The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Josai International University Vol. 26, March 2023, 89－103〈Research Note〉

Some Philological Notes on Plato’s Medieval Manuscripts
Akitsugu Taki

Abstract(1) In the transmission of the Platonic First Alcibiades, (1.1) the textual interrelations of themanuscripts descendant from Vindobonensis suppl. gr. 7 (W) are, I conjecture from my collation, alinear descendancy from W through Lobcovicianus (L) to Vaticanus gr. 1029 (R) and further throughthe Vatican to Vaticanus gr. 228 (o); (1.2) Ambrosianus gr. I 93 is a copy of Laurentianus Plut. 85.12. (2)In the textual transmission of Plato's Menexenus, the three uncollated texts, Angelicus gr. 7, Rossianus
gr. 558, and Dunelmensis Cathedral Library C IV 2, are, I conjecture from my collation, all descendantfrom Venetus append. class. IV 1 (T) but via Parisinus gr. 1808, specifically, (2.1) the first, a copy of
the Parisian, (2.2) the second, a copy of Laurentianus Plut. 59.1 (a), and (2.3) the third, a copy of ahypothetical ancestor common to Escorialensis Y. 1. 13 (Sc). (3) Of the reading at the Sophista, 232b2:ἀναλάβωμεν πρῶτον τῶν περὶ τὸν σοφιστὴν εἰρημένων, agreed on in its primary sources,
some recent editors by inserting an indefinite pronoun neuter singular accusative τι have emended thepartitive genitive plural on the authority of the correction by the scribe's hand in a secondary source
Parisinus gr. 1808, but the difference in ink there suggests that it was another hand's, i.e., a sign of somelater corrector's conjecture from a non-primary source.
4

4

44

Key words: Plato, The First Alcibiades, Menexenus, Sophist, Textual Criticism
4

1. Hypotheses of the Textual Interrelations in the Direct Transmission of the Platonic First

Alcibiades
1.1 Codex Vindobonensis suppl. gr. 7 (W) and Its Descendants
Carlini admitted that the 14th century codex in the Lobcowiczs' collection, Prague, MS Roudnicky
VI. F. A. 1 or Lobcovicianus (L) and the 14th century codex, Vaticanus gr. 1029 (R) are derived from W
but leaves its interrelation moot (Carlini (1964: 28)); he also proposed that another 14th century codex,
Vaticanus gr. 228 (o) is a copy of R (ibid., 29).
However, with further evidence on the relevant variants I propose that L is a direct copy of W and that
R and o are both derived from L but from its hypothetical descendant.
－ 89 －

1.1.1 W and L
The passage the scribe of L omits at 132c7-8 is equal to a whole line of W.
132c7-8 τιν'οὖν ἂν τρόπον γνοῖμεν αὐτὸ ἐναργέστατα; ἐπειδὴ τοῦτο W Lpc(i.m. eademmanu eodem atramento scrips.) o R: om. Lac(lineam 21, fol. 325v, 48 litterarum codicis W om.)
As the variants at 132c8 suggest (132c8 γνοῖμεν Wpc(altera manu H expunxit): γνοίημεν Wac
Lpc(i.m.) o R),1 the marginal supplement in L at 132c7-8 would not differ from the text of W the scribeof L would have copied. Also, as W's omission of 69 letters at 109c1 suggests (δεινὸν ... πολεμεῖν
Wpc(eadem manu et eodem atramento extra lineam supplev.) L o R: [δει]νὸν ... πολε[μεῖν]om. Wac), the length of the omission in L at 132c7-8 would not be equal to a whole or half line of W's
supposed exemplar.
Therefore it is highly probable that L is a direct copy of W.
1.1.2 L, o and R
L, o and R have commonly against W some such hardly suppliable omissions as follows.
104e7 νυνδὴ : νῦν δὴ W : νῦν L o R
113b1 ἦ: ἦν: ἢ W: om. L o R
122a4 μηδ’: μὴ δ’ W: μὴ δὲ opc(altera manu s.l. δὲ): μὴ L oac R
L, o and R commonly have some other errors against W.
106e8 δέ γε οὔτε: δὲ οὔτε γε W: δὲ οὔτε με L o R
120c4 στρατηγοὺς W: ἀρχηγοὺς L(ligatura στ in W sicut α visa) o R
Also W has some errors in accent and orthography against L, o and R.
109e1 οἴει L o R: οἴηι W
109e6 οἴει W(i.m.) L o R: οἴη W
131c1 πορρωτέρω L o R: πορρωτέρωι W
106e1 ἃ ἄρα: ἆρ’ ἃ L o R ἄρ’ ἃ W
111d8 ἆρ’: ἆρα L o R: ἄρα W
However, W has none such irreparable omission or transposition against L, o or R. All the errors
above and below proper to W can be explained on the hypothesis that the scribe of L would have,although sometimes with his or her own error, copied and sometimes altered the text of W.
108d10 καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ εἰρήνην ἄγειν, τοῦτο τὸ βέλτιον W Lpc(altera manu i.m.) o R: om. Lac(homoeoteleuti βέλτιον causa 36 litteras om.)
115b9 τε καὶ Wpc(s.l. τε) Lpc(eadem manu s.l. τ) o R: γε καὶ Wac Lac
120c1 παρεσκευασμένον L o R: παρασκευασμένον W
120c4 τὸν Wpc(s.l. ο) Lpc(s.l. ο) o R: τῶν Wac Lac
121e5 ἐξειλεγμένοι L o R: ἐξειλειγμένοι W－ 90 －

