THE BASIS OF THE TEXT OF PLATO’S

CHARMIDES

BY

DAVID J.

MURPHY

In two previous publications I classified the

manuscripts of Plato’s Charmides. The results of those

studies were based on complete collation of all the

manuscripts. I argued that Q is a fourth primary witness

alongside the familiar B, T and W (cf. sigla below). The

excerpt MS. P, an independent relative of W in other

dialogues, is likely to be independent in Chrm. too,

although its excerpts are too scanty to support certainty

about this judgement.1 All the other manuscripts are copies

of BTWQ.2 We cannot yet be sure about all the lines of

transmission that link our independent MSS. to antiquity,

but we can say with confidence that we are not likely to

detect any additional primary witnesses among known codices.

The indirect tradition furnishes a few superior readings.

1

The new volume of the Corpus dei papiri filosofici includes nothing

from Charmides. My aims now are to look more closely at the

claims of Q, to investigate the mutual relations of BTWQ, to

report what the Charmides shows us of the sources behind

Ficino’s and Cornarius’ Latin translations, and to weigh the

contributions of the different witnesses.3

W and Q

The oldest part of W, which contains tetralogies i-

vii, was copied in the latter part of the eleventh century

by the so-called ‘Anonimo K.’4 Because its degree of

agreement with B and T varies in different dialogues, we

need to allow that W itself or a close ancestor may have

been copied from more than one exemplar.5 W is the sole

witness to these correct readings: 157d2 dokei= W: e)do/kei

BTQ, 158a2 tou= sou= qei/ou W: tou=de sou= de\ qei/ou T: tou=de

le/gousin BQ, 164c8 su\ W: soi BTQ, 165c8 e)/fhn W: e)/fh BTQ,

167a7 kai\ a(\ W: kai\ a(/te BTQ. Any of them may be

conjectural, although 158a2 is less likely to be so (cf.

Král 1892, 191-2). At more controversial points, I follow

2

W’s au(th\ at 168b2 rather than au(/th of BTQ.6 Wit alone

spells out what I believe is the right wording at 157d6,

viz. dokei= polu\ swfrone/statoj (cf. below on BQ and BWQ

errors). Finally, I prefer 176b7 a)polei/p$ Wit, although

a)poli/p$ BTWsvQ is possible.

The independence of Q does not strike one immediately

as obvious.7 It offers an unstable text, agreeing

variously in correct readings with one or more of our

primary MSS., and it makes many idiosyncratic errors. Both

its relatively young age and its inept attempts to improve

the text led various scholars to dismiss Q as a heavily

contaminated apograph.8 Although his studies of W convinced

Král that Q is an independent relative of the older codex,

he did not present the full case for this claim.9 In recent

years, the OCT editors and I have come independently to view

Q as a primary witness in various dialogues, although not

all critics share this view.10 For that reason, I devote a

fuller treatment to the evidence for Q than I did in 1990.

Corrupt though it is, Q does offer some unique, correct

3

readings, and it expands our knowledge of the way in which B

and T are related to the third MS. family.

The most striking piece of evidence for Q’s independence in Chrm. is 153a4 basi/lhj ik Q: basilh=j sic B pr.m.: basilikh=j TW (cf. Murphy 1990, 335).

The fact that B’s only accent is the circumflex shows that

John the Calligrapher altered his text currente calamo; a

mark in the right margin is so tiny that I cannot tell

whether it is meant as a vitii nota. The result presents, not

two variants, but one reading, John’s false correction, from

which it is not likely that a subsequent copyist could see

to extract basi/lhj unless he knew that it was the genuine

lection. But a Byzantine scribe could not know of the

shrine of Basile, although he could know and understand what

he took to be a reference to the Stoa Basileios. For this

reason, I do not believe that a later copyist either

introduced basi/lhj by contamination or preferred to ignore

John’s ‘correction,’ which is written in a way that

disguises the integrity of the true reading. John makes a

similar

4

macorrection of his slip-up at 168a7 maqh/toj (I have inspected

both passages by autopsy). Both corrections duly passed

into Q, B’s sole descendent in this dialogue. Q’s agreement

with Bac at 153a4 is best explained if we take basilhj to be

authentic material that came by vertical transmission into

an ancestor of B and Q; it is not a horizontally

transmitted ‘fossil.’

The intuition that Q descends from an ancestor of B but

not from B, sharing instead kinship with W, is borne out by

the pattern of errors that emerges among BTWQ. Q forms a

group with BW, but it fails to share certain corrections

that appear in W. At the same time, conjunctive errors

separate WQ from B. Some of these result from attempts to

correct or to incorporate variants. Although Q has picked

up a few readings that recur in T, nothing of substance

subordinates it to that codex.11 I previously enumerated

the most noteworthy errors that separate each of those MSS.

individually from Q. Here follow the common errors that

they display variously against each other.

5

BQ errors12

157d6 dokei= polu\ swfrone/statoj W: polu\ dokei= swfrone/statoj TWim:

dokei= polufrone/statoj re vera B,Q (cf. below on BWQ); 158a2

tou= sou= qei/ou W: tou=de sou= de\ qei/ou T: tou=de le/gousin BQ;

159d4 a)/ra TW: g” a)/ra BQ; 160d6 a)poble/yaj TW: a)pemble/yaj B

(sed ley in ras): a)peimble/yaj sic Q; 165e6 logistikh=j TW:

logikh=j BQ; 167b1 ei)=nai h)\ ou) -to\] ei)=nai h)\ ou) to\ T:

ei)=nai h)\ outoi BQ: ei)de/nai W; 167b10-11 ei) e)/stin o(/ su\ re

vera T2: ei) e)/stin o(/per T: e)/stin o(\ su\ BQ: h)= e)/stin o(\

su\ B2: h)\ o(\ su\ WQc (Burnet’s apparatus is misleading);

168b1 o)rqw=j TW: ei) o)rqw=j B (sed h in mg. B) Q; 171e3 ou)/te

TW: o(\ ou)/te BQ; 172e4 dokei= TW: dokei=n BQ

TQ errors

163a4 ou) B: oi( TQ: oi( mh\ W; 164a1 ge/ se BW: ge TQ. At

155b9 I prefer BW’s o(\ to TQ’s o(/per, but we cannot

pronounce the latter reading an error.

WQ errors

154d4 a)podu=nai BT: a)podou=nai WQ; 157c2 soi/ BTQ1pc: su\ WQac;

161c10 o(/ti dh\ TWsv: ei) dh\ BWit: ei) o(/ti dh\ Q (Q conflates

variants); 163a8 kwlu/ein BT: kwlu/ei WQ; 165a6 sfei=j T:

6

au)toi\ Stobaeus: au)toi\ sfi/si re vera W: au)to\j sfi/si Q:

au)to\j f$=j B (sed primum s partim erasum); 165a7 ou)=n BT:

om. WQ; 169a6 e)/xei BTQc: e)/xein WQ; 172d2 a)/ra ti B2:

a)/rti BT: a)/rti ti WQ; 173a9 oi(/an B: oi(=an T: oi(/a WQ;

174e3 ou)x h( BT: ou)xi\ kai\ h( W: ou)xi\ Q; 175c2 ge/noito T: ge

oito B: ge oi)/oito WQ

TWQ errors

156d5 zalmo/cidoj B: zamo/lcidoj bTWQStob et mox 158b7; 156d8

za/lmocij B: za/molcij bTWQP Stob; 158b1 tw=n pro\ sou= e)n

ou)deni\ u(pobebhke/nai ci. Madvig: tw=n pro\ sou= e)n ou)deni\

u(perbeblhke/nai BWit: tw=n progo/nwn kataisxu/nein TWimQ; 164e2

a)llh/loij BStob: a)llh/louj TWQ; 166b8 to\ %(= ci. Richards:

o(/t% B: t(%= T: t%= WQ (sed sua ratione i om. Q); 176a7 ou)/t”

ei) e)/xw tWcQc: ei)/t” ei) e)/xw TWQac: ei)/ti e)/xw B (vitii nota

B); 176b6 h)\n BW1pc: i(/n” TWacQ

BWQ errors

155a5 ei) e)/ti e)tu/gxane Goldbacher: e)/ti tugxa/nei BWQ: ei)

e)tu/gxane T: ei) g” e)tu/gxane Wim; 155d4 e)n TWim: e)p” BWQ;

157d6 pa/ntwn Ficinus: plei/stwn BW: plei=ston Q: pa/nu TWim;

158a2 ou)dei\j T: ou)de\ BWQ; 158e2 au)= T: au)=t’ BWQ; 166b2

7

te kai\ T: kai\ to\ BWQ; 166b8 pasw=n TWim: plei/w BWQ; 171b11

pote/roij T: prote/roij BWQ; 171d7 diezw=men T: e)zw=men BT2WQ;

171e7 a)/llo T: a)/llo ti BWQ; 172d1 a)lla\ dw=men TWim: a)ll”

i)/dwmen BWQ13

BTQ errors (W could have corrected easily at these

places)

157d2 dokei= W: e)do/kei BTQ; 165c8 e)/fhn W: e)/fh BTQ; 167a7

kai\ a(\ W: kai\ a(/te BTQ; 176b5 h)\n ci. Goldbacher: ei) add.

in textu W1: om. BTWacQ

It should be clear at the outset that of our two TQ

errors, 163a4 was common to TWQ, W seeking to correct it,

and omission of se after ge at 164a1 is an easy mistake.

o(/per at 155b9 can have arisen independently for euphony,

and as we have said, it is not indisputable that it is an

error. No errors brand Q as a copy of T, and Q’s scattered

agreements with it in the correct reading cannot prove that

it is a copy of T.

The errors that BWQ share are striking, especially the

maiuscule error at 166b8 and faulty word division at 172d1

(on which see below). Of the TWQ errors, scribes would not

8

lack motivation to generate on their own 159b2 and 164e2.

The spelling ‘Zamolxis’ competes with ‘Zalmoxis’ in MSS. of

Greek historians and compilers. 154d8 is an easy omission.

At 166b8 and 176a7, TWQ probably preserve the reading of our

medieval tradition; B conveys an attempt to correct at

1 On P in Chrm., cf. Murphy 1995, 166-7. On the codex, cf. M.

Menchelli, Il Vaticano Palatino gr. 173 (P) di Platone e il Parigino gr. 1665 di Diodoro,

BollClass 12 (1991), 93-117.

