scribe copied only the Odysseus. 60 3. What strikes me is the fate of Lycurgus. The anthology in Burney 95 (and in its Oxford twin, Bodl. Auct. T.2.8) carries only one speech, the Against Leocrates. The indirect tradition has given us scattered fragments of 14 speeches at least. It is worth observing that Photius (Bibliotheca 268) claimed to have not read anything of Lycurgus, because time does not allow us to read his speeches. 61 Bevegni has recently argued that the passage could be an allusion to the scarcity of Lycurgus corpus in the ninth-century libraries. 62 4. In this anthology there is no room for Hyperides. Why? Are we forced to argue that not one of Hyperides speeches survived in the model of this anthology? Did it happen by chance? Or perhaps Hyperides was no longer available at the time when this anthology was arranged? This is the state of our evidence. It is very meagre. We have only a few relevant items on which the transmission of the Attic orators entirely relies. But it does not mean that there could be no other manuscripts with other arrangements, involving a more comprehensive selection of texts than the one which has come down to us. 63 There are in fact some clues for arguing missing links in the transmission: (i) Arethas, the tenth-century bishop of Caesarea, seems to have been acquainted with Lesbonax various rhetorical meletai 64 and Antiphons Tetralogiae; 65 three declamations of Lesbonax are extant in Burney 95; nevertheless, Arethas might have known some more speeches. 66

59 60

See F. Ronconi, I manoscritti greci miscellanei. Ricerche su esemplari dei secoli IX-XII (Spoleto 2008).

The habit of copying selected pieces from a model could even be due to material circumstances, such as the relationship between the textual unities in the antigraphon and the space available in the new item: see Gumbert, Codicological units: towards a terminology for the stratigraphy of the non-homogeneous codex (n. 52, above); Ronconi, I manoscritti greci miscellanei (n. 59, above) 11-32. For some scholars, however, the omission was deliberate: the scribe planned to arrange a miscellany with forensis speeches on Trojan subjects (thus leaving aside a text such as the speech On the sophists which fell outside the subject): see Avezz, Alcidamante (n. 42, above) xx. On the Odysseus see now also N. OSullivan, The authenticity of [Alcidamas] Odysseus: two new linguistic considerations, CQ 58 (2008) 638-47.61 62

... .

C. Bevegni, rev. of J. Schamp, Les vies des dix orateurs attiques (Fribourg 2000) QS 55 (2002) 233-42 (at 240). See Avezz, Lisia, Contro Eratostene (n. 42, above) 19.

63 64

Schol. Luc. de salt. p. 189, 11-15 Rabe, ] , .65

Letter 69 to Leon VI (II p. 91, 10-11 Westerink) .

66

On his library see Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (n. 43, above) 120-35 and the survey in A. Bravo Garca, Aretas, semblanza de un erudito byzantino, Erytheia 6 (1985) 241-54.

244

BICS-52 2009

(ii) the twelfth-century scholar Johannes Tzetzes claimed in his Chiliades to have read various speeches by Alcidamas; 67 nowadays, Alcidamas is known only for the two declamations inserted in the rhetorical anthology. In my opinion, there is no need to disregard Tzetzes: even if his reputation was not always good, 68 we cannot rule out the possibility that he might have had access to a manuscript with several speeches of Alcidamas. 69 (iii) As far as Gorgias is concerned, a notice reported by Fabricius deserves mention: according to Konstantinos Laskaris, a Florentine manuscript would have contained three of Gorgias speeches. 70 In the present state of our evidence, the item seems to have got lost; nevertheless, it reinforces the suspicion that the amount of selected texts that have come down to us might even be more substantial than one could guess. We can now examine two theoretical models for reconstructing the Hyperides manuscript from which the Archimedes folios ultimately derive: (a) a manuscript carrying a substantial corpus of speeches (such as those of Demosthenes, Lysias, or Isocrates) with other items as tailpieces; 71 (b) the anthological model: a choice of Hyperides speeches inserted into a rhetorical anthology circulating in the Byzantine age, like those containing Antiphon and other orators. On the one hand, we could even surmise the existence of a manuscript with Hyperides as magna pars; analogously, we should thus be entitled to argue for the circulation of similar manuscripts containing as many speeches of Dinarchus (or Lycurgus) as Hyperides. The evidence, however, makes scenario (a) very doubtful, as I shall try to demonstrate in what follows.