128b11 ποιεῖ W Lpc(ν eraso) o R: ποιεῖν Lac
133e9 πολιτικός Lpc(ι in ε et τ in μ inpositis) o R: πολεμικός W Lac
Then o and R have commonly against W and L some such irreparable omissions and transpositions asabove mentioned but not vice versa.
105b6 ἐν pr. om. o R
105b6 τοῖς om. o R
105e7 ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ post θεὸς transpos. o R
116b3 οὐχὶ καὶ εὖ πράττει W L Rpc mg(altera manu): om. o Rac(causa homoeoteleuti deπράττει)127a4 γε ἴσως αὖ scrips. W L: om. o R
Therefore o and R probably descend from L. This hypothesis is corroborated by some other errors
common to o and R against W and L.
114b1 ταὐτά: τ’ αὐτά T: ταῦτά W L ταυτά o R
116b5 εὖ W L: αὖ o R
116d6 post φαίνομαι, γε non scrips. W L et scrips. o R
119d3 πῶς W L: τί o R
However, they would descend not directly. o and R somewhere agree in correct readings against L.
106a3 εἵπου W o R εἴπου L
107a10 περὶ τίνος ο R: περί τινος W L
126c3 ἀπογίγνηται Wpc(s.l. η) o R: ἀπογίγνεται Wac L
Therefore there would be some intermediate text between L and the two, o and R.
Then, with respect to the interrelation between o and R, first, o has against W, L and R some correct
readings.
106e9 οὔτε ο: οὔτε γε W L R
127e2 αὐτὸ o: αὐτὸν W L R
Second, R has against o some such hardly suppliable omissions.
106a6 δὴ scrips. W L o Rpc(altera manu i.m. γρ. εἰ δὲ δὴ ὅτι): om. Rac
124e4 ἥνπερ scrips. W L o Rpc(eodem atramento i.m.) : om. Rac
Third, o has none of the scholia to προσεῖπον at 103a4, to δαιμόνιον at 103a5 or to ὕστερον πεύσῃat 103a6, as W, L and R do.
Hence, at 106e9 and 127e2, it is more likely that the scribe of o would alter the text in the intermediate
manuscript than it is either that the scribe of o would alter the text of R or that the scribe of R would
alter the text of o. Therefore it is more likely than otherwise that o and R are each independently derived
from a hypothetical descendant from L.

－ 91 －

1.2 Codex Ambrosianus graecus I 93 (Amb)
The text in the 14th century codex, Laurentianus Plut. 85.12 (d), is derived from that in the 14th
century codex, Coislianus 155 (Γ), a descendant from Venetus append. class. IV 1 (T), not Parisinus gr.
1808 (Pa08). The text in the 15th century codex, Ambrosianus graecus I 93 (Amb) was copied from theLaurentian text.
Carlini proposed the same conclusion but with no specific evidence except the Ambrosian's omission
at 120a2-3 (Carlini (1964: 31)). Because of its incongruity to the corresponding single line in d, hedoubted that Amb was a direct copy of d (ibid.).
Amb is not derived from the B group (β) , P, or the W group (ω).
103a6 νῦν δὲ β: νῦν δ’ T Γ d Amb
104c1 μέγα φρονεῖν β: μεγαλοφρονεῖν T Γ d Amb
104e7 καὶ T Γ d Amb: τε καὶ β105e5 μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ β P ω: μετὰ θεοῦ T Γ d Amb
Amb has more than one error common to Γ and d against T.
104b2 καὶ om. Γ d Amb
104d2 τίνα] τίν’ Γ d Amb
Amb has more than one error common to d against Γ.
103a1 ὦ om. d Amb
104d7 τί] τε Γac ἅ Γpc(ἅ s.l. add.) d Amb
104d7 εἰδέναι nosse desideras, vertit Ficinus: εἰδέναι καὶ ἀκοῦσαι d Amb: εἰδέναι ἀκοῦσαι T Γ
104e7 νυνδὴ T: νῦν δὴ Γ: νῦν d Amb
105c7 καὶ om. Γ d Amb
Cf. 105b2 οὖν d Amb: δὲ T Γ
Amb has more than one peculiar error.
103b1 οὐκέτι] οὐκ Amb
104c1 πλουσίων] πλούσιον Amb
104d3 τῶι T τῶ Γ d : τε Amb (omega in d pro epsilon habuisset)