2 Cf. Murphy 1990, with more on excerpt MSS. in Murphy 1995, 165-8.

Space does not permit me to itemize recent findings about these MSS. in

other dialogues: cf. studies by S.R. Slings (Supplementary Notes on

Manuscripts of the Clitophon, Mnemosyne 40 [1987], 35-44, Boter 1989, Jonkers,

Brockmann, Vancamp 1995, the same 1996, the same (La tradition manuscrite de

l’Hippias mineur de Platon, RevBelge 74 [1996], 27-55), Berti 1996, the same

forthcoming, Martinelli Tempesta, Joyal, Reis, and Carlini 1999. For my

disagreements with Brockmann, cf. my review in BMCR 4.6 (1993), 429-6,

and on Martinelli Tempesta’s conclusions, cf. Murphy 1998.

3 This and a subsequent article on difficult choices of readings lay out

the foundation for my critical text of and commentary on the Charmides.

That second article will include the reasons behind those of my

editorial choices to which I refer in the present paper.

4 Cf. L. Perria, Il codice W di Platone e il Vat. gr. 407, RSBN 20-21(1983-84), 93-

101 and tavv. I-V; the same, Altre testimonianze sul copista di W, RSBN 22-23

9

166b8 and a further corruption at 176a7. The variants at

158b1 and 176b6 stood together in W’s material. Our puzzle

is how these ‘T’ variants came into Q. Q’s scribe may have

selected them from double variants available to him; i(/n”

is not a stupid choice for someone whose model lacks the (1985-86), 82-92; G. Prato, Due postille paleografico-codicologiche, in: F.

Berger, Ch. Brockmann, G. De Gregorio, M.I. Ghisen, S. Kotzabassi, B.

Noack (edd.), Symbolae Berolinenses für Dieter Harlfinger (Amsterdam 1993), 79-87.

W’s remaining leaves were copied by two hands that worked around 1300;

cf. Murphy 1995, 155-6.

5 Boter 1987, 144-55, supposed that in tetr. i, Cra. and the first part

of Plt., W is related to B, while from Plt. 287 on, W is derived from a

source fairly close to T. Nicoll 1975, 41-7, believes that it was T

that switched sources in Plt., a position restated by Duke et al., xv-

xvi. J. Král 1892, 187-95, had initiated discussion of W's fluctuating

relationships to B and T. See further on this point, n. 32 below.

6 Cf. P. Shorey, Emendation of Plato's Charmides 168b, CP 2 (1907), 340; N. Van der Ben, The

Charmides of Plato: Problems and Interpretations (Amsterdam 1985), 55.

7 For a description of the Plato part of the codex, which contains Phdo.,

Cra., Alc. II, Hipparch., Phdr., Deff., Chrm. and La., cf. Murphy 1992, 313-15.

Written on bad Oriental paper, Q is probably not later than the middle

third of the 13th century, for its script is not influenced by

Fettaugenmode.

10

word ‘if’ at 176b5 (cf. below). None of our TWQ errors

challenges the hypothesis that BWQ form a group in Charmides,

a subject to which I shall return.

Alongside the BQ errors that I discussed previously,

consider now 167b1 (cf. on BQ above). The absence of

8 The arguments of M. Schanz, Untersuchungen über die platonischen Handschriften,

Philologus 35 (1876), 647-8, miss the mark because he was ignorant of W.

Carlini 1964, 27, and Moreschini, 174, do not offer decisive proofs for

tetr. iv and Phdr.; cf. Murphy 1992, 315-18.

9 Cf. Král 1892, 182, ‘vom Vindob. unabhängig, aber mit ihm verwandt,’

also 178-9 (with discussion of 175c2 quoted above), 190. For La., cf.

the same, Platonis Laches (Vienna and Prague 1892), vi-vii. M. Wohlrab, Die

Platonhandschriften und ihre gegenseitigen Beziehungen, NJPh SupplBd 15 (1887), 700

n. 4, had already realized that Q's first five dialogues cannot have

been copied from D.

10 Cf. Duke 1991, Duke et al., ix-xi, Murphy 1990, 335-8, Murphy 1992,

Murphy 1994, and Murphy and Nicoll. On the other hand, F. Pontani, 109

n. 38, thinks that contamination and conjecture may be enough to account

for Q’s text, and E. Berti (forthcoming, n. 50) expresses doubts.

11 Q is a copy of T in part of Phdr. and Alc. II; Murphy 1992, 317 n. 11.

12 Having worked closely on B2 in situ on different occasions, I am

convinced that most of the corrections that editors label ‘B2’ are the

work of the same man working at different times. This does not exclude

11

accent, breathing mark and word division show that outoi was

the reading of a maiuscule ancestor common to BQ. This is

not the sort of thing that correctors import into minuscule

MSS., and it cannot have come from W. W’s ei)de/nai may

represent an attempt to emend that very reading; cf. what

look like correct, conjectural emendations in W at 159d4,

165e6, 168b1, 171e3, and a less successful one at 167b10. Q

avoids many of W’s transpositions and omissions or additions

of particles and other small words, just the kind of errors

that later correctors most often pass over. In addition to

errors that I mentioned in 1990, cf. 1) transposition:

156b4 th\n kefalh\n mo/non] mo/non th\n kefalh\n W, 156d4 e)gw\

e)kei= ] transp. W, 166d5 oi)/ei a)gaqo\n ei)=nai] ei)=nai a)gaqo\n

the possibility that some of them were made by other contemporary

correctors, on which problem see now E. Duke et al., xi n. 17.

Martinelli Tempesta, 8-11, and Joyal 1998, 4-6 have endeavored to

distinguish correctors of B. Duke et al., xi-xii, consider T2 an

independent, third family witness in other dialogues.

13 BWQ agree in two other readings that I deem inferior but which are

not clear-cut errors, viz. 157c1 o)mw/moka TWim: w)mo/moka b1: w)/mosa BWQ and

171e5-6 oi)ki/a te oi)konomoume/nh T: oi)ki/a oi)koume/nh re vera BWQ.

12

oi)/ei W, 169d3 tou=to cugxwrh/swmen] transp. W, 170e12 a)/ra

oi)=den] transp. W, 174b9 le/gw ma/lista] transp. W; 2):

157c1 ou)=n] g” ou)=n W, 161d5 ou)=n] om. W, 163e6 pw] pou W,

164c9 ti] toi W, 165a1 w(j] w(j kai\ W, 169c4 tau)to\n] tauto\ W,

170d6 ti] tina W, 172a7 de/] dh/ W, 172e4 toi] ti W, 173c7 dh\]

de\ W, and W’s omission of the article at 170e7, e12, 175e3;

3) not obviously wrong, therefore providing reduced

motivation to correct: 157c6 fi/le] fi/ltate W, and W’s

spelling mikro/n etc., vs. BTQ’s smikro/n, etc., at 154c7 and

176b8. No single instance tells anything, but the larger

their number, the greater the probability that a

manuscript’s freedom from such errors was not effected by

correction but reflects their absence in its exemplar. At

153d3 e)/xoi ta\ BT: e)/xoito Q: e)/xoien ta\ W, Q's error looks

like a misreading of early minuscule script but not of W.

At 176b5 (cf. on BTQ above), one would expect a copy of W to

retain ei), which was added by the first scribe.14 At 176b6

h)\n BW1pc: i(/n” TWacQ, there are two reasons why Q or his

14 ei) is crowded into the text between Xarmi/dh and dr#=j. It recurs in

Lobc and Flor. conv. soppr. 54, both copies of W.

13

source will not have been copying W: 1) W’s first scribe

wrote a maiuscule eta with firmer pressure over the iota, so

that the correction cannot be missed;15 2) the presence of

ei) in the previous line removes motivation for a copyist to

select or import i(/n” in preference to h)\n at b6. Q’s

failure to incorporate W’s unique, superior readings is

another reason not to derive it from W. Q’s avoidance of

three unique, maiuscule errors of W is interesting, though

not a proof of independence: 155a3 ou)k e)pe/deica/j B (sed

e)p in ras.) TQ] ou)ke/ti e)/deica/j W; 156a5 a)kriboi=j]

a)kriboi=o W; 169d9 pou] mou W.16

15 Dr. Eva Irblich confirmed in a private communication that W’s

correction was made by the first scribe, adding that the ink is

‘dasselbe hellsepiabraun wie im übrigen Schriftbild’. The ductus

likewise is consistent with that of the first scribe of W; cf. Murphy

1990, 336. W.S.M. Nicoll informs me that he reached the same conclusion

when he examined W by autopsy. B's reading is not by B2, against what I

wrote in 1990.

16 I am grateful to Nigel G. Wilson for confirming by autopsy that the

first scribe of B made the erasure at 155a3.

14

On the other hand, errors that Q shares with W link

these two MSS. in a subgroup against B but within the same

family. To material that I cited in 1990, add from the

above list of WQ errors 154d4, 157b2, 163a8, 165a7, 173a9.

Q does not share with B a string of insigificant omissions

and errors of particles, etc., and it fails to incorporate

several innocuous readings. Passing over places that I

cited previously or where B’s margin bears a nota vitii, cf.

154e8 filo/sofo/j te BWit: filo/sofo/j ge TWsvQ, 155c8 te/ moi Tit:

te/ me TsvW: de/ me B: me ti Q (corrupts te?), 156a7 e)/gwge]

e)gw/ te B, 158a2 tw=n] th\n B, 158a4 o(sa/kij] o(sa/kij te B,

158c3 h)/dh] h)/dh kai\ B, 158e4 a)lla\ pa/ntwn] a)ll” a(pa/ntwn B,

159d1 ta\ tou=] tou= B, 159d10 h(] om. B, 162c3 d” e(auto\n] de\

au(to\n B, 164b8 e(ka/st%] e(ka/st% ti B, 164e2 above on TWQ,

165b3 d” e)qe/lw] de\ qe\lw B, 165e7 toiou=ton] to\ toiou=ton B,

166b8 above on TWQ, 166e6 au)th\] au(/th B, 167a5 de\] om. B:

dh in ras. b, 175b8 ta\] om. B, 175e7 ge] te B. Like the W

errors in the previous paragraph, these are features that

correctors most often overlook.