67

J. Tzetzes, Chiliades (11, 750-51 Leone), / .

68 Leaving aside some much-controversial cases about Tzetzes reliability (as his claim to have known 52 Euripidean plays, on which see however E. Magnelli, Un nuovo indizio (e alcune precisazioni) sui drammi alfabetici di Euripide a Bisanzio tra XI e XII secolo, Prometheus 29 (2003) 193-212 [at 194-95]), there are in general good reasons to re-evaluate Tzetzes as a trustworthy scholar: cf. M. J. Luzzatto, Tzetzes lettore di Tucidide (Bari 1999). 69 70

Avezz, Lisia, Contro Eratostene (n. 42, above) 23-24.

J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, sive Notitia scriptorum veterum graecorum, quorumcumque monumenta integra, aut fragmenta edita extant: tum plerorumque e mss. ac deperditis, 1-12 (Hamburgi 1707-1728, reprint Hildesheim 1966-1970) II.806, Gorgiae orationes tres legisse se Florentinae in Bibliothecae S. Marci...testatur K. Lascaris. This missed item is not reported in J. Stolpe, Les manuscrits de Gorgias, Eranos 68 (1970) 55-60. I hope to investigate the issue in a separate paper. P. Easterling, Fata libellorum: Hyperides and the transmission of Attic oratory (n. 2 above) 14-15. For the sake of this argument it it interesting to quote what Gregorios of Cyprus wrote to the protovestiarissa Theodora Rhaoulaina, the daughter of John Kantakouzenos and Eirene Palaiologina (about 1242-1300: see M. L. Agati, Una dotta copista e bibliofila: Teodora Raulena, in La civilt bizantina. Donne, uomini, cultura e societ. Enciclopedia di Tematica Aperta [Jaca Book, Marzorati, Milano 2001] 390-94): , o (edition in S. Kugas, Zur Geschichte der Mnchener Thukydideshandschrift Augustanus F, BZ 16 [1907] 592-603 [at 598]).71

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

245

The survival of a text is closely related to the need for it at different educational levels and for the Byzantine imitation of language and style. The Byzantines believed in a cultural continuity between past and present. They faced the past with an imitative attitude. 72 Among the orators, the best-acclaimed models were Demosthenes and Isocrates. In various passages Michael Psellus recommended a set of authors as models: he mostly quotes Demosthenes or Isocrates, sometimes Lysias, Antiphon and Isaeus; 73 in the essay he recalls Lysias, Demosthenes, and Isocrates as models of style; 74 in the essay on Gregorius style he quotes Isocrates and Demosthenes, but also Polemon, Herodes Atticus, and Lollianus among the new orators of the Second Sophistic. 75 The balance of evidence seems to match the manuscript tradition: apart from Demosthenes, 76 Isocrates, and the Lysian corpus, we find only a few references to other orators, which have come down to us through an anthological selection. It seems likely that the available copies of Demosthenes or Isocrates were closely related to their demand and usefulness for students and well-accomplished readers. Of course, we cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that manuscripts containing a substantial selection of Hyperides speeches were still available in Byzantium, as the result of a fortuitous discovery of a late antique manuscript. Nevertheless, I find it more attractive, to hypothesize a minuscule model containing selected orators, including Hyperides (scenario b). Thus, Hyperides might have got lost by chance. The manuscript from which our 5 ff. derives might be linked with the model from which Burney 95, Bodl. Auct. T.2.8 and Ambros. gr. 230 ultimately derive. The content of these manuscripts is the upshot of a process of selection taken up at multifarious levels. We cannot be sure that Michael Klostomalles copied in Burney 95 all the speeches available in his model; a speech of Alcidamas is lacking. We can suppose either that it was entirely due to a conscious omission or that the speech was already missed in the antigraphon. I would highlight a point of detail in the mise en page of Burney 95, which has escaped scholarly attention until now: 77 at ff. 1-76v, ll. 1-3 (Andocides 1-4, Isaeus 1-11) Klostomalles used a 34-39-line format with a reduced interlinear space. Afterwards, f. 76v is blank: the following set of texts (Dinarchus, Antiphon, etc.) starts at f. 77r; then, the layout shifts between 30-32 lines and the handwriting is larger than in the previous ff.