2. H
 ypotheses of the Textual Interrelations of Codices Angelicus gr. 7, Rossianus gr. 558 andDunelmensis Cathedral Library C IV in the Direct Transmission of Plato's Menexenus
2.1 Angelicus gr. 7, saec. XIV (Ang)Ang is conjectured to be, among the group derived from T, a copy of T's direct copy, Pa08 and not of
any other copy of Pa08's. This hypothesis can be posited by the following variants:
The variants for the distinction of Pa08 from the other direct copies of T (for my sigla below, see Taki (2022)):－ 92 －

234b9 ἀνεβάλοντο Tpc(punctis supra lambda secundum notavit) Pa08 Angac V Erl M Barb
Pa09 a Sc: ἀνεβάλλοντο Tac q Γ L85.6 Angpc(altero atramento λ infra λ scrips.) s Pa12 V186 Ξ
236b7 ἡ T q Γ L85.6 Bon V186pc(altero atramento s.l. parva littera) Ξ: non scrips. Pa08 Ang V Erl
M Barb Pa09 a Sc V186ac
236e4 τοῖς δὲ ζῶσιν εὐμενῶς παραινέσεται scrips. T q Γ L85.6 Bon Pa08pc(altero atramento
altera manu i.m. supplev.) M Barb Pa09 a: τοῖς δὲ ζῶσιν εὐμενῶς παραινέσεται causa
homoeoteleuti -αινεσεται om. Pa08ac(tale sequens unae lineae quale exaratur in T om.) Ang
V Erl Sc
237d4 ἔφυε Pa08pc(eodem atramento s.l. ε scrips.) Angpc(eodem atramento s.l. ε scrips.) M(s.l. ε
scrips.) Barb Pa09 apc(altero atramento s.l. ε scrips.): ἔφυ T q Γ L85.6 Bon Pa08ac Angac V Erl aac Sc
The variants for the distinction of Ang from the other direct copies of Pa08:
Vaticanus gr. 228 (V):
235a1 λέγοντες] λέγοντος V
236b4 ἐσκεμμένη] ἐκεμμένη V
Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek 89 (Erl):
235d1 τούτων λόγοι] λόγοι τούτων Erl
235d6 καὶ om. Erl
235e1 αὐτὸς: αὐτὸν: om. Erl
236a2 δεινὸν om. Erl
236b3 τὰ om. Erl
Malatestianus Plut. XXVIII, 4 (M):234b4 μέντοι ceteri codices Mpc(altero atramento s.l. τοι scrips.): μέν Mac
236a5 (scholion ad ῥαμνουσίου) ἐξ οὗ οὗτος] ἐξ ἧς οὗτος M
238d1 χαίρηι T Pa08 χαίρη Pa09 a Sc χαίροι M
Parisinus gr. 1809 (Pa09) or a hypothetical ancestor common to Pa09 and Barberianus gr. 270 (Barb):1
239e1 μήδους T Pa08 M a Sc V186: μήδας Pa09(ους pro ας habuit) Barb
241e6 διηντλήθη T Pa08 M a Sc V186: διηντλήκει Pa09 Barb
242c7 σφαγίᾳ: σφαγίαι T Pa08ac σφαγία Sc Pa11 V186 σφακτηρίαι Pa08pc(altero atramento ακ
in αγ inposuit et τηρια s.l. scripsit) σφακτηρίᾳ a σφακτηρία Μ φακτορία Barb Pa09