15

Král therefore was right to call Q an independent

relative of W. WQ evidently descend from a source in which

variants that appear singly in other MSS. became

conflated.17 In nineteen other passages, where W records

pairs of variants that we find split one-to-one between B

and T, Q transmits only one member of the pair, most often

the correct reading - just what we would expect from one who

is making a selection. Q adopts four ‘B’ variants in error,

but they are all readings that a copyist might choose who

was not very learned,18 and all four stand in textu in W,

perhaps having stood there also in Q's exemplar. The

‘variant hypothesis’ provides the economical explanation of

176b6, discussed above: WQ’s ancestor lacked ei) at b5 and

contained h)\n and i(/n” as variants at b6. W, realizing the

textual problem after he had copied out his text, squeezed

in ei) between words by conjecture and overwrote at b6; Q

did none of these things. We do not know how many of W's

double variants stood as pairs in Q's model. Agreement of Q

16

and T with W’s marginal variants ge at 154e8 and dokei= at

159b2 (dokoi= BWit) does not tell us anything. Accordingly,

Q's selection of variants that also appear in W does not

show that Q is a contaminated copy of B. On the other hand,

we have no evidence that Q is a copy of any extant MS; we

have seen it fail to incorporate corrections made by the

first scribe or by other early hands in B and W.

Consistent with the thesis that Q is an independent

relative of W are two textual dislocations that were not

occasioned by homoeoteleuton. At 168b8 ou)kou=n e)la/ttono/j]

ou)kou=n tina e)/xein du/namin e)la/ttono/j Q, the intruding

letters have been imported from 168b5. In an ancestor, one

line began with tina e)/xein du/namin, and a subsequent line,

with e)la/ttono/j, a span of 49 letters. At 173e10 to\n

17 On 161c10, cf. Král 1892, 182, and on other dialogues in W, 189-92.

Conflation of variants may also explain 157c2 soi/ BTQ1pc: su\ WQac. On

Chrm. 159c9, 172d2 and 175c2, cf. Murphy 1990, 337, where however I

should not have traced the error at 175c2 so confidently to the

‘archetype;’ it could have arisen in the hyparchetype of BWQ.

18 155d4 e)n TWim: e)p' BWQ; 157c1 in n. 13 above; 166b8 and 172d1 in the

paragraph above.

17

eu)dai/mona] zw=nta eu)dai/mona Q, the offending participle may

have been imported from zw/ntwn one line above in an

exemplar. If so, that MS. had a line of 28 letters. No

feature of B, T or W can have given rise to the latter

dislocation, and the only candidate for cause of the former

is found on f. 290r of B, where the first two letters of

tina/, the third word from the right margin, stand above the

final two letters of ou)kou=n. The letters in question,

then, do not really align, and because ou)kou=n e)la/ttono/j is

hard to miss after the colon that marks change of speaker,

it does not seem to me very likely that Q’s dislocation was

occasioned by B’s layout. Of course, the layout of a copy

of B, T or W may have occasioned Q’s intrusions. But it is

worth noticing that dislocations of c. 49 letters occur in

Q’s text of the Phaedo, a dialogue in which Elizabeth Duke

and I came independently to classify Q together with W as

primary witnesses in the third MS. family.19 In the Laches,

where I have defended Král’s position that Q is an 19 Cf. Duke 1991, 243, and Murphy and Nicoll, 467. In other dialogues,

Q shows dislocations that point to an ancestor of 33-38 letters/line;

cf. Murphy 1992, 329.

18

independent relative of W, we find two dislocations of 27

letters and one of 48 letters, not due to homoeoteleuton

(Murphy 1994, 7).

Q may have undergone a degree of contamination from the

T family; cf. 160e6 ei)=en TQ: ei)=ta BW and 162e1 ei)ko\j

ei)de/nai TQ: ei)de/nai BW, to which add as a possible case

158b1.20 On the other hand, we can have no confidence

about contamination at the above-discussed 164a1 or 155b9.

In fact, contamination is not a likely cause of the majority

of Q's features. A process of correction that filtered out

so many hard-to-spot errors of W, as well as those of B,

must have been thoroughgoing indeed. But the many egregious

errors that it shares with B and W show that Q did not

undergo such a thorough correction as that. Because we

cannot fix the limit of scribal vagaries, it is

theoretically possible to make contamination and/or

20 On limited contamination from the T family in other dialogues, cf.

Duke 1991, 252, Murphy 1990, 337, Murphy 1992, 324-5, Murphy and Nicoll,

468. Q begins to agree with T from Phdr. 271e4 usque ad finem and in Alc.

II init.- 143a; cf. Moreschini, 174, Carlini 1964, 27, Murphy 1992, 317

n. 11.

19

conjecture account for all the features of Q’s text. The

economical explanation, however, sees in WQ errors the

evidence that these two MSS. share a common intermediary

against B and T. To claim that Q is a contaminated copy of

B would in fact oblige us to say the same of W; if W is

independent, Q is independent. No correct reading of W

against BT supports an argument for its independence in

Chrm. as forcefully as basi/lhj does for Q. We should not

class Q with genuinely hybrid apographs of the Palaeologan

Age like Y in Hi. Ma., Grg. and Meno, for whose independence

no one has produced evidence.21

Unfortunately, we lack witnesses outside the medieval

MS. tradition against which to weigh distinctive material of

W or Q as we can in other dialogues.22 Further, we get

little help from the fragmentary P, while S lacks the

Charmides. In Phdo. and Cra. 383-435, on the other hand, P

21 Y presents a W text with an overlay of correct or easily explainable

readings that agree with other codices, topped off by many singular

lections. Cf. Vancamp 1995, 32-6, Vancamp 1996, 39-42, E.R. Dodds

(Plato. Gorgias [Oxford 1959], 54-6), R.S. Bluck (Plato’s Meno [Cambridge

1961], 141-2).

20

and S provide enough material to help us see that Q joins

them in a subgroup against W et al. within the third MS.

family.23 The picture that we form of Q in Chrm. is

consistent with the one that we discern in those two

dialogues, i.e. it is a relative of W but not a copy of it,

infected with a limited number of T readings, laced with

haphazard conjectures and corruptions. It is attractive to

theorize that Q is a descendent in Chrm. of the same MS. as

it is in Phdo./Cra. or Laches, or even that it descends from

the same MS. in the four dialogues, maintaining the same

stemmatic position in the four.

Besides basi/lhj at 153a4, Q alone transmits six other

readings that I would adopt in the text (Murphy 1990, 336).

Although all could be conjectures, Q’s tendency to vulgarize

22 Cf. Duke 1991, 252, Murphy 1994, 6-7. A new examination of PPetrie

II 50 has enabled F. Pontani, 108-9, to correct my citations of its

readings at La. 191c2 and e3. On that papyrus see now A. Carlini in

Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini. Pt. I, vol. 1*** (Florence 1999), n. 23,

100-13.

23 Q begins to agree with B et al. after Cra. 435. Cf. Murphy and

Nicoll, 465-6, Duke et al., ix-xi. On Phdo., Duke 1991, 246-9.

21

gives pause about so labelling 153a2 a)/smenoj (anticipating

Hirschig).24

Hands that corrected Q for the most part emend

obvious mistakes, sometimes badly by guesswork,25 or inject

an occasional reading found elsewhere in the tradition. A

corrector who used gray ink and a wide pen made valuable

corrections at 170b7 gignw/skhi Qc: gignw/skh HJ: gignw/skei BTW:

gignw/skein Q and, with correctors of T and W, at 176a7 ou)/t”

ei) e)/xw.

Q is one of the most corrupt codices I have studied.

In Chrm. it is marred by 46 unique and erroneous omissions

and by other careless errors that suggest that the copyist 24 For correct readings that Q alone supplies in other dialogues, which

may be conjectures, cf. Duke 1991, 254, Murphy 1992, 327, Murphy 1994,

6, Murphy and Nicoll, 469. Although they do not prove Q’s

independence, correct readings that it shares with W in Chrm. deserve

mention: 163d5 a)\n bou/l$ WQac: a)\n bou/lei Qc: a)\n qe/l$ B: bou/lei T, 170b12

pw=j WQ: o(/pwj BT, 176b3 cited above, and 172e4 ou(twsi/ e)ntau=qa WQ, which

can stand, despite Hermann.

25 Cf. 154c7 au)tw=n] au)to\n Qc, an attempt to make sense of the MSS.'

a)/lloj e)/blepen; 172e6 foboi/mhn] foboi=men Q: fobou=mai Qc; 173b7 ta\ skeu/h]

ta\ skeu/hn Q: th\n skeu/hn Qc.

22

hurriedly read phrases at a time. Q’s positive

contributions to the text amount to no more than scattered

words in different dialogues. It does help fill in the

corners of our landscape of the third MS. family, and on the

strength of the evidence for Q’s independent status, its

readings deserve mention in the apparatus.

Relationship of BTWQ

The primary MSS.’ conjunctive errors and arrangement in

tetralogical ordering, the principle of which is visible

even behind W’s disturbed order of dialogues, make it clear

that our medieval MS. tradition of the Charmides goes back to

a common source.26 For example, the primary MSS. are wrong

against the indirect tradition at 160c5 h)\ to\ Priscianus:

h)\ tou= BTWQ, 160c6 ou)/te... ou)/te Priscianus: ou) to\... ou)

to\ BTWQ, and 164d1 mh\ Stobaeus: o(/ti mh\ BTWQ. Even two of

Stobaeus’ errors show that our medieval tradition omits

material; cf. 173b1 pa/nt” a)\n Burnet: pa/nta Stobaeus: a)\n

BTWQ, and 173b5 h)\ Heindorf: mh\ Stobaeus: om. BTWQ. BTWQ

conflate variants, some of which arose from misreadings of

23

maiuscule script: 158d8 a)\n ei)=nai J2: ei)/h a)\n ei)=nai BTWQ:

ei)/h a)\n ci. Stephanus;27 168c1 a)/n pou Schanz: dh\ a)/n pou

BTWQ; 172d2 (cf. above on WQ). Misreading of maiuscule

script occasioned the error at 173e9 su\ Bekker: eu)= BTWQ:

au)= Ub. Further evidence can be found at 167b1 and 175c2

(on these, cf. above on Q) and at many other places in the

apparatus. I find one place that looks like a common

minuscule error, i.e. 170a7 diairei=n T1sv: dieurei=n BTWQ.