72 This issue is now investigated by A. Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: the transformations of Greek identity and the reception of the classical tradition (Cambridge 2007). 73

Psellos, Theologica 68 (pp. 52-53 Gautier) , [...].

M. Psellos, On the style of some texts (cf. J. F. Boissonade, De operatione daemonum [Norimbergae 1838] 50): , ... . See Psellos, On the style of Gregorios the Theologian (edition in Meyer, Psellos Rede [n. 55, above] 48): ... . For this treatise see also Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (n. 43, above) 169-72.76 On the reception of Demosthenes in the Byzantine world see now L. Pernot, LOmbre du tigre. Recherches sur la rception de Dmosthne (Napoli 2006). 77 75

74

These observations rest on a personal inspection of Burney 95 (July 2009).

246

BICS-52 2009

Why did Klostomalles leave unwritten f. 76v? And why did he change the layout? Perhaps because, as I suspect, he was copying from two different models at least; if so, could the second model have been a manuscript with a 32-line format which Klostomalles aimed to respect? Therefore, if we cannot take for granted that Klostomalles copied his model (or models) in its (or their) entirety, we are entitled to surmise that he could even have omitted a set of texts of some authors such as Hyperides. Let us compare the habit of the scribe of Ambros. gr. 230: he arranged a rhetorical miscellany with authors of the Second Sophistic (Aelius Aristides, Polemon) and a reduced selection of Attic orators (2 speeches by Andocides and Isaeus); the latter were drawn from the same model used by Klostomalles.78 2. What do these folios tell us about Hyperides circulation at Byzantium? Transliteration and copying activity do not mean circulation and intensive reading of Hyperides. On the one hand, we have the minuscule folios in the palimpsest; on the other, evidence for a direct reading of Hyperides during the Byzantine age is disappointing. We have already stressed how Hyperides was not recorded among the models of style at Byzantium. Leaving aside quotations in grammatical and lexicographical works, Byzantine writers such as Arethas, Psellos, Johannes Tzetzes, or Eustathius seem unaware of Hyperides. 79 What does this mean? During the ninth-century Byzantine Renaissance we find some scholars and intellectual readers looking for old and rare texts. Some of them seem to have been rescued and transliterated. However, some of these copies were left unproductive for a long time: here I can briefly refer to only three famous cases. (a) Some manuscripts of the so-called philosophical collection (otherwise referred to as Allens scriptorium), a particular set of items carrying mainly Neoplatonical commentaries: in two mss. of the group, Marc. gr. 196 and 246 we find Olympiodorus commentary on Gorgias, Alcibiades I and Phaedo by Plato, together with Damascius commentary on Parmenides and Simplicius commentary on Aristotles Physics (5-8). We would like to know more about the scholar collecting these texts: at any rate, their arrangement seems to be related to well-educated intellectual circles. 80 What is striking is the fact that these texts copied during the ninth century seem to have gone into hibernation for some centuries: in the present state of our evidence, we have no direct copies until the fourteenth century.

78

Incidentally, I note how the selection produced by the scribe of Ambros. gr. 230, who used the same model as Klostomalles, is restricted to Andocides and Isaeus. If I am right in suggesting at least two different models employed by Klostomalles, the one shared by the two scribes might have contained a harsh selection of Attic orators, or even only Andocides and Isaeus assembled with texts of other genres. After the third-fourth century AD, only two quotations from late antique commentators of Hermogenes might derive from a direct reading of Hyperides, as I shall argue in another paper still in progress.

79

On the 17 manuscripts of the philosophical collection, after the seminal paper by L. Perria, Scrittura e ornamentazione nei codici della collezione filosofica, RSBN 28 (1991) 45-111, see now G. Cavallo, Qualche riflessione sulla collezione filosofica, in The libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network Late antiquity and Arabic thought: patterns in the constitution of European culture, Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 (Philosophia antiqua 107), ed. C. DAncona Costa (LeidenBoston 2007) 155-65; Ronconi, I manoscritti greci miscellanei (n. 59, above) 33-75.