－ 93 －

Laurentianus Plut. 59.1 (a):237e5 τῷ / τῶ γεννωμένῳ /γεννωμένω / γεννομένω / γεννησαμένω habent T Pa08ac M
Barb Pa09 V186 Sc F W: non habent Pa08pc(‘linea perducta’ ut videtur in sequente ωμενωι(Schanz (1885) xv)) a AmbG86 c Ross558
239d3 πρῶτον T Pa08 M Barb Pa09 V186 Sc: καὶ πρῶτον F S πρότερον a AmbG86 c Ross558
Escorialensis Y. 1. 13 (Sc):
235d5 ὅτ’ἂν / ὅταν: ὅτε Sc
236b5 συνετίθει: συνετίθη Sc
Cf. 235e6 πεποίηκε: ἐποίησε Sc V186
Cf. 235e6 καὶ ceteri codices V186pc(eodem atramento s.l.): non scrips. Sc V186ac
Venetus gr. 186 (V186):
235e8 (scholion ad ἀσπασία) φη / φή: φησὶ V186
235e8 (scholion ad ἀσπασία) ἑλένην] ἑλλῆν V186
238a1καρπὸν] καρπῶν V186
Angelicus gr. 107 (Ang):scholion ad αὐτοσχεδιάζειν ab 235c9 ad 235d2 transposuit Ang
235e8 (scholion ad ἀσπασία) παρα σωκράτει] σωκράτει Ang
235e8 (scholion ad ἀσπασία) συγγράμματι] γράμματι Ang
2.2 Rossianus gr. 558, saec. XVI (Ross558)
Ross558 is conjectured to be, among the T group, a copy of Laurentianus Plut. 59.1 (a), not theLaurentian's ascendant Pa08, or descendants, Ambrosianus G86 (AmbG86) or Laurentianus Plut. 85.9 (c).
This hypothesis can be posited by the variants at 237e5, 239d3 (see above at 2.1) and 238c5 and by thevariants for the peculiar errors of Ross558, AmbG86 and c.
238c5 αὐτὴ Pa08 M Barb Pa09 AmbG86 c Sc αὕτη a Ross558
Variants for the peculiar errors:Ross558:
234c6 παρεσκευασμένων cett.: παρασκευασμένων Bon Erl παρασκευασμένου Ross558
236b5 συνετίθει] συνετέθαι Ross558 συνετίθη Sc Pa11 Pa12 συνετέθη s
237d2 γε cett. Ross Pa3009 z: τε AmbG86 non scrips. Ross558 Mon445－ 94 －

237e6 γεννησαμένη] γενησαμένη Ross558
238a1 κριθῶν] κρυθῶν Ross558
238b5 τῆς om. Ross558
AmbG86:234a6 ἱκανῶς cett. a c Ross558: ἱκανὰ AmbG86
235c8 ὑπογύου cett. a c Ross558: ὑπογυίου AmbG86
236a5 οἷός] οἷ AmbG86
237a1 οὖν ἂν] ἂν οὖν AmbG86c:
235d6 δοκεῖν cett. a AmbG86 Sc Ross558: δοκεῖ c Pa11 s Pa12
236d6 λόγωι / λόγῳ / λόγω cett. a AmbG86 Ross558: λόγον c
One might conjecture from the variants at 234a5, 234b3, 234b9 and 236b7 that the scribe of Ross558
would have copied a different exemplar rather than made a phonetical mistake when reading the
exemplar.
234a5 ἡγεῖ T Ross558 ἡγῆι Pa08 a AmbG86 c
234b3 συμβουλεύηις T Pa08(iota adscripto) W συμβουλεύης a AmbG86 c συμβουλεύεις
Ross558
234b9 ἀνεβάλοντο T pc(punctis supra lambda secundum notavit) a AmbG86 c: ἀνεβάλλοντοT ac Ross558
236b7 ἡ T Ross558: non scrips. Pa08 a AmbG86 c
However, the variants at 237d4 and 237e1 would corroborate the initial hypothesis.
237d4 ἔφυε Pa08pc(eodem atramento s.l. ε scrips.) apc(altero atramento s.l. ε scrips.) AmbG86 c:
ἔφυ T aac Ross558
237e1 ὅτι Pa 08pc(ὅ i.t. eodem atramento scripto) a(ὅτί scripto forte ex exemplo cum
correctione) Ross558 AmbG86 c: τί T(colon inferius ante τί et altius post τί colon interpunx.)
Pa08ac2.3 Dunelmensis Cathedral Library C IV 2, saec. XV (Dnlm)
Dnlm is conjectured to be, among the T group, close to the Sc subgroup, derived via Pa08, not directlyfrom T, and a copy of a hypothetical ancestor, both common to Sc and with scholia as in Sc and Pa11.
For the membership of the subgroup via Pa08, not directly from T, see the variants at 236b7 and 236e4.
－ 95 －