Because we shall encounter a distribution of errors that is

hard to explain on the thesis that BTWQ share a minuscule

archetype, however, I prefer to think that diairei=n was

corrupted by mishearing to dierei=n, and that someone tried

to repair with the unattested form dieurei=n.

When we ask whether the primary MSS. form a bipartite

or a tripartite stemma, we notice at the outset that B

represents a distinct minuscule transliteration. It

displays maiuscule errors, most notably 165e5 le/ge TWQ: de/

ge B, 170e4 h)\ TWQ: ti B, and 175c5 a(mw=j ge/ pwj TWQ (a)mw=j

Q): a)/llwj ge/ pwj B. Errors of word division also bespeak

an origin in a separate minuscule transliteration; cf.

24

153d1 a)ne/roito b1imTWQ: a)\n e)/roito B, 158b8 a)ll” au)to/ soi Q:

a)ll’ au)tosoi T (sed s in ras): a)lla\ au)to/j soi W: a)lla\ au)to\j

oi)/ou B, 158e4 cf. above on B errors, 166c8 a)/llou tino\j

TWQ: a)ll” ou) tino\j B, 167e8 kalou= me\n TWQ: kalou= men B,

168b10 eu(/roimen B2TWQ: eu(/roi me\n B, 176a4 o(/s%per TWQ: o(\j

w(/sper B. BT agree in significant error against WQ in only

three readings: 164e1 tou= xai/rein B2WQ Stobaeus: to\ xai/rein

BT, 170b11 pw=j WQ: o(/pwj BT, 176b3 e(/wj WQ: i)/swj B (sed

vitii nota) T.28 In view of the many agreements in error

of W or of WQ with B, and of these again with T, we have too

little material upon which to posit a common hyparchetype

between B and T, especially when we consider that the WQ

tradition could have corrected 164e1 and 170b11, and that

176b3 may be a maiuscule error that arose independently

after the immediately preceding h(me/rai.29

The evidence for the relation between T and W is

extremely difficult to evaluate because W carries many pairs

of variant readings that split their agreement between B and

T.30 Although TW pretty clearly go back to a common

hyparchetype in many dialogues, W is noticeably close to B

25

in Apology, Carlini found a tripartite stemma (i.e. B et al.|

T | PWQ et al.) in the Phaedo, and the data in Laches and

Lysis can be made to support either bipartition (i.e. B | TW)

or tripartition.31 As scholars since Král have noticed, W

maintains a middle position between B and T in Charmides.32

26 Cf. G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo, 2nd ed. (Florence

1952), 251-8, Carlini 1972, 130-47. Against Joyal, 41 (= Joyal 2000,

162), conjunctive maiuscule errors do not establish that the archetype

was a minuscule MS. The branches of our medieval tradition may

represent compilations of different origins in different dialogues,

however; cf. J. Irigoin, Rapports sur les conférences. Philologie grecque,

Programme de l’année 1972-1973. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes

Études, IVe Sect. 105 (1973), 204; the same, Rapports sur les conférences.

Philologie grecque, Programme de l’année 1974-1975. Annuaire de l’École

Pratique des Hautes Études, IVe Sect. 107 (1975), 298 (= J. Irigoin,

Tradition et critique des textes grecs [Paris 1997], 74 and 88).

27 Because J’s deletion of 158d8 ei)/h is effected by three dots below the

line, it is not possible to determine whether it was made by J2

(identification of this corrector with Paolo da Canale is disputed;

cf. Sigla below), who added corrections and marginalia throughout the

codex. This corrector made eighteen other interventions in Chrm. At

163a3 he agrees with BQ’s ou) against J’s oi(, the reading of TQ; at

164c8 he agrees with WH et aliis in su\ against soi, the reading that J

26

Despite its affinities with W, Q vacillates in error just as

widely, so that the voices become even harder to distinguish

when we add it to the ensemble.

Leaving Q out of consideration for the moment, the

issue to settle is whether W shares an hyparchetype with B

or T or goes back independently to their source. I have

counted 17 conjunctive or nearly conjunctive errors of BW(Q)

(if 171e6 in fact is an error) and 10 of TW(Q), excluding

matters of orthography, accents and breathing marks. Then,

B(Q) shares 16 errors with one of the variant readings of W,

against 6 errors shared between T(Q) and one of W’s

variants. Not all errors in these four lists are

significant.

shares with BTQ. He is the sole source of prosei=xon at 154c6, where he

must be emending J’s prose/xwn by conjecture, and at 167b11-c1, despite

writing kei/menon, he may be relying on memory to fill J’s lacuna (h(\...

e)pisth/mh), for nowhere else do we find h(/tij ou)deno\j a)/llou h)\ e(auth=j te

kai\ tw=n a)/llwn e)pisthmw=n h)= e)pisth/mh. Unfortunately, nowhere in Chrm.

does the Aldina follow J2 when the latter differs from H or U. In

addition to the above, cf. 161d2 au(tou= Ub: e(autou= J2: au)tou= HAld: au)ta\

JU; 174b1 h(= ti UbAld: h(/ ti EUJ: h(/ tij J2.

27

W(Q) and B in error:

154d7 le/gete re vera TQ: le/getai BW; 155d6 kate/nanta T: kat”

e)/nanta Q: kat’ e)nanti/a B: katenanti/a W; 158a2 cf. above on

BWQ errors; 158e2 cf. above on BWQ; 160e6 ei)=en TQ: ei)=ta

BW; 162e1 ei)ko\j TQ: om. BW; 165c4 gignw/skein B2TQ:

gignw/skei BW; 165e3 o(moi/a TQ: o(moi/wj BW; 166b2 cf. above

on BWQ; 167b10-11 an ancestor common to BWQ seems to have

omitted ei), after which the text was meddled with in

different ways (cf. above on BQ); 171b11 cf. above on BWQ;

171d7 cf. above on BWQ; 171e5 cf. above on BWQ; 171e6 cf.

above on BWQ; 171e7 cf. above on BWQ. ‘Almost’ conjunctive

errors are 165a6 and 173b2 e)capat%= a)\n TQ: e)capat#= a)\n W:

e)capata=n B.

A variant of W agrees in error with B:

155a5 cf. above on BWQ; 155b9 h(=ke TWsvQ: h(/kei BW; 157d6

cf. above on BWQ; 157e3 sunelqou=sai TWsvQ: nu=n e)lqou=sai W:

kai\ nu=n e)lqou=sai B: kai\ nu=n e)lqou/sain Qc; 157e4 kalli/w a)\n

kai\ a)mei/nw gennh/seian TWim (sed genh/seian W) Q: kalli/wn a)\n

kai\ a)mei/nwn genh/setai BWit (sed a)mei/nw W); 157e5 oi)ki/a

B2TWQ: ou)si/a BWsv; 158b1 cf. above on TWQ errors, where

28

however BWit give the better variant; 158b5 le/gei TWsvQ:

le/goi BWit; 158c7 ou) r(#/dion TWsvQ: a)/logon BW; 161c10 o(/ti

dh\ TWsv: ei) dh\ BW: ei) o(/ti dh\ Q (cf. above on Q); 166b8

cf. above on BWQ; 167e4 a)gaqo\n TWQ: a)gaqw=n BWsv; 172c5

28 Boter 1987, 154 n. 43, lists six other ‘BT’ errors. Four of these

also appear in Q and therefore do not show that BT err against the third

family as a whole; W may just have been corrected. Cf. 157d2, 164c8,

165c8, 167a7 above on W. The other two, 153b1 and 155d3, involve a

common error of itacism, sc. ei)=don-i/don, instances of which I also

omit in enumerating BW and TW errors.

29 For B’s status as a unique minuscule transliteration in other

dialogues, cf. Brockmann, 248-50, Murphy 1994, 4 n. 8. Stichometric

signs also separate the B family, on which see now J. Irigoin, Traces de

livres antiques dans trois manuscrits byzantins de Platon (B, D, F), in: M. Joyal (ed.),

Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker (Aldershot

1997), 228-32. B presents extremely few errors that could have arisen

from misreading minuscule script. 161e10 eu)= oi)kei=sqai] a)rkei=sqai B

may actually be a corrupted gloss, a)rxei=sqai, but 165e3 o(moi/wj and

173b2 e)capata=n could have arisen from misreading minuscule letters.

Other possible instances do not have to be minuscule errors; cf. La.

186d2 ne/%] me\n B; 189c6 au)=] ou) B; Euthyd. 280b3 sunwmologhsa/meqa]

sunwmologhso/meqa B; 288d3 oi)kti/rante] oi)ktei/ronte B. Many of B’s errors

29

tekmai/romai de/ TWsvQ: tekmairo/menoi BWit; 172d1 cf. above on

BWQ; 175e3 e)p%dh=j TWitQ: e)p%di/aj BWim

166b8 is an apparent maiuscule error, and 172d1

amounts to faulty word division, which phenomenon often

correlates with an origin in maiuscules. Although 165e3 and

173b2 could have arisen from misreading minuscule script,

there are other ways to explain them. I have not counted

167b10 h)= | h)\ as a shared BW error, because it is not

clear whether W’s source converted ei) to h) or supplied h)

by conjecture. Since I adopt o(\, I cannot count 167b11 as

a BW error, contra Boter (1987, 154 n. 44). On W’s reading

at 167b1, cf. above on Q.

W(Q) and T in error:

154d8 cf. above on TWQ; 156d5 cf. above on TWQ et mox

158b7; 156d8 cf. above on TWQ; 163a4 cf. above on TQ;

164e2 cf. above on TWQ; 168e1 i)/d$ BQ: ei)/d$ TW; 169d6

are due to misreading, and it seems unlikely that its exemplar contained

all of them. We may theorize that B’s exemplar was hard to read, and

therefore, may have been a maiuscule MS.