80

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

247

Neither can we find traces of intensive reading of these commentaries by ninth- and tenthcentury Byzantine writers. Interest in Neoplatonical texts (transliterated among many others between the ninth and the eleventh centuries) revived only during the eleventh century; 81 they seem to have been out of fashion for a long time. 82 According to Leo Westerink these manuscripts migrated to the West very quickly, 83 or were soon laid aside somewhere in institutional libraries until they re-surfaced some centuries later. 84 (b) One of the most ancient copies of Demosthenes is Paris. gr. 2394 (ninth-tenth century): there is no scholarly consensus about its origin: some have suggested South Italy, others the metropolitan area. Its handwriting shows strong similarities with the socalled Anastasius-Type, which flourished in the Greek-Italy area and around the capital. 85 During the Nicaean age, Paris. gr. 2394 was housed in a monastery, which can

Thus L. Westerink, Das Rtsel des untergrndigen Neuplatonismus, in Philophronema. Festschrift fr Martin Sicherl zur 75. Geburtstag, Von Textkritik bis Humanismusforschung, ed. D. Harlfinger (PaderbornMnchen-Wien-Zrich 1990) 105-23 (at 105-09). As for Proclus, the textual transmission was even more complex, because he was left neglected for his strong anti-Christian position until the thirteenth century: see M. Cacouros, Deux pisodes inconnus dans le rception de Proclus Byzance aux XIIIe XIVe sicles: la philosophie de Proclus rintroduite Byzance grce lHypotypsis. Nophytos Prodomnos et Kntostphanos (?) lecteurs de Proclus (avant Argyropoulos) dans le xnon du Kralj, in Proclus et la thologie platonicienne. Actes du Colloque de Louvain (1998) en lhonneur de H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink, ed. A.-Ph. Segonds and C. Steel (Leuven-Paris 2000) 589-627. See Westerink, Das Rtsel des untergrndigen Neuplatonismus (n. 81, above) 123. One can compare the fate of Plato: Arethas in the tenth century copied, read and noticed his Dialogues (in Oxon. Bodl. Clark. 39). Later on, no Byzantine scholar wrote commentaries on him until Psellus; for some time the Dialogues seem to have been out of fashion. A new stimulating attitude towards the classical inheritance seems to have been developed only in the eleventh century onwards, especially with Psellus: see J. Duffy, Hellenic philosophy in Byzantium and the lonely mission of Michael Psellos, in Byzantine philosophy and its ancient sources, ed. K. Ierodiakonou (Oxford 2002) 139-56 (at 154), His minor philosophical treatises show an intimate familiarity with several commentators including Philoponus and Olympiodorus Psellus picks up from where the Alexandrians left off in the seventh century. The importance of Psellus as teacher and tutor of higher education during the eleventh century is stressed by E. V. Maltese, Michele Psello commentatore di Gregorio di Nazianzo: note per una lettura dei theologica, in Syndesmos. Studi in onore di Rosario Anastasi, II (Catania 1994) 289-309 (at 297-99).83 In the Salentine area, as suggested by the appearance of some Latin notes added by the thirteenth-century abbot of Casole, Nicholas-Nectarius: see M. Rashed, Nicolas dOtrante, Guillaume de Moerbeke et la Collection philosophique, Studi Medievali 43 (2002) 693-717; on Nicholas-Nectarius see also G. De Gregorio, Tardo medioevo greco-latino: manoscritti bilingui dOriente e dOccidente, in Libri, documenti, epigrafi medievali: possibilit di studi comparativi. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio dellAssociazione italiana dei paleografi e diplomatisti, Bari (2-5 ottobre 2000), ed. F. Magistrale, C. Drago, and P. Fioretti (Spoleto 2002) 17-135 (at 94-104); A. Jacob, Autour de Nicholas-Nectaire de Casole, in Vaticana et medievalia: tudes en lhonneur de Louis Duval-Arnould, ed. J.-M. Martin, B. Martin-Hisard, and A. Paravicini Bagliani (Firenze 2008) 231-51. 84 85 82 81