236b7 ἡ T V186pc(altero atramento s.l. parva littera) Ξ: non scrips. Pa08 Ang M Barb Pa09 a Sc
Pa11 s Pa12 V186ac Dnlm
236e4 τοῖς δὲ ζῶσιν εὐμενῶς παραινέσεται habent T Pa08pc(altero atramento altera manu
i.m. supplev.) M Barb Pa09 a spc(altero atramento i.m. supplev.) Pa12pc(altera manu i.m.
supplev.) V186pc(altero atramento altera manu i.m. supplev.) Ξ: non habent Pa 08ac(causa
homoeoteleuti -αινεσεται sequens unae lineae in T exaratum om.) Ang Sc Pa11 sac Pa12ac
V186ac Dnlm
For the closeness to the Sc subgroup, see the following variants:
235e6 πεποίηκε cett.: ἐποίησε Sc Pa11 s Pa12 V186 Ξ Dnlm
235e6 καὶ cett. V186pc(eodem atramento s.l.) Ξ: non scrips. Sc Pa11 s Pa12 V186ac Dnlm
235e9 κόννον T Pa08 Scpc(altero atramneto ν s.l. scrips.) V186pc(eodem atramneto ν s.l.
scrips.) Ξpc(eodem atramneto ν s.l. scrips.): κόνον Scac Pa11 s Pa12 V186ac Ξac Dnlm
238d5 δόξασιν T Pa08 Barb Pa09 a V186pc(ζου deleto) Ξ: δοξάζουσιν Sc Pa11 s Pa12 V186ac Dnlm
239a6 οἱ Sc Pa11 s Pa12 V186 Ξ Dnlm: om. T Pa08 M Barb Pa09 a
Dnlm is for the following reasons (i)-(v) more likely than otherwise a copy of a hypothetical ancestor
common to Sc.
(i) Pa12 is one of the exemplars of V186.
(i)-(a) V186 and Ξ have common errors against the other members of the Sc group.
238a1 καρπὸν cett. V186pc(altero atramento ὸν s.l. scripto): καρπῶν V186 Ξ
239d7 αὑτοῦ post.: αὐτοῦ T Pa08 M Barb Pa09 a Sc Pa11 s Pa12 Dnlm αὐτῶ V186 Ξ(i)-(b) V186 and Ξ have a better reading against the other members of the Sc group.
239d7 αὑτοῦ pr. V186 Ξ: αὐτοῦ T Pa08 M Barb Pa09 a Sc Pa11 s Pa12 Dnlm(i)-(c) Pa12 and V186 have common errors against the other members of the Sc group.
234b9 ἀνεβάλοντο T pc(punctis supra lambda secundum notavit) Pa 08 Sc Pa 11 Dnlm:ἀνεβάλλοντο T ac s Pa12 V186 Ξ
235a4 τετελευτηκότας Sc Pa 11 s Dnlm V 186pc (τε eodem atramento s.l. scripto) Ξ:τελευτηκότας Pa12 V186ac
236a2 δεινὸν Sc Pa11 s V186pc(eodem atramento s.l. add.) Ξ Dnlm: om. Pa12 V186ac
236c3 χαλεπανεῖ T Pa08 Ang a Sc Pa11 s Dnlm: χαλεπανῆ M Barb Pa09 Pa12 V186 Ξ(ii) Pa11 and its close descendant s are derivative and independent of Pa12(ii)-(a) Pa11 and s have common errors against the other members of the Sc group.
235b5 γίγνομαι Sc Pa12 Dnlm: γίνομαι Pa11 s－ 96 －

236b6 περιλείμματ’ ἄττα Sc Pa12 V186 Ξ Dnlm: περὶ λείμματαττα Pa11 s
239c6 τοῖς ante ἄλλοις non habent T Pa08 M Barb Pa09 a Sc Pa12 V186 Ξ Dnlm: habent Pa11 s
240a1 ἐκράτει T Pa08 Μ Barb Pa09 a Sc Pa12 V186 Ξ Dnlm ἐκράτησε Pa11 s
240b4 διηρευνήσατο Pa08 Barbac Pa09 Scac Pa12 V186 Dnlm: διηρευνήσαντο Barbpc(altero
atramento ν i.t. scrips.) Scpc(altero atramento ν s.l. scrips.) Pa11 s(ii)-(b) Pa11 and s have a better reading against the other members of the Sc group except V186pc and Ξ.
239b5 ἀργείοις Pa11 s V186pc(altero atramento s.l. σ add.) Ξ: ἀργεῖοι T Pa08 Barb Pa09 a
Ross558 Sc Pa12 V186ac Dnlm
239b6 ἡρακλείδαις T ac Pa08pc(puncto infra iota notavit) Pa11 s V186pc(altero atramento α in
αι inposuit et ις addidit) Ξ: ἡρακλείδαι T pc(puncto infra σ notavit) Γ Pa08ac M Barb Pa09 a
Ross558 Sc Pa12 V186ac Dnlm
scholion ad ὁ ... υἱὸς (239e2): ὁ καμβύσης Pa11(altero atramento s.l.) s(eodem atramentos.l.): καμβύσης Sc(altera manu i.m.) V186(altera manu i.m.): τὸν καμβύσην φησί T Ξ: nonscrips. Pa08 M Pa09 a Pa12 Dnlm(ii)-(c) s has a peculiar error.
236b5 συνετίθει T Pa08 Dnlm V186: συνετίθη Sc Pa11 Pa12 συνετέθη s
239c7 τῶ scrips. sac et altera manu ν i.t. supplev. spc
240a1 μηδὲ habent T Pa08 Μ Barb Pa09 a Sc Pa11 Pa12 V186 Ξ Dnlm: non habet s(iii) Sc at the following variants has a better reading against the other members of its subgroup.
234c1 πολλαχῆι / πολλαχῆ T Pa08 Sc πολλαχοῦ Pa11 s Pa12 Dnlm
235d6 δοκεῖν Sc: δοκεῖ Pa11 s Pa12 Dnlm
236a1 ἡ T Pa08 Sc Pa12pc(altero atramento s.l. ἡ scrips.) V186pc(eodem atramento H inposuit) Ξ:ὁ Pa11 s Pa12ac V186ac Dnlm(iv) Dnlm at the following variants has peculiar errors against the other members of the Sc group.
237c5 ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπέ (236c6) ... ὡς ἐγ[ᾦμαι] (236d2) post ἀνθρώπων iteravit Dnlm (scriba
postquam exaraverat ἀνθρώπων (237c5) in fini paginae 77v falso resumpsit ab fini paginae
76v transcribens ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπέ (236c6-7) in exemplo)
237e5 τῷ / τῶ] τῶν Dnlm
237e5 γεννωμένωι / γεννωμένῳ / γεννωμένω] γεννομένω Pa12 γενομένω Dnlm
scholia in Sc non habet Dnlm(v) Among the Sc subgroup, scribes would probably have altered variants in their exemplars.
Pa11:－ 97 －