30 Cf. Král 1892, 182, 191-2, Murphy 1990, 331-2 (where I did not

include 167e4 a)gaqo\n TWQ: a)gaqw=n BWsv), 337.

30

kai\ a(\ BtQ: kai\ TW; 171a4 e)pixeirw=n de\ dh\ Q: e)pixeirw=n

de\ Gcim: de\ dh\ TW: dei= dh\ B: de\ G; 176a7 cf. above on TWQ

A variant of W agrees in error with T:

154e8 filo/sofo/j te BWit: filo/sofo/j ge TWsvQ; 155a5 cf. above

on BWQ; 158b1 cf. above on TWQ; 158b5 w(j BWQ: o(\ TWsv;

159b2 cf. above on TWQ; 176b6 cf. above on TWQ

31 For an overview, cf. Boter 1987, although I do not endorse all his

conclusions (cf. below and vid. notes 32 and 33). For Phdo., cf.

Carlini 1972, 170-1. Disagreeing with Carlini’s abandonment of

bipartition in tetr. iv are Nicoll 1975 and E. Duke, Evidence for the Text of

Plato in the Later 9th Century, RHT 19 (1989), 19-29. On Laches, cf. Murphy

1994, 8-9. Martinelli Tempesta, 258-77, proposed a tripartite stemma in

Lysis, a theory not endorsed by Murphy 1998, 3-4, or S.R. Slings 1999,

490. In the preface of the forthcoming edition of the Lysis (LED

edizioni universitarie Milano), which he is preparing in collaboration

with Dr. Franco Trabbatoni, Martinelli Tempesta inclines to agree that

the data can support bipartition (B | TW) or tripartition in that

dialogue, although he avers that BTW inherit the results of three

independent editorial enterprises. Vancamp 1996, 15, likewise finds

that the evidence in the Hippias dialogues does not clarify whether T and

W descend from the same transliteration. Joyal 1998, 44-5 (= 2000, 163-

4), believes that BTW descend independently from same minuscule MS.;

against this, cf. my review in CW 95 (2001) 93-4.

31

Agreements between T and one of W’s marginal variants

are not helpful for our purpose. Although most of the other

errors might have come into W independently of the conduit

that also emptied them into T, this is not likely for oi( at

163a4 or i(/n” at 176b6.33

In a tripartite stemma, we would expect each of the

three branches to display unique maiuscule errors, and we

would not expect to find any sizeable deposit of conjunctive

errors to set two families off against the third. We have

noticed maiuscule errors unique to B. One possible such

32 Král 1892, 176, 188. Boter 1987, 146-8, supposes that TW in many

dialogues go back to the same minuscule copy of the lost, first volume

of A, itself a minuscule MS., and he appeals to contamination to account

for W’s closeness to B in Chrm. Brockmann, 248-54, reached similar

conclusions for Smp. by a different path. Martinelli Tempesta, 213-7,

however, has thrown into crisis the hypothesis that TW are derived from

one and the same minuscule copy of A. The criticisms made by Slings

1999, 490, hold only in defense of a TW hyparchetype at an earlier stage

of the tradition. By saying that W maintains a middle position, I refer

to the distribution of variants among BTW; I do not imply that we know

that W changes models in a way that B and T do not; cf. nn. 5 and 26

above.

32

error occurs in T at 158e6 t$=de BtWQ: ti/ de\ T: ti/ dai\

altera manu t, although it also could have arisen by

itacism. We have found three unique maiuscule errors in W

(cf. on Q above), and Q presents yet others. The most we

can conclude from these unique maiuscule errors, however, is

that B does not share a minuscule hyparchetype with any

other MS. We cannot form conclusions from T’s error at

158e6, and in any case, maiuscule errors in W and Q do not

allow us to infer anything from the fact that they are

‘maiuscule,’ for maiuscule letter forms had already come

back into minuscule script on a wide scale by the end of the

tenth century.34

So far, we have pieces of evidence that favor a TW

link, and rather more pieces that favor a BW link. In order

to fit the many BW errors into his hypothesis of a

33 Against Boter 1987, 154 n. 42, I do not include 153a4 basilikh=j as an

error that separates TW from B. First, B’s false correction was made,

as it looks, currente calamo, raising the possibility that the scribe

found it as a variant or correction in his model. Second, the correct

reading may have stood in an ancestor of WQ without having made it into

W.

33

bifurcated stemma in the middle tetralogies, Boter appealed

to the fact ‘that in Chrm., W shows traces of even more

intensive contamination than in most other dialogues; there

are, for instance, many places where W shares a correct

reading with T, while having two alternative readings’

(Boter 1987, 147-8). I cannot prove that a contaminator did

not import inferior, ‘B’ readings into the many places where

‘T’ readings are superior. Such an explanation can fit

cases where a copyist may not have recognized the inferior

reading as inferior, as e.g. 171d7 (cf. above on BWQ). It

seems to me, however, that Boter’s appeal to contamination

harmonizes better with the contrary of his thesis, i.e. it

explains why a base text closer to B would pick up readings

that we find also in T. Contamination is not an obvious

cause of the errors that W shares with B at 155a5, 157d6,

157e5, 158b1, nor even at 157e3 or 167e4. W’s propensity to

copy the ‘B’ variant in the text and report the 34 E. Follieri, La reintroduzione di lettere semionciali nei più antichi manoscritti greci in

minuscola, Bullettino dell’Archivio paleografico italiano, 3rd ser. 1

(1962), 15-36; R. Barbour, Greek Literary Hands. A.D. 400-1600 (Oxford 1981),

xxv-xxvi.

34

corresponding ‘T’ variant in the margin or above the line

also makes one wonder, contra Boter, whether W does not graft

material from the second family onto a base text that goes

back to an ancestor of B. The explanation for the

appearance of ‘T’ variants in textu at 157e5 and 167e4 may be

that W, or his source, realized that they must be the

correct reading.

To throw Q back into the mix does not help us achieve

much clarity about bipartition vs. tripartition. For what

it is worth, Q’s two agreements in error with T are trivial,

while the more numerous errors that it shares with B are

significant (cf. above on Q), a fact that weights the scale

in favor of a link between B and the so-called third family.

I do not think that the data support a demonstration that

our stemma is bipartite in this dialogue, i.e. B|WQ || T,

although that assumption looks to be the best founded one.

At any rate, we lack positive evidence of tripartition. As

a consequence, we cannot treat a BW(Q) reading as better

attested than a T reading, since we cannot show that BWQ do

not share a common hyparchetype. It is not clear, then,

35

that we gain much if we pronounce the stemma bipartite

rather than content ourselves with the claim that two of our

three families share noteworthy links against the third. In

a contaminated tradition such as Plato’s, traditional

stemmatics help the editor but little in deciding what to

print.35 I find stemmatic considerations of help only in a

handful of cases, e.g. 157d6, 171d7 or 171e6 (cf. BWQ

errors), and only by removing grounds for deeming BWQ’s

reading the better attested one. In the face of the errors

that BWQ share, nothing about WQ’s errors excludes the

possibility that those two MSS. descend through a common

intermediary from the same maiuscule hyparchetype as that

from which B descends by a different line. We need to keep

a fluid notion of what that hyparchetype may have been; for

example, W’s disturbed, and in part, reversed tetralogical

order raises the question whether it may descend from

papyrus rolls independently of some codex ancestor of B.36 35 Clarification of stemmatic relationships may help choose between

trivial variants, where we have scant reason to suspect deliberate

contamination; cf. Boter 1987, 151 and D. Murphy, rev. of Duke et al.,

BMCR 8.3 (1995), 222-3.

36

Even if our speculation should be correct that Q’s exemplar

was the same in Chrm. as it was in Phdo., it does not follow

that Q’s exemplar maintained the same stemmatic position in

Chrm. as it did in Phdo., where the tradition is tripartite.

On the other hand, the data in no way favor a TWQ

hyparchetype. The only reason to think that they do is the

assumption that the kinship of T and W in tetr. 3-4 must

carry over into tetralogy 5. We cannot forget the

importance of Einzelüberlieferung in the Platonic tradition.37

Derivative MSS.

Many superior readings come to us from copies of our

primary witnesses.38 Although the readings that are

37 I am gratified to learn from W.S.M. Nicoll that he would classify W

as an independent relative of B, contaminated from T. Nicoll discussed

this question in his 1963 Cambridge dissertation.

36 Robert S. Brumbaugh was working on this problem when he died, and

Martinelli Tempesta, 275-6, has suggested similarly. Reis, 260-2,

hypothesizes that the dialogues of tetr. iv-vii were rearranged to

reflect the schematization of zetetic dialogues into four types; cf.

Diog. Laert. 3.49.

37

attested for the first time in thirteenth- and fourteenth-

century apographa may very well be conjectures, we cannot be

sure that ancient readings have not slipped in among them.

Manuscripts of the thirteenth century that I use for the

text of the Charmides are Par, Flor, N, and Esc. Lobc was

copied from W no earlier than the last quarter of the

thirteenth century.39 I use the fourteenth-century C, H, J,

G, Q, R, and r.40 In the fifteenth century, several

excellent variants, some of them certainly conjectures, were

introduced by Cardinal Ioannes Bessarion into U. Other

useful 15th-century MSS. are o and the fragmentary Voss. gr.

54.

Early printed editions and Latin translations

39 On the controversy about the copyist and date of Lobc, see most

recently, Murphy 1995, 159-62; E. Berti, Ancora sul Lobcoviciano di Platone,

in: M.S. Funghi (ed.), ODOI DIZHSIOS. Le vie della ricerca. Studi in onore di Francesco

Adorno (Florence 1996), 95-107; Martinelli Tempesta, 125-41; J.

Irigoin, La Datation du manuscrit L de Platon (Pragensis VI Fa 1): une aporie

paléographique?, BollGrott 51 (1997), 27-35 and Tavv.; Reis, 200-6.