L. Westerink, The Greek commentaries on Plato's Phaedo (Amsterdam 1976-77) 31-32.

Cf. L. Perria, La minuscola tipo Anastasio, in Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio, Atti del Seminario di Erice (18-25 settembre 1988), ed. G. Cavallo, G. De Gregorio, and M. Maniaci (Spoleto 1992) 271-318; and, ead., A proposito del codice S di Demostene, RCCM 34 (1994) 235-57 (focused on Paris. gr. 2394). Perria argued for a Constantinopolitan origin of this type of writing and of this manuscript itself; nevertheless, her view was strongly disputed by other scholars supporting an Italo-Greek origin: see M. Re and E. Gamillscheg, Ein Handschriftenfragment (saec. IX/X) im tipo Anastasio aus Sizilien, Codices Manuscripti 37/38 (2001) 7-9; and more recently I. Hutter, La dcoration et la mise en page des manuscrits grecs de lItalie mridionale. Quelques observations, in Histoire et culture dans lItalie Byzantine. Acquis et nouvelles

248

BICS-52 2009

be located in Asia Minor (near Sosandras) and there it remained out of use until the end of the thirteenth century, when a copy if it was made (it is now Laur. C.S. 136). 86 (c) Burney 95 was donated by Johannes Cantacuzenus to the Vatopedi Library around 1335; 87 it was left unproductive, until Janus Laskaris commissioned a copy at the end of the fifteenth century (it is now Laur. pl. 4.11). 88 These cases strongly illustrate how books produced at Constantinople or nearby appeared later in provincial monasteries as a result of legacies or donations. In the same way, we could surmise that a manuscript with a selection of Hyperides might have been carried away from Constantinople and stored elsewhere, perhaps in a monastery library in the Palestine area, where it was later reused. 89 3. What was the arrangement of the surviving speeches of Hyperides in the Archimedes palimpsest? Up to now there has been no satisfactory answer to this question. The two fragmentary speeches found in the palimpsest belong to two different types of action. Thus, they might have been singled out as models for different types of prosecution. The Against Timandros is a prosecution against a guardian. The Against Diondas is Hyperides defence on a charge of illegal legislation (graphe paranomon) brought by Diondas. This indictment was presented against the support given by Hyperides to the proposal of a crown to Demosthenes. It is telling to observe how this speech is closely connected in some points with Demosthenes defence of Ctesiphon against Aeschines. In their studies on the transmission of the orators and the criteria for selecting the speeches, Kenneth Dover and Luciano Canfora have paid attention to the thematic connections between speeches of different orators, 90 some of which I tabulate in table 3:

recherches, ed. A. Jacob, J.- M. Martin, and G. Noy (Rome 2006) 69-93 (at 73-83), for an updated survey of this issue and references to the previous bibliography.86

The exact venue of this monastery has not yet been clarified: see H. Ahrweiler, Lhistoire et la gographie de la rgion de Smyrne entre les deux occupations turques (1081-1317), particulirement au xiiie sicle, Travaux et Mmoires 1 (1969) 1-178 (at 89-91, 94-96). Cf. Lamberz, Das Geschenk des Kaisers Manuel II. an das Kloster Saint-Denis und der Metochitesschreiber Michael Klostomalles (n. 48, above).

87

See K. K. Mller, Neue Mittheilungen ber J. Laskaris und die Mediceische Bibliothek, Zentralblatt fr Bibliothekswesen 1 (1884) 333-412; G. Avezz, : per lidentificazione di Andronico Callisto copista. Con alcune notizie su Giano Lascaris e la biblioteca di Giorgio Valla, Atti e Memorie dellAccademia Patavina, Scienze Lettere e Arti 102 (1989-1990) 75-93 (discussion of selected points, not directly related to this item). For Laskaris first trip to Greece (July 1490, but the visit to Athos during this journey is disputed) and the second one (Athos, after December 1491 when he met Meemet II at Constantinople) see J. Speake, J. Laskaris visit to Mt. Athos in 1491,GRBS 34 (1993) 325-30 (at 327); D. Speranzi, Per la storia della libreria medicea privata. Il Laur. Plut. 58, 2, Giano Laskaris e Giovanni Mosco, Medioevo e Rinascimento n.s. 18 (2007) 181-215 (in particular see pp. 203-06 on the Laur. pl. 4.11). For the history of the arrival of Burney 95 in the West Wyse, The speeches of Isaeus (n. 58, above) viii-xii is still valuable.89 A similar case study is the newly discovered Thucydides codex, one of the few manuscripts of classical authors kept in the Athos monastery libraries (see E. K. Litsas, Palaeographical researches in the Lavra Library on Mount Athos, Hellenika 50 [2000] 217-30). 90 See Dover, Lysias and the corpus Lysiacum (n. 56, above) 10-11; L. Canfora, Le collezioni superstiti, in Lo spazio Letterario della Grecia Antica, vol. II. La ricezione e lattualizzazione del testo, ed. G. Cambiano,