236b7 ἦ Pa11 s V186pc(altero atramento accentu refecto) Ξ Dnlm: ἢ Sc Pa12 V186ac
239a6 φύντες T Pa08 M Dnlm Pa11 s Pa12 V186: φῦντες Barb Pa09 a Sc
237e1 ὅτι / ὁτί / οτί Pa08pc(ὅ i.t. eodem atramento scripto) Barb Pa09 a(ὅτί scripto forte ex
exemplo cum correctione) c Pa11 s Pa12ac Pa12pc(accentum refecit) V186 Ξ: τί T(colon inferius
ante τί et altius post τί colon interpunx.) Pa08ac Ang Sc Dnlms:234b1 ὑμῶν cett. Sc s Pa12ac:: ἡμῶν Pa11 Pa12pc(eodem atramento Η fecit) Dnlm
Pa12:
235d5 ὅτ’ἂν / ὅταν Pa12 V186 Dnlm: ὅτε Sc Pa11 s
V186:
235d2 αὐτοσχεδιάζειν Sc Pa11 s Dnlm V186: αὐτος σχεδιάζειν Pa12
For the corrected stemma codicum, see Fig. 1.

3. A Note on the Textual Transmission of the Reading at Plato's Sophist , 232b2
3.1 An Introduction
Among the extant medieval manuscripts in the direct transmission of Plato's Sophist, all the primarysources, B, Venetus gr. 185, 12th C CE (D), T, W, agree in the reading at 232b2: ἀναλάβωμεν πρῶτοντῶν περὶ τὸν σοφιστὴν εἰρημένων, ‘let's take up again anew one of those things we said about thesophist’, but a corrector in Pa08, a manuscript very closely derived from T, inserts an indefinite pronoun
accusative neuter singular τι, which suggests that the corrector would have supposed before the insertion
that the object of the verb must be semantically supplemented if the meaning of a sentence is fulfilled.
This presupposition has been shared by almost all the following interpreters of this verbal phrase but
some problems have been arising in the previous interpreters' semantical supplementation. In what
follows I will discuss the identification of the Pa08 corrector and the validity of Heindorf's emendation.
3.2 Mis-identification of the Corrector of Codex Parisinus gr. 1808
Ficinus (1507), Heindorf (1810) and Ast (1820) might have inspected the text of Pa08 but none of themspecified where the addition τι was found. The addition was first recorded in Bekker's edition (1826) asa textual alteration by a corrector's hand with the same reading in the text of cod. Parisinus gr. 1809 (Pa09).
Apelt (1897: 99) also recorded the alteration as a corrector's hand.
However, Schanz (1887: viii; 25) as a result of his own inspection of Pa08 recorded the addition as
the scribe's own emendation of his exemplar. D.B. Robinson (1995: ad loc; cf. id. (1999)) also in his
apparatus criticus identifies the Pa08 addition as the original scribe's.
－ 98 －