38

Three printed editions preceded Stephanus' 1578

edition: the Aldina (1513), and the first and second Basel

editions (1534 and 1556). They are not of critical

importance for the text, for the readings that Burnet

printed on their authority must be credited to earlier

40 Perez Martin 2000, 327 has identified the hand of H with the scribe

of Flor. Laur. 31.8, who worked in the third quarter of s. xiv. On the

date of Q, cf. G. Prato, I manoscritti greci dei secoli XIII e XIV: note paleografiche,

in: D. Harlfinger and G. Prato (edd.), Paleografia e codicologia, Atti del II

Colloquio Internazionale di Berlino. Berlino Wolfenbüttel 17-21 ottobre 1983 (Alessandria

1991), 139-40 (=G. Prato, Studi di paleografia greca [Spoleto 1994], 122-3);

Brockmann, 85-7; A. Pontani, Primi appunti sul Malatestiano D.XXVII.1 e sulla

biblioteca dei Crisolora, in: F. Lollini and P. Lucchi (edd.), Libraria Domini: I

manoscritti della Biblioteca Malatestiana: testi e decorazioni (Bologna 1995), 354-5,

369.

38 In 1990 I enumerated many readings of apographa, which 1) I would

adopt in the text, 2) anticipate scholars’ emendations, or 3) Burnet

ascribed to still later MSS. or to ‘recc’. or ‘al’. To Burnet’s

apparatus, add 161b1kai\ om. necnon J, 163d6 a)\n fe/r$j] a)\n fe/roij FlorH.

To his and my reports, add 164a9 ti/j] ti G, 166b8 to\ %(=] ti/ni Parc,

170e6 ou)] om. Lobc, which omission anticipates M. Schofield, Socrates on

Conversing with Doctors, CR 23 (1973), 122. Priscianus’ h)\ to\ at 160c5

recurs in ParcFlorG. I should not have spoken of G as a direct copy of

39

correctors. Musurus’ Aldine edition rests on MSS. U and H

or a close relative of H, while Bas1 depends on Ald.41 The

preface of Bas2 reports that Arnoldus Arlenius, who made the

recension, consulted other manuscripts to correct Ald and

Bas1. Schanz and others have thought that T was one MS.

used by Arlenius.42 This hypothesis finds some support from

our dialogue, for T is the only source to supply all three

of a trio of readings in which Bas2 diverges from Ald, Bas1

and the Latin translations.43 In certain other dialogues,

readings of J also recur in Bas2, as do readings of U or E,

which Rhosus copied for Bessarion from U.44 Influence of U

or E is discernible at Chrm. 171e6 oi)konomoume/nh

THJUAldBas1: oi)koume/nh BWQUbEBas2, and 173e9 su\ dokei=j T in Murphy 1990, 318. For recent findings about these MSS. in other

dialogues, see studies enumerated above, n. 2, as well as J. Cirignano,

The Manuscripts of Xenophon’s Symposium, GRBS 34 (1993), 187-210.

41 Musurus did not use J2’s corrections; cf. above, n. 27. For the

filiation of the Aldine and the two Basel editions in Chrm., cf. Murphy

1990, 325-6. On these and Stephanus’ edition in other dialogues,

consult works mentioned above, n. 2.

42 Cf. M. Schanz, Bemerkungen zu Platohandschriften, RhM N.F. 33 (1878), 615;

Boter 1989, 245; Brockmann, 195.

40

Bekker: au)= dokei=j Ub: eu)= dokei=j Bas2: eu)= dokei= BTWQHJUE

AldBas1. Unfortunately, Bas2 makes few improvements over

its predecessors. Despite Stephanus’ claim to have collated

additional manuscripts, we have no evidence that he did more

than revise earlier editions with the help of conjecture and

printed Latin translations.45 He was right to omit the

accent at 155e3 pwj.

Ficino completed the draft of his translation of the

Charmides some time between August, 1464, and April, 1466.46

His revised version of all of Plato was finally published in

Florence in 1484.47 It is well established that Ficino had

use of the complete Plato codex, c, which is a copy of a.48

His hand has also been detected in o.49 Recent studies have

revealed, however, that Ficino drew on a range of sources to

translate Plato.50 Florence c does not make many errors

against a, but Ficino agrees with it in error against a and

46 On the chronlogy of Ficino’s drafts of his translations of the various dialogues, cf. P. Kristeller,

Supplementum Ficinianum. Marsilii Ficini Florentini philosophi platonici opuscula (Florence 1937), I

cxlvii-clii.

41

o at 155e7 poioi=] ao: poiei= c: restituitur Fic; 170b8 me/n ti]

ao: me/n toi c: quidem Fic. Ficino seems to have read 173e9

para\ with c and o against the correct peri\ of a, for he

tries to make sense of the text in this way: At forte e multis

inscienter viventibus unum quendam certa ex scientia scienter viventem beatum

47 I have used a copy of the Venetian reprint of 1491, published by

Berdardinus de Choris and Simon de Luere, possessed by the Rare Book and

Manuscript Library, Columbia University.

48 Cf. A. Diller, Studies in Greek Manuscript Tradition (Amsterdam 1983), 257; S.

Gentile, S. Niccoli, P. Viti, Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Platone. Mostra di

manoscritti, stampe, documenti (Florence 1984), 28-31; S. Gentile 1987, 53-6.

Boter 1989, 32-3, 127-9, dated a after c. 1400 because it incorporates

corrections that were prefaced by ‘al’. in its source, g. Against this,

Carlini 1999, 8 n. 22 points out that the folia in question were added

to g at a later time (already acknowledged by Boter, 123-4), and it is

not at all clear from the microfilm in Yale’s Plato Microfilm Archive

that the note on f. 141v of g, signalling loss of leaves, is in the

first scribe’s hand, as Boter maintains it is. a’s use of Oriental

paper also does not tally with a date in s. xv; see further, Carlini

1999, 8-11, Reis 183. N.G. Wilson some years ago tentatively

hypothesized that the scribe of c may have been Cristoforo Persona,

1416-1485 (apud J. Hankins, Cosimo de’ Medici and the ‘Platonic Academy,’ JWCI 53

[1990], 158). Two copies of c, however, appear to fix a point in s. xiv

42

determinas. The second person singular verb, one should

note, matches Bessarion's correction mentioned above on Ald.

Florence o may have helped Ficino at 161e13 kai\ ta)=lla

pa/nta] habent ao: et supellectilia quaeque Fic: om. c; 164a9 le/ge]

o: dic Fic: ge ac; 167c5 do/cei] o: videbitur Fic: do/c$ ac;

as its terminus ante quem: S, a copy of c in Chrm., is written in a 14th-

century hand on Oriental paper (cf. J. Irigoin apud Joyal 1998, 18 n.

64), and Vind. phil. gr. 109, derived from c in Rep. X by Boter 1989, 60,

142, shows 14th cent. watermarks (cf. H. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen

Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, T. I: Codices historici. Codices philosophici

et philologici [Vienna 1961], 218). Wilson is conducting a new study of c.

On filiation of a,c and S in Chrm., cf. Murphy 1990, 329-31, where the

date of S must be revised.

49 Gentile 1987, 76-80; D. Blank, Anmerkungen zu Marsilio Ficinos

Platohandschriften, in: F. Berger, Ch. Brockmann, G. De Gregorio, M.I.

Ghisen, S. Kotzabassi, B. Noack (edd.), Symbolae Berolinenses für Dieter Harlfinger

(Amsterdam 1993), 14-19. More evidence is given by A. Carlini 1999, 20-

21.

50 The most comprehensive study already published is by E. Berti 1996.

I thank Professors Berti and A. Carlini for kindly sending me drafts of

their recent articles (cf. bibliography). On Ficino’s MSS. cf. also

Gentile 1987, 60-84; Boter 1989, 270-8; Jonkers, 305-9; Brockmann,

220-9; Martinelli Tempesta, 165-77; P. Megna, Lo Ione platonico nella Firenze

43

168a3 docw=n do/can] ao: opinionum... opinio sit Fic: docw=n c;

171c6-7 ta\ th=j te/xnhj h)\ mh\ e)pista/menon, prospoiou/menon de\

h)\ oi)o/menon] habent ao: discernere medicum poterit medendi peritum,

itemque medicinae peritiam simulantem vel sese habere putantem Fic: om.

c; 175e5 ou)=n om. c, non vertit Fic; 176a2 soi] ao: tibi

Fic: om. c.

We know that Ficino looked beyond c and o because he

translated 175a3-7 w)= e(tai=re... w)feli/aj, a section omitted

by aco and Ross, also a copy of a. I have not found

significant errors that link Fic to another particular MS.

W, its apographa and Bessarion’s UEG are the only MSS. that

transmit all of the following six Ficinian improvements upon

c and o, although, if we eliminate 172d2 as a possible

conjecture, then M, another MS. that Bessarion may have

used, would fit the bill as well (here * = ‘and all its

apographa’; cf. stemma in Murphy 1990, 339):51 156d8 le/gei

B*TGW*Q*CcMUbEsv Ambros. gr. F 19 sup. (in Ficino’s hand): ait

Fic: om. Par*; 163a4 ou) B*J2: oi( mh\ W*CcMUbE: qui non Fic:

oi( T*Q*; 170c2 to\ d' a(rmoniko\n mousik$= a)ll' ou) swfrosu/n$

medicea (Messina 1999), 89-92.

44

BTGW*Q*M1(?)imUbE: harmonicum musica non temperantia Fic: om. QPar*;

172d2 toiou=ton B*TW*Q*GUbEc: talis Fic: tosou=ton Par*; 176b3

e(/wj W*Q*GcMUpcE*HpcJ2: quoad Fic: i)/swj B*T*; 176b5 <h)\n>]

ei) W1pc*AngcFlorMsvUbEJ2 si Fic: om. B*T*WacQ*. We know that

Ficino’s translation matches certain of Bessarion’s

corrections in other dialogues.52 And, although we have no

evidence that Ficino used W, he may have used Flor. conv. soppr.

54, which belonged to the Badia in Florence and which is a

copy of W in Chrm.53 At 167b2, on the other hand, Ficino’s

ut quae quisque novit et quae non novit nosse et item non nosse cognoscerent

presupposes the textual supplement oi)=de kai\ o(/ti, which

appears first in Paris H as an addition in Andronicus

Callistus’ hand. Formerly a member of Bessarion’s circle,

Callistus was teaching in Florence in 1471-75 and numbered

among his students Angelo Poliziano, who in later years

helped Ficino revise his translation.54 Although Ficino was

capable of the same conjecture, it is attractive to imagine

Poliziano contributing this emendation of his teacher’s

during revision of the translation.