88

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

249

Table 3 - The thematic connectionsOrators Lysias 6 (Against Andocides) Andocides 1 (On the Mysteries) [Andocides] 4 (Against Alcibiades) [Lysias] 14-15 (Against Alcibiades) Isocrates 16 (On the chariot) Demosthenes 18 (On the Crown) Aeschines 3 (Against Ctesiphon, 330/29 BCE) Hyperides, Against Diondas (334/33 BCE) Demosthenes 19 (On the false Embassy) Aeschines 2 (On the false Embassy) Subject same trial c Alcibiades

crown for Demosthenes

Embassy trial

Some speeches in the Lysian corpus were probably selected because they were thematically connected with extant speeches of other authors. Again, it is worth observing how Aeschines 1-3 are sometimes included in the same manuscripts containing Demosthenes 18-19. The Against Diondas involves the Crown trial on Hyperides (and Demomeles) proposal (early August 338), 91 , the same subject as Demosthenes 18 and Aeschines 3 (even if these latter were based upon the proposal of Ctesiphon). As hypothetical as it may be, we are tempted to surmise that the survival of the Against Diondas is closely related to this Demosthenic connection. Thus, there could be a manuscript containing a set of texts involving the same matter, namely Demosthenes 18-19, Aeschines 1-3, and Hyperides, Against Diondas. 4. Is there a relationship between the new find and Photius highly controversial account of Hyperides? Let me report what we find in Bibliotheca 266: I have read several of Hyperides speeches. 52 are believed to be genuine, 25 are doubtful. The total amount is 77. 92 How can we evaluate this controversial statement? Chapters 259-68 of the Bibliotheca deal with the Ten Attic Orators and derive from a valuable ancient source, now lost, which was used by the Ps.-Plut. Vitae decem oratorum, as one can easily see by comparing the two texts: in fact the chapter devoted to Hyperides is nothing but a biography including the number of 77 speeches ascribed to him and circulating during antiquity. What is more dazzling is the incipit: . 93 The new find in the palimpsest might support this claim. To my mind,

L. Canfora, and D. Lanza (Roma 1995) 95-250 (at 183-84); and now S. C. Todd, A commentary on Lysias, speeches 1-11 (Oxford 2007) 22-25.91 92

On this dating see Horvth, Dating Hyperides Against Diondas (n. 2, above).

Bibl. 266 (495b, 2-5 Henry): . , .93 Cf. e.g. W. T. Treadgold, The nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius (Washington D.C. 1980) 48-51, 160-62. A. Nogara, Note sulla composizione e la struttura della Biblioteca di Fozio, Patriarca di Costantinopoli, I, Aevum 49 (1975) 213-42, is a full study on this topic.

250

BICS-52 2009

there is no way to demonstrate a convincing connection between Photius and the new Hyperides. Let me summarize what we know about Photius Bibliotheca: 1. This work is a collection of : they are excerpta and personal remarks on 386 works ranging from Herodotus up to some writers of Photius age. 2. It is likely to be the result of individual or collective readings made by Photius and his friends over time, before and during his ecclesiastic career. 94 3. For many authors (87) and texts (61 titles) Photius is the only extant source. 4. Which was the library used by Photius? Some scholars have assumed that he had the Imperial library at his disposal; but I find it more conceivable that he may have had access to some manuscripts kept in various libraries, not in Constantinople alone. 95 Nicetas David Paphlagon, in his biography of Photius opponent, the patriarch Ignatius, claimed that the books flowed to him (sc. Photius) like a river from everywhere. 96 5. Since these books were read by Photius and his reading club, 97 his remarks are not of great value as far as book circulation is concerned. We are dealing with private storage and reading. After Photius we find no more traces of some of these texts. The Patriarch is likely to have read rarities from Constantinople or elsewhere, which could even have been kept in monastery libraries. 6. A crucial passage in this story is Photius first exile from Constantinople after his deposition (in 867 he was ejected from the Patriarchal chair and banished into exile near the Bosphorus); the books were taken away from him. He spoke about this setback in his quaestio ad Amphilochium 148: he complains that he is forced to work with his alone. 98 Again, in his letter 98 he beseeches the Emperor to give the books back. 99