－ 99 －

Fig. 1. stemma codicum correcta (Akitsugu Taki)However, the Pa08 addition is another hand's. For this view of mine on the basis of my analysis of
the color digital reproduction, now available on-line at Bibliothèque national de France, I propose two
reasons below, one graphical, and the other, from the local textual transmission.
Robinson's description of the correction at l. 24, fol. 96r, Pa08 is: ‘πρῶτόν <τι>’ Par. 1808 sed τιpostea adidit m. 1’. The criteria by which at corrections in Pa08 he distinguishes between the original
scribe's and some other correctors' hands are not clarified but his citations of ‘Par. 1808 m. 1’ in
his apparatus criticus to 223d2 and 224c1 suggest that the priority in his criteria would be given todifference in ink.
The textual alteration under discussion reads without doubt as addition of τι both in space narrower
than two letters between the consecutively copied two words in the original, πρῶτον and τῶν and above
the line. Pace Robinson, as the color reproduction shows it, the ink used in this addition looks different
in darkness from that used in the text. Furthermore, the graphical form of the iota of the indefinite
pronoun accusative neuter singular has two horizontal dots above its vertical straight line, clearly
differently in form from the iotas of some others of this indefinite pronoun appearing here and there.
In addition, the Pa 08 addition is not transmitted in some copies of the Parisian codex, or theirderivatives. The addition τι, which is not in the text of the exemplar of Pa08, i.e., T, and its direct copy,
cod. Coislianus 155, is not transmitted in the texts of codices Escorialensis Y I 13, Vindobonensis
phil. gr. 21, or the latter's derivatives, codices Veneti Marciani gr. 186 and 184, as in the texts ofcodices Parisinus gr. 1809, Malatestianus D 28 IV, Laurentianus Plut. 59.1 and Laurentianus Plut. 85.9.
This difference in the transmission of a textual alteration suggests that the alteration was made notimmediately after the scribe's copying but some time after.
3.3 Heindorf 's Proposed Emendation: ἀναλάβωμεν ἓν τῶν περὶ τὸν σοφιστὴν εἰρημένων
Whether or not the genitive τῶν … εἰρημένων, a reading common to all the primary sources works
as partitive with the verb was suggested in Ficinus' translation (1507: ad loc.): “repetamus in primis
unum aliquid eorum quae de sophista sunt dicta”, and explicitly raised by Stephanus (1578: ad loc.) in
his marginal note with the followers, Fischer (1774: ad loc.) and the editors in Zweibrücken (Societas
Bipontina, 1782: II. 364).
Under this scholarly criticism Heindorf (1810: ad loc.) proposed the insertion of the object ἓν inaccordance with Ficinus' translation ‘unum aliquid’. Later, although Ast (1820), Bekker (1826), Hirshig(1856) and possibly Schleiermacher (1824: 177; 500) adopted the Pa08 and Pa09 addition τι in their texts,
Beck et Rhunken (1829: 24), Baiter et al. (1839a; 1839b) and Hermann (1851) adopted Heindorf's
reading in their texts without any editorial notes, and Apelt (1897: ad loc.) justifies this posterior
contrivance as a haplography of the letter sequence εν. Schanz (1887), Burnet (1899) and Robinson (1995)
also followed Heindorf's reading in their texts.
－ 100 －

However, the effectiveness of the partitive genitive has been kept intact implicitly by Bessarion as acorrector of the Venetian manuscripts numbered 186 and 184, unmarkedly by Diès (1925, ad. loc.) andeven admissibly both by Stephanus (1578: ad loc.) when he notes another reading way that the object ofthe verb, τι, should be listened to under the surface of the given grammatical structure (‘subaudiri’) andby Wagner (1856: ad loc.). However, it is positively argued for by Stallbaum (1840: 113) and Campbell(1867: ad loc.) both with some classical examples of the verb ἀναλαμβάνω, a one compounded with theverb λαμβάνω, associable in structure with a partitive genitive.
Ficinus and his circle would have had good textual criticism presumably based on their inspectionof more than one manuscript (Taki (2017: 2-4)) but it is risky to catch at a reading easier to us byreconstructing a hypothetical Greek text verbatim from his Latin translation.

Notes:
1

Whether Barb is a copy of Pa09 cannot completely be confirmed. The closeness is further corroborated
by the variants as follows: 236d3 οἵδε / οἷδε / οἱδὲ] οἵδ’ M Pa09 Barb Sc V186; 237b4 ἀποφηναμένη:ἀποφηιναμένη: ἀποφῃναμένη Pa09 Barb Sc; 239a1 φύντες T Pa08 M a Ross558 Sc V186ac: φῦντες Pa09
Barb V186pc(eodem atramento spiritum add.); 239a2 ἰσογονία Tpc(eodem atramento ο s.l. scrips.) Pa08
M Scpc(eodem atramento ο s.l. scrips.) V186: ἰσογωνία Tac Barb Pa09 a Ross558 Scac; 239a6 φύντες T Pa08
M V186: φῦντες Pa09 Barb a Sc. Most of all, Barb has no scholion such as one to ἀσπασία (235e8), etc
as Pa09 has. The scribe of Barb is conjectured to have done some editorial work on the exemplar as
in the variants at 243c6: φιλίους T Pa08 M Barbpc(eodem atramento γρ φιλίους i.m.) Pa09 a Sc V186:φίλους Barbac, and as in some alterable readings as follows: 237b2 ἀπεφήναντο] ἀπεφῄναντο Pa09;
237e5 γεννωμένωι / γεννωμένω: γεννωμένῳ Barb; 239a5 πάσηι / πάση: πάσῃ Barb. Hence Barb
can be a copy of Pa09 but it cannot be denied that Barb also can be a copy of a hypothetical ancestor
both common to Pa09 and with the scholia above-mentioned.