45

We owe to Ficino five superior readings: 157d6 pa/ntwn

(omnium) Fic anticipating Cobet (for MSS. see BWQ errors

above), 160a6 e)sti ka/lliston (pulcherrimum est) Fic (was he

Stallbaum’s ‘Anonymus’?): e)sti ka/llista BTWQ, 165a5 e(/neken

non vertit Fic, 169b8 a)podei=cai/ se non vertit Fic, 170a1

tou=to (hoc) Fic: to\ au)to\ BTWQ. In the above and most of

the following he anticipated later scholars (cf. Burnet’s

apparatus): 155d6 a)/ll% BTWQ: a)/llo (similtudinem alterius rei

subiiciens) Fic, 157e1 a)/llon] non vertit Fic, 159b8 dh\ BTWQ:

de\ (sed) Fic, 159c3 ka/lliston] pulchrius est Fic: ka/llion

Stephanus, 162c4 dokei=] visumque est Fic, 164e6 fhsi/n] non

vertit Fic, 167a4 oi)/etai BTWQ: nosse putat Fic, 169c6

a)nagkasqh=nai non vertit Fic, 174a6 au)to\n] toiou=ton (eiusmodi)

Fic, 174d6-7 au(/th et h( w)feli/mh non vertit Fic. Ficino

renders the Greek responsibly ad sensum, compressing here,

adding clarity there. He admits to altering some amatory

elements, and he omitted Socrates’ account of his erotic

excitement at 155c5-e2 entirely.55 Although the

abovementioned good readings in all likelihood represent the

translator’s solutions of textual problems, Ficino’s version

46

rests on a real recension. It is probable that he wrote out

such a recension in a working copy, from which he then

translated the dialogue.56

Angelo Poliziano, boy genius of the Renaissance,

translated our dialogue, accompanied by a prefatory

dedication to Lorenzo de’ Medici. It was first published at

the end of Bk. 12 of his Epistulae in the Aldine printing of

his works, edited by Alessandro Sarti in 1498. The

translation breaks off at 155e8 (sc. ‘cantationem vero...’).

The immediately following subscription, ‘Reliquum summa

diligentia quaesitum habere nequivimus,’ shows that Sarti was not

able to find the rest of the translation among Poliziano’s

surviving papers, and in fact, we cannot prove that

Poliziano finished it. From a statement in the preface, sc.

‘eumque (sc. Platonem) pauculis admodum diebus, quos apud me sit

diversatus, latinum sermonem edocui,’ for which metaphor cf.

Cicero, De Fin. 3.12.40, it looks as though Poliziano

tackled one short dialogue because he had his exemplar on

loan. He seems to have begun work before learning of

Ficino's version, for he speaks in the preface as though the

47

dialogue has not been translated into Latin before: ‘Sed ut

Platonem tandem ipsum latine tecum de temperantia disputantem...’ A

date in the earlier 1470’s is the most likely.57

Poliziano’s Latin is less literal and more elegant than

Ficino’s. We cannot be more precise about Poliziano's Greek

model than to put it in the T family, probably in the Par

branch; cf. 155a2 u(mi=n to\ kalo\n BTWQG: to\ kalo\n u(mi=n Par:

hoc vero inquam boni, amice Critia, ex alto vobis principio Pol; 155a5 ei)

e)/ti e)tu/gxane new/teroj w)/n Goldbacher: e)/ti tugxa/nei new/teroj

w)/n BWQ: ei) e)tu/gxane new/teroj w)/n T Par: ei) g” e)tu/gxane

new/teroj w)/n Wim: quod iunior sit Pol. Although Flor was in the

Medici library, we cannot establish that Poliziano used that

codex, for at 154c7 a)/llos’ e)/blepen, where Flor corrects the

primary MSS., Poliziano agrees with JsvGpcUpcE in a)/llon

e)/blepen (alium quempiam intueretur). Unlike Ficino, Poliziano

did not bowdlerize at l55c-d.58

Ianus Cornarius’ translation of Plato's Opera Omnia was

published posthumously in Basel in 1561. Cornarius says in

his Ecloga to tetr. 1 that he used Ald, Bas1, Bas2 and a

manuscript from the library of Bohuslav Hassenstein of

48

Lobcovic. This MS. cannot be identified with any known

Plato codex.59 It seems not to have belonged to the B or W

group, for Cornarius presents as his own conjecture the

added mh/ at 163a4 (cf. above on TQ errors). In Chrm.,

Cornarius is the sole witness to Nai/, ou(/twj, which he

claims in the Ecloga to have found in vulgati codices after

Socrates’ question at 171a6. Cornarius probably added these

words himself because the printed editions wrongly

incorporate Critias’ response, 171a7 Tou/t% me\n ou)=n, in

Socrates’ next statement, 171a8 Kai\ h( i)atrikh\ ktl. Recent

studies of other dialogues have failed to detect any

material that Cornarius could not have gotten from the three

printed editions, Ficino or his own mind.60 Many of

Cornarius’ unique readings simply consist of words that he

did not translate. He was the first to realize that the

reflexive pronoun is needed at 155c2 au(t%= (ipsum). At

166b2 e)sti statikh/], Cornarius’ scientia anticipates Hoenebeek

Hissink’s e)pisth/mh.

The indirect tradition

49

The most substantial quotations from the Charmides in an

ancient author are given by the fifth-century compiler,

Ioannes Stobaeus. Although the text of the dialogue as

preserved in Stobaeus is more corrupt than that in the Plato

MSS., Stobaeus offers a superior reading at 164d1 (cf. above

on primary MSS.). He agrees correctly with B-B2 et al.:

157a2 a)/llou BWGPStob: o(/lou T; 164e1 tou= xai/rein B2WGStob:

to\ xai/rein BT; 164e2 a)llh/loij BStob: a)llh/louj TWG.

Stobaeus attests to the antiquity of 156e4 tou= a)/llou

a)meloi=en, only the last word of which was added as a

marginal variant by T2 (for whom see n. 12 above). At 173b1

and b5, Stobaeus offers material lacking in the manuscripts,

from which fruitful conjectures have been made (cf. above on

primary MSS.). Some readings betray influence of ancient

glosses, interlinear corrections or variants: 156d5 i)atrw=n

BTWG: politw=n Stob; 165a6 see above on WQ. The examples

at 156e4 and 165a6 show that the manuscript tradition has

been influenced more through acquisition of individual

variants than through assimilation to an overall text

pattern similar to what we find in Stobaeus. Because

50

Clement and Stobaeus both read oi(\ le/gontai a)paqanati/zein

(a)qanati/zein Clement) at 156d6, omitting kai,\ one may

speculate that each man was copying from a book of abridged

quotations. Clement’s quotation is much shorter, so that

Stobaeus cannot be copying him.

The only other ancient quotations known to me are in

Clement, Apuleius, Aristaenetus, Priscian, Photius and

Eustathius. They are too short to support conclusions about

their place in the history of the text. Priscian transmits

interesting variants at 155e5 e)gw\] e)gw\ me\n Prisc. and

155e7 au)t%=] om. Prisc. libri. At 157a4-5 ta\j... kalou/j,

Apuleius (De Mag. 26) omits tau/taj and transposes ei)=nai

after e)p%da/j, which transposition suggests quotation from

memory. However, Apuleius serves his own apologetic purpose

by the omission, for he thereby makes Plato approve of all

epodai.61 Proclus paraphrases 158d1-5 so: ka)/n te ga\r fw=

swfronei=n fortiko\j o( lo/goj, ka)/n te mh\ fw= kath/goroj e)/somai

e)mautou= (In Plat. Alc. I Comm. 117.8). Aristotle may be alluding

to 170d ff. at SE 172a21-b1.62

51

Index testimoniorum

Apuleius Apologia 26 (Chrm. 157a4-5 ta\j... kalou/j)

Aristaenetus, Epist. I, 24 1-3 (imitates 155c1-2)

Clemens Alexandrinus Stromata I, 15, 68.3 (156d5-6 oi(...

a)qanati/zein)

Eustathius Comm. ad Hom. Od., vol. 1, p. 92 (160a5

h(suxai/tata)

Photius Lexicon s.v. a(/dhn (153d2 )Epeidh\... ei)/xomen)

Priscianus Institutiones 18, 100 (155e2-8 o(/mwj... fu/llou);

18, 254 (160c2-7 ei)...

ou)damou); 18, 250 (175d6-e1 u(pe\r... swfrosu/nhj)

Stobaeus Florilegium: 4, 37.23 (156d3-157b1 toiou=ton...

pori/zein); 3, 21.25 (164d1-

165a7 kai\... a)ne/qesan); 3, 5.55 (173a7-d3 )/Akoue...

ei)=nai)

The Nightingale-Bamford School

20 East 92nd Street NEW YORK, NY 10128

dmurphy@nightingale.org

52

SIGLA

A Parisinus gr. 1807, s. ix

B Oxoniensis Bodleianus Clarkianus 39, A.D. 895. B2 =

the contemporary corrector, most probably Arethas (cf.

Brockmann 38-41). b1 = corr. of s. x-xi. b = more recent

correctors.

C Parisinus gr. 1809, s. xiv

D Venetus gr. 185 (coll. 576), s. xi-xii

E Venetus Marcianus gr. 184 (coll. 324), s. xv

H Parisinus gr. 1811, s. xiv

J Parisinus gr. 1812, s. xiv. J2 = corr. s. xv ex.-s.

xvi init. Tentative identification by D. Harlfinger as

Paolo da Canale (Brockman 181) is disputed by Berti 1996,

161 n. 155.

M Caesenas Malatestianus D 28 4, s. xiv

N Neapolitanus gr. III.E.15 (337), s. xiii

P Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 173, s. x

Q Parisinus gr. 1813, s. xiii

R Vaticanus gr. 1029, s. xiv

S Parisinus suppl. gr. 668, s. x

53

T Venetus Marcianus append. cl. 4.1 (coll. 542), s. x med.

T2 = corrector of s. x. t = other correctors

U Venetus Marcianus gr. 186 (coll. 601), s. xv. Ub =

correction by Bessarion

W Vindobonensis suppl. gr. 7, s. xi

Y Vindobonensis phil. gr. 21, s. xiii ex.