Despite opposing views see K. Alpers, Klassische Philologie in Byzanz (review of N. G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium), CPh 83 (1988) 342-60 (at 357) it seems to me conceivable that the making of the Bibliotheca had been a life-work and that some substantial additions were inserted during the second patriarchate (877-886; cf. F. Halkin, La date de composition de la Bibliothque de Photius remise en question, AB 81 [1963] 414-17): see Bibl. 252 (Life of Gregory the Great) which could only have been written after 876, because it was based upon Johannis Immonides Vita Gregorii I papae (BHL 3641-3642; text in PL 75, 59-242), which was completed in 876 (cf. V. Maraglino, Reconsidering the date of Photius Bibliotheca: the biographical tradition of Gregory the Great in chapter 252, Anc. Soc. 37 [2007] 265-78). Other clues pointing towards a late dating are stressed in C. Mango, The availability of books in the Byzantine Empire, AD 750-850, in Byzantine books and bookmen. A Dumbarton Oaks colloquium (Washington DC 1975) 29-45 (at 37-43), and A. Markopoulos, New evidence on the date of Photios Bibliotheca, in History and literature of Byzantium in the 9th-10th centuries (Aldershot 2004) 1-18. On this issue see also L. Canfora, Le cercle des lecteurs autour de Photius: une source contemporaine, REB 56 (1998) 269-73 ; and id. Il rogo dei libri di Fozio, in Fozio. Tra crisi ecclesiale e magistero letterario. Atti del Seminario, Rovereto 29 marzo 1999, ed. G. Menestrina (Brescia 2000) 17-28.95 96 94

Canfora, Le collezioni superstiti (n. 90, above) 64 n. 77.

Nicetas Paphlagon, Vita Sancti Ignatii Constantinopolitani Archiepiscopi (PG 105, 509B): . On this point see Canfora, Le cercle des lecteurs autour de Photius: une source contemporaine (n. 94, above).98 Photius, Amphilochia 148 (p. 166 Westerink): , ... , . 97

GIUSEPPE UCCIARDELLO: PALAEOGRAPHY AND TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION

251

This sudden removal could perhaps explain the ultimate loss of several rare texts which Photius claimed to have read, 100 among which we can also insert Hyperides. Of course, we cannot dismiss the alternative possibility that Photius did not really own all the books which he wrote about in the Bibliotheca: he might only have checked or read some books kept in monasteries or private libraries, 101 which were no longer available to him when he jotted his schedaria down. Chapters 259-68 are in fact biographies of the ten orators; 102 no excerpta or summaries of any speeches are quoted. We might argue that Photius wrote this section when the originals were no longer at his disposal, thus being unable to transcribe more or less substantial excerpta from the speeches. It would be tempting to connect Photius manuscript with the direct ancestor of the new Hyperides. As fascinating as it may be, I find this view not well-founded. In fact, we have no idea about the Hyperides manuscript used by Photius. As regards Andocides and Aeschines, Photius himself quotes 4 and 3 speeches respectively; thus he claims to have read as many speeches as those circulating later on. When he turns to discuss Antiphon, Lysias, Isaeus, Hyperides, and Dinarchus, he makes use of the following utterance: (-)... . What does mean? 103 What is striking is that these authors are exactly the same as those suffering harsh selection since antiquity. Again, leaving aside Lysias, the other orators are likely to have been circulating only in a rhetorical anthology. As a matter of fact, Photius may well have read Hyperides in a miscellaneous anthology or he might even have had access to a late antique copy containing more speeches than those in fact circulating in a later rhetorical miscellany. For the time being, I think it is safer to regard Photius account as a unique witness which should not be linked with the debated issue on the real circulation of Hyperides at Byzantium. 4 Some final remarks Summing up: (i) We might argue for the making of a minuscule manuscript containing Hyperides speeches between the tenth and the eleventh centuries in the metropolitan area. (ii) Leaving aside Demosthenes, Isocrates, and the Lysian corpus, our evidence about the survival of the Attic orators is strongly limited. We have only few manuscripts from which more recent copies derived.