Works Cited:
Apelt, O. (1897) Platonis Sophista, Leipzig.
Ast, F. (1820) Platonis quae extant opera, t. 2, Lipsiae.
Baiter, G. et al. (1839a) Platonis opera quae feruntur omnia, Turici.
---- (1839b) Platonis opera omnia, vol. 4, Turici.
Beck, C.D. et Rhunken, D. (1829) Platonis opera, Lipsiae.
Burnet, J. (ed.) (1899) Platonis opera, t. 1., Oxford.
Campbell, L. (ed.) (1867) The Sophistes and Politicus of Plato, Oxford.
Carlini, A. (1964) Platone, Alcibiade, Alcibiade secondo, Ipparco, Rivali, Torino.

－ 101 －

Diès, A. (1925) Platon, Le Sophiste, Paris.
Ficinus, M. (tr.) (1507) Platonis opera, [n.p.].
Heindorf, F. (ed.) (1810) Platonis Dialogi Selecti, vol. 4., Berlin.
Hermann, C.F. (ed.) (1851) Platonis Dialogi, vol. 1, Lipsiae.
Hirschig, R.B. (ed.) (1856) Platonis opera, vol. 1, Paris.
Robinson, D.B. (1995) Sophista, in: Duke, E.A. et al. (1995), Platonis opera, t. 1, Oxford, 383-471.
---- (1999) ‘Textual Notes on Plato's Sophist’, CQ, 49-1, 139-160.
Scahnz, M. (1876) ‘Mittheilungen über platonische Handschriften’, Hermes, 10 (1876) 171-177.
---- (ed.) (1887) Platonis opera quae feruntur omnia, vol. 3-1, Lipsiae.
Schleiermacher, F. (tr.) (1824) Platons Werke, II. 2, Berlin.
Societas Bipontina (1782) ΠΛΑΤΩΝ Platonis Philosophi quae extant, …, vol. 2, Biponti.
Stallbaum, G. (ed.) (1840) Platonis Sophista, Gothae.
Stephanus (1578): Ioannes Serranus and Henricus Stephanus (1578) ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ ΑΠΑΝΤΑ ΤΑ ΣΩΖΟΜΕΝΑ:
Platonis opera quae extant omnia, 3 t., Geneva.
Taki, A. (2017) ‘Hypotheses on the Textual Transmission of the Platonic First Alcibiades in Ficino's Translation
and Four 16th Century Edition of Plato's Works,’ The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Josai International
University, 20, 37-58.
id. (2022) ‘Hypotheses on the Textual Transmission of Plato's Menexenus', The Bulletin of the Graduate School of
Josai International University, 25, 39-76.
Wagner, W. (1856) Platons Sophist, Leipzig.

－ 102 －

プラトン著作中世写本に関する文献学的注記
瀧

章

次

【要旨】

（ 1 ）擬プラトン著作『アルキビアデス第一』
プラトン著作中世写本本文伝承に関して、（ 1 ）Vindobonensis suppl. gr. 7 (W) か ら 直 線 的 に、Lobcovicianus、Vaticanus gr. 1029、（1.1）
Vaticanus gr. 228 (o) へと下る、（1.2）Ambrosianus gr. I 93 は、 Laurentianus Plut. 85.12 の写しであ る、（ 2 ）『 メ ネ ク セ ノ ス 』、 未 校 合 3 写 本 Angelicus gr. 7 、Rossianus gr. 558、Dunelmensis
Cathedral Library C IV 2 はいずれも主要写本 Venetus append. class IV 1 系統中 Parisinus gr. 1808
から派生するもので、（2.1）第１は同パリ写本の、（2.2）第２は Laurentianus Plut. 59.1 の、（2.3）第 3 は Escorialensis Y. 1. 13 の想定される直接の祖本の、写しである、との仮説が有力である。（ 3 ）本文伝承中主要系統において一致する読み『ソフィスト』232b ἀναλάβωμενπρῶτον τῶν περὶ τὸν σοφιστὴν εἰρημένων に関して、後代本文編集者によって、配分的複数
属格の前に不定代名詞中性単数対格形を挿入して難読を不要に易化する修正提案が提起されており、その際、主要写本に次ぐ派生写本 Parisinus gr. 1808 の写字生本人が行った同様の修正を証言とする場合がある。しかし、同修正は、インクの違いから、写字生とは異なる手によるものであり、主要系統とは異なる異読であると推定される。

－ 103 －