Ang Angelicus gr. 107, s. xiv

Flor Florentinus Laurentianus plut. 85.6, s. xiii

Esc Scorialensis y.I.13, s. xiii

Lobc Lobcovicianus VI.Fa.1, s. xiv

Par Parisinus gr. 1808, s. xiii

Ross Vaticanus Ross. 558, s. xv-xvi

r Ambrosianus D 56 sup. ( gr. 238), s. xiv

a Florentinus Laurentianus gr. plut. 59.1, s. xiv

c Florentinus Laurentianus gr. plut. 85.9, s. xiv

o Florentinus Laurentianus conv. soppr. 180, s. xv

y Vaticanus Barberinianus gr. 270, s. xv

G Parisinus Coislinianus gr. 155, s. xiv

Q Vaticanus gr. 226, s. xiv init.

S Venetus Marcianus gr. 189 (coll. 704), s. xiv?

54

g Florentinus Laurentianus conv. soppr. 42, s. xii

BIBLIOGRAPHY

E. Berti, Osservazioni filologiche alla versione del Filebo di Marsilio Ficino,

in: P. Cosenza, ed., Atti del Convegno di studi sul Filebo di Platone e la

sua fortuna, Napoli 4-6 novembre 1993 (Naples 1996), 93-167.

E. Berti, Marsilio Ficino e il testo greco del Fedone di Platone, in:

Translators at Work: Their Methods and Manuscripts (Erice, 30 sett. - 6 ott.,

1999), forthcoming.

G. J. Boter, The Vindobonensis W of Plato, CodMan 13 (1987), 144-

55.

G.J. Boter, The Textual Tradition of Plato's Republic (Mnemosyne

Suppl.107; Leiden 1989).

Christian Brockmann, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung von Platons

Symposion (Serta Graeca 2; Wiesbaden 1992).

A. Carlini, Platone. Alcibiade I, Alcibiade II, Ipparco, Rivali (Turin

1964).

A. Carlini, Studi sulla tradizione antica e medievale del Fedone (Rome

1972).

55

A. Carlini, Marsilio Ficino e il testo di Platone, Rinascimento 39

(1999), 3-36.

Ianus Cornarius, Platonis Atheniensis, philosophi summi ac penitus divini

opera (in latinam vertit C.) (Basel 1561).

E. A. Duke, The Place of Parisinus Graecus 1813 in the Tradition of the

Phaedo, RHT 21 (1991), 243-56.

E.A. Duke, W.E. Hicken, W.S.M. Nicoll, D. B. Robinson, and

J.C.G. Strachan, Platonis Opera, tomus I. Tetralogias I-II continens

(Oxford 1995).

E. Gamillscheg and D. Harlfinger, Repertorium der griechischen

Kopisten [= RGK; Vienna 1981-97] .

S. Gentile, Note sui manoscritti greci di Platone utilizzati da Marsilio Ficino,

in: Scritti in onore di Eugenio Garin (Pubblicazioni della Classe di

lettere e filosofia 1; Pisa 1987), 51-84.

S. Gentile, Poliziano, Ficino, Andronico Callisto e la traduzione del ‘Carmide’

platonico, in: V. Fera and M. Martelli (edd.), Agnolo Poliziano.

Poeta Scrittore Filologo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi,

Montepulciano 3-6 novembre 1994 (Florence 1998), 365-85.

J. Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance I-II (Columbia Studies

in the Classical Tradition 27; 2nd ed. Leiden 1991).

56

G. Jonkers, The Manuscript Tradition of Plato's Timaeus and Critias (Diss.

Amsterdam 1989).

M. Joyal, The Textual Tradition of [Plato], Theages, RHT 28 (1998), 1-

53.

______, The Platonic Theages. An Introduction, Commentary and Critical

Edition (Philosophie der Antike 10; Stuttgart 2000).

J. Král, Über den Platocodex der Wiener Hofbibliothek suppl. gr. 7, WS 14

(1892), 161-208.

S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale del Liside di Platone

(Pubblicazioni della Faccoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’

Università degli Studi di Milano 173. Sezione di Filologia

Classica 6; Florence 1997).

C. Moreschini, Studi sulla tradizione manoscritta del Parmenide e del Fedro

di Platone, ASNP 34 (1965), 169-85.

D.J. Murphy, The Manuscripts of Plato’s Charmides, Mnemosyne 43

(1990), 316-40.

______, The Independence of Par. gr. 1813 in Plato's Phaedrus, Hipparchus,

Alcibiades II, Mnemosyne 45 (1992), 312-32.

______, Par. gr. 1813 and its Apographa in Plato's Laches, Mnemosyne 47

(1994), 1-11.

57

______, Contribution to the History of Some Manuscripts of Plato, RFIC 123

(1995), 155-168.

______, rev. of Martinelli Tempesta, BMCR 12.05 (1998),

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1998/1998-12-05.html.

______, rev. of Joyal 2000, CW 95 (2001), 93-4.

43 Bas2 agrees with the following: 153a1 h(/komen BTWQLobcR Flor.Conv.soppr.

54; 156e4 a)meloi=en, the reading of Stobaeus, added i.m. by the first

scribes of T, Par, Ang, y, and by a corrector i.m. in C; 175b3 ou)damh=

duna/meqa eu(rei=n, a reading added in the margin by the first hands of T,

Par, Ang, y, r, a, and c.

44 Boter 1989, 246, Jonkers, 313-15, Brockmann, 194-5.

45 Cf. Martinelli Tempesta, 205, who reviews earlier discussions.

51 Bessarion wrote the initial folia of G (RGK II A 61) and took material

from it and, probably, M; cf. Martinelli Tempesta, 42, 59-60. Carlini

has removed the obstacle to dating M, a copy of a, to s. xiv; cf.

above, n. 48, and Reis, 216.

52 Jonkers, 307-9, uncovered agreements between Fic and Bessarion's Ven.

Marc. gr. 187 and between Fic and M, and Brockmann, 217-19, has found

variant readings of G in Ricc. 92. Berti 1996, 142-3, theorizes that

Ficino used a lost copy of M. Prof. Berti cautions that even if Ficino

did get variant readings from Bessarion (or vice versa), he need not

have consulted the Cardinal's manuscripts directly. Jonkers' proposal,

308-9, that Ficino also used S does not solve any problem in Chrm.,

58

D.J. Murphy and W.S.M. Nicoll, Par. gr. 1813 in Plato's Cratylus,

Mnemosyne 46 (1993), 458-72.

W.S.M. Nicoll, A Problem in the Textual Tradition of Plato’s Politicus, CQ

25 (1975), 41-7.

because S is a copy of c and shares all its errors listed above.

53 Cf. Carlini, 1999, 21, Reis 198. Chrm. was inserted in this MS. in s.xivex-xv; cf. Murphy 1990, 334.

54 On Callistus’ marginalia in H, cf. RGK II A 25; Brockmann, 27, 181

and Abb. 47, 49; on his career, cf. now RGK III A 31, with bibl. On

Poliziano’s rapport with Callistus and, later, Ficino, cf. S. Gentile

1998. Ficino acknowledged the help he derived from ‘acerrimo Angeli Politiani

doctissimi viri iudicio;’ cf. J. Hankins 1991, I 311. 55 ‘Etsi omnia in hoc dialogo mirificam habent allegoriam, amatoria

maxime, non aliter quam Cantica Salomonis, mutavi tamen nonnihil,

nonnihil etiam praetermisi; quae enim consonabant castigatissimis

auribus Atticorum, rudioribus forte auribus minime consonarent,’

Argumentum Marsilii in Charmidem de temperantia (1491 ed., fol. 97v).

56 For evidence that he did this in Phdo., cf. Berti, forthcoming.

57 Cf. Gentile 1998, 375-6, 380, against a date in the late 1470’s, as

proposed by Hankins 1991, II, 449-53.

58 The text of Poliziano’s translation and preface is reprinted in Ida

Maïer, ed., Angeli Politiani Opera (Monumenta philosophica humanistica

rariora, ser. I, 16; Turin 1971), I, 446-50, and the preface in Hankins

59

I. Pérez Martín, El ‘Estilo Salonicense’: un modo de escribir en la Salónica

del siglo xiv, in: G. Prato (ed.), I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e

dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca, Cremona, 4-10

ottobre 1998 (Florence 2000), I, 310-27.

F. Pontani, Per la tradizione antica del Lachete di Platone: PPetrie II, 50 e

POxy 228, SCO 45 (1995), 99-126.

B. Reis, Der Platoniker Albinos und sein sogenannter Prologos.

Prolegomena, Überlieferungsgeschichte, kritische Edition und Übersetzung

(Serta Graeca 7; Wiesbaden, 1999.

1991, II 623-6, and Gentile 1998, 382-5. On the Medici Greek MSS., cf.

E.B. Fryde, Greek Manuscripts in the Private Library of the Medici, 1469-1510

(Aberystwyth 1996), esp. 285 on Flor.

59 Cf. G.J. Boter, The Codex Hassensteinianus of Plato, RHT 18 (1988), 215-18.

60 Hankins 1991, II 805, Martinelli Tempesta, 201-4.

61 Cf. J. Jüthner, Ein Platonzitat bei Apuleius, in: Aus der Werkstaat des Hörsaals:

Papyrus-Studien und andere Beiträge den Innsbrucker Philologen Klub zur Feier seiner

vierzigjähriger Bestandes Gewidmet (Innsbruck 1914), 51.

62 I am grateful to Ernesto Berti, Stefano Martinelli Tempesta, Bill

Nicoll and S.R. Slings for their comments on and criticism of earlier

drafts of this paper, and I thank Antonio Carlini for his many valuable

suggestions. I wish to thank the Nightingale-Bamford School for the

generous support of a summer stipend.

60

S.R. Slings, rev. of Martinelli Tempesta 1997, Mnemosyne 52

(1999), 489-92.

B. Vancamp, La tradition manuscrite de l'Hippias Majeur de Platon, RHT 25

(1995), 1-60.

B. Vancamp, Platon. Hippias Maior - Hippias Minor (Palingenesia 59:

Stuttgart 1996).

61

Notes.

62