Photius, Epistula 98 (I p. 133 Laourdas-Westerink): , ; ;... ; , , , , ;100 101 102 103 99

Canfora, Le collezioni superstiti (n. 90, above) 47ff. See G. Cortassa, I libri di Fozio: il denaro e la gloria, Medioevo Greco 6 (2006) 105-21 (at 110). On this list see R. M. Smith, A new look at the canon of the ten Attic orators, Mnemosyne 48 (1995) 66-79.

According to Claudio Bevegni, si ricava limpressione che indichi un numero, per cos dire, medio o medio-alto di orazioni rispetto al totale (rev. of Schamp, Les vies des dix orateurs attiques [n. 62, above] 241).

252

BICS-52 2009

(iii) Transliteration and copying activity do not imply broad circulation and intensive reading. As far as I know, Hyperides and other Attic orators like Dinarchus or Lycurgus left no traces in Byzantine literature. 104 (iv) Like Lycurgus or Dinarchus, it is likely that a corpus of Hyperides (at least two speeches) was copied between the tenth and eleventh centuries within an oratory or rhetorical collection. (v) The presence or the absence of these authors in different manuscripts is the outcome of a more or less conscious process of selection. The selection may even have happened by chance. Lycurgus, who remained unknown to Photius, was copied in Burney 95 and Bodl. Auct. T.2.8 (only one speech); in Ambros. gr. 230 the scribe copied only a selection of Isaeus and Andocides from the same model as Burney 95. (vi) Likewise, Hyperides was copied in an eleventh-century manuscript; this item might have been unproductive from a philological point of view, because it moved soon to a Palestinian monastery, where it was later re-used for the palimpsest. (vii) Photius might have read a manuscript with selected speeches of Hyperides, but we cannot take it for granted that this item was an ancestor of our manuscript: we are unaware of the origin of Photius manuscript, and besides, we have no means of knowing the ultimate fate of many of his books. (viii) Therefore, I do not think that Hyperides was a well-circulated author in Byzantium during the Middle Ages; he survived to a somewhat limited extent, perhaps in a rhetorical anthology. 105 Agathias in the sixth century wrote that Blessed are they whose memory is enshrined in wise volumes and not in empty images (transl. by W. R. Paton). 106 Among the Blessed we can now also insert Hyperides: the manuscript of the Against Diondas and Against Timandros was both a grave and a chest, where he remained unnoticed until its recent and unpredictable resurrection. Dipartimento di Scienze dellAntichit, Universit di Messina

104

The view endorsed by L. Canfora (Le collezioni superstiti [n. 90, above] 169-70; and id. Dispersione e conservazione della letteratura greca, in I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, societ, ed. S. Settis, 3. I Greci oltre la Grecia [Torino 2001] 1073-1106 [at 1099-1100]) and C. R. Cooper (Dinarchus, Hyperides and Lycurgus, transl. I. Worthington, C. R. Cooper, and E. M. Harris [Austin 2001] 67) about the knowledge of Hyperides Deliakos by Maximos Planudes (cf. Rh. Gr. 5.481 Walz) is hardly tenable: I find it more conceivable that the monk relied on selected passages from this speech he came across through Syrianus commentary on Hermogenes.

If we rely on the Hungarian data about the survival of Hyperides until the sixteenth century (cf. what Brassicanus reports in the Introductory letter to his edition of Salvianus de gubernatione Dei: et oculata fide vidimus integrum Hyperidem cum locupletissimis scholiis, librum multis etiam censibus redimendum), we can image a manuscript containing a rhetorical anthology with a selection of Hyperides speeches in the first folios; what does not strike me as entirely convincing is the alleged presence of an overwhelming bulk of scholia (cum locupletissimis scholiis), which clashes with the absence of traces left by Hyperides at Byzantium. On these Hungarian data see Horvth, The Hyperides Corvinian codex (n. 3, above).106

105

AP 4.4.9-10: , / .