"The Text of Apollonius Pictus: A Critical Transcription", in: Apollonius Pictus, 153–174

András Németh

The Text of Apollonius pictus: A Critical Transcription

11 Andras szovegatirat.indd 15311 Andras szovegatirat.indd 153 2011.11.26. 12:012011.11.26. 12:01

Principles of the transcriptionTh e text of Apollonius pictus (φ) deserves a precise and critical transcription: not only because it preserves an exceptionally rich narrative image cycle, but also by virtue of the early, rather vulgar redaction of the Historia Apollonii. Klebs gave redaction φ a major signifi cance in reconstructing RA; it has still only been used as an auxiliary source to correct some shortcomings of the principal manuscripts of RA. On its own merit, redaction φ and Rα have not been studied systematically. So far, only two sections of φ have been carefully collated: ch. 32 on fol.1ra by Emil Ponori Th ewrewk (Klebs 1899, p. 53–54) and ch. 37–38 on fol. 4ra–b (Kortekaas 1984, p. 72–80, especially 73–74).

By transcribing the entire text of the Apollonius pictus and comparing it to the principal redactions, I attempted to provide a solid basis for a critical study of Rα, especially that of the relationship between image and text in φ. My intention was to provide a legible Latin text. For this reason, most of the abbreviations are solved without indication, only insecure and infrequent abbreviations are marked with brackets; uppercase and lowercase initials follow the logic of the narrative instead of the inconsistency of the Apollonius pictus. Where the text has been lost because of the damages of the Budapest fragment, the completion is based on F (Leipzig, UB, Cod. 431, 12th century), the only close fellow from redaction Rα. Th e long section that was lost together with the removed half leaf (fol. 1rb and fol. 1va) was reconstructed by the help of some letters legible in the edges of the truncated folio. Th e completion here is also based on F. My attempt was not to reconstruct the lost text but to show how text and images were displayed in these columns. In most of the cases, the scenes can safely be located. Th eir likely content is suspected from their location within the text. I inserted short descriptions of the depictions within gray frames. Underneath these descriptions, I added the labels that were copied by the main scribe.

In addition to transcribing the text of φ copied by the main scribe, I made my transcription critical by distinguishing

four apparatuses: (1) for the references, (2) for the variant readings, (3) for grammatical and spelling irregularities, and (4) for the sources of completions, the lacunae, and additions in φ. In apparatuses 2–4, I indicate the main variants of RA and RB, or some early manuscripts compared exclusively to φ or with the attempt to defi ne the relationship of φ with them. Not aiming at a critical edition, I found Kortekaas’ approach to establishing RA and RB more reliable for the purpose of comparing the readings of φ. Th us, the texts cited as RA and RB, and the alternative readings of specifi c manuscripts other than φ and F derive from Kortekaas 2004. I have only consulted two manuscripts: φ and F, all representatives of the longer version of redaction Rα. Th e variants found in F agree with φ if it is not indicated otherwise in the apparatuses. It is for the fi rst time and in this critical transcription that the readings of these two manuscripts are systematically published.

Th e sequence of the folios in the Apollonius pictus according to the narrative


András Németh156

Editorial marks and notes<…> – illegible text in the Apollonius pictus<text> – completion of illegible sections<1–9> – number of illegible letters«text» – completion of short lacunae<***> – lacuna in the Apollonius pictus[text] – editorial insertion that does not feature in φ

(chapter number of RA, texts from F in the lost pat of fol. 1rb and fol. 1va)

{text} – erroneously appears in the manuscript (exclusion)

†text† – diffi cult reading|| – page- and column-breaks in φ and F | – line-break in φ/ – verse-breaks in the riddles add. – addition in a manuscriptcodd. – unanimous reading in the manuscripts against

the variant of φ coni. – conjecture by an editorom. – absent from a manuscript

Apparatuses(1) references(2) variant readings of φ compared to F and various

recensions(3) grammatical and palaeographical peculiarities in φ(4) completions, additions, and lacunae in φ

SiglaA – Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. LXVI. 40,

fol. 62r–70v (9th century, Beneventan manuscript), representing RA, described in Bandini 1775, coll. 812–814; Kortekaas 1984, p. 24–29

β – Oxford, Magdalen College, no. 50, fol. 88r–108r (12th century, England), representing RB; Kortekaas 1984, p. 41–46

b – Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Vossianus Latinus F 113, fol. 30v–38v (9th century), representing RB, described in Meyier 1973, p. 242–245; Kortekaas 1984, p. 37–41

F – Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. 431, fol. 93r–117r (12th century), representing the long version of Rα, described in Helssig 1926, p. 670–674

F1 – correcting hand in F, later in date than the main scribe of F

L – Gent, Universiteitsbiblothek, 92 (Liber Floridus), fol. 263v–269v and fol. 258v–259r (around 1120); Kortekaas 1984, p. 35–36

M – Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 9783, fol. 67va–79rb (13th century), representing RB; Kortekaas 1984, p. 47–51

π – Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 6487, fol. 27r–40v (13th century), representing RB; Kortekaas 1984, p. 51–54

P – Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 4955, fol. 9r–15r (14th century), representing RA; Kortekaas 1984, p. 31–34

RA – recension A (defi ned by Klebs 1899, p. 18–25; Kortekaas 1984, p. 15–16, 24–34, 67–72)

Rα – a group of manuscripts predominantly based on RA, described by Klebs 1899, p. 52–62, 105–113 and Kortekaas 1984, p. 34–37, 72–80

RB – recension B (defi ned by Klebs 1899, p. 25–31; Kortekaas 1984, p. 16, 37–54, 80–88)

Rβ – recensions predominantly derived from RB, described by Klebs 1899, p. 155–159; Kortekaas 1984, p. 88–90

RC – recension C based equally on RA and RB, edited separately by Schmeling 1988, p. 84–136

φ – Apollonius pictus, Budapest, OSZK, Cod. Lat. 4 (main scribe), representing the long version of Rα

φ1 – corrections in the Apollonius pictus in a hand diff erent from the main scribe

Vac – Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 1984, fol. 167r–184r (Va belongs to RC), interlinear emendations based on RA (12th century); Kortekaas 1984, p. 29–30


The Text of Apollonius pictus: A Critical Transcription 157

φ

φ

φ

φ


András Németh158

φ

φ



φ

βπφ

φ

φ


András Németh160

φ

π β α

φ

φ α

φ



φ

φ

φ

Ταρσεις

πφ

φ

φ


András Németh162

φ

φ

φ

φφ



φ

φ

φ

φ

π α

φ


András Németh164

απ β

φα φ

φφ

φ

φ φφ



α φ

φ

φ φφ φ

α

φφ

φ


András Németh166

φ βπ

φφπ

φ φ

φ

φ

φ



φ

φφ φ

φ

φ

φ

φφ


András Németh168

φ

βπ

φ

φ φ



φ

α

φ

φ

φ

φ

φ


András Németh170

φ

φ, γφ

φ



φ

φ

α φ

φ

φ

φ

α

φφφ α


András Németh172

α

α

φ

Ταρσεις



Th e text of Apollonius pictus in the principal editions φ fol. 1ra: Tolle . . .× . . . civitatem: Schmeling 1988, RA 23.23–25.3, RB 65.10–<66>, RC 107.16–110.8; Kortekaas 1984, p. 344–349: RA 31.17–32.38, RB 31.17–<32>; Kortekaas 2004, p. 176–183: RA 31.15–32.33, RB 31.10–<32>; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 60.22–62.18, (RB) 103.8–<104>

φ fol. 1rb: lost: Schmeling 1988, RA 25.3–26.11, RB lost–67.5, RC 110.8–112.2; Kortekaas 1984, p. 348–353: RA 32.39–33.16, RB lost–33.16; Kortekaas 2004, p. 182–187: RA 32.33–33.15, RB lost–33.13; Garbugino 2010, (RA) 62.18–63.23, (RB) p. <104>–105.7

φ fol. 1va: lost: Schmeling 1988, RA 26.11–30, RB 67.5–67.24, RC 112.2–113.2; Kortekaas 1984, p. 352–355: RA 33.16–34.7, RB 33.16–34.7; Kortekaas 2004, p. 186–191: RA 33.15–34.6, RB 33.13–34.6; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 63.23–64.11, (RB) 105.7–105.25

φ fol. 1vb: <vir>ginis . . .× . . . dixit: Schmeling 1988, RA 26.30–28.11, RB 67.24–69.11, RC 113.2–115.5; Kortekaas 1984, p. 354–361: RA 34.7–36.1, RB 34.7–36.1; Kortekaas 2004, p. 190–197: RA 34.6–36.1, RB 34.6–36.1; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 64.11–66.1, (RB) 105.25–107.13

φ fol. 4ra: Habeo . . .× . . . paucos: Schmeling 1988, RA 28.11–29.14, RB 67.11–70.15, RC 115.5–116.20; Kortekaas 1984, p. 360–365: RA 36.1–37.25, RB 36.1–37.27; Kortekaas 2004, p. 196–199: RA 36.1–37.21, RB 36.1–37.22; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 66.1–67.8, (RB) 107.13–108.18

φ fol. 4rb: dies . . .× . . . magnifi ce: Schmeling 1988, RA 29.14–30.22, RB 70.15–71.15, RC 116.20–118.13; Kortekaas 1984, p. 364–369: RA 37.25–39.19, RB 37.27–39.20; Kortekaas 2004, p. 198–203 RA 37.21–39.17, RB 37–39.18; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 67.8–68.15, (RB) 108.18–109.17

φ fol. 4va: At . . .× . . . conpungi: Schmeling 1988, RA: 30.22–32.21, RB: 71.15–73.7, RC: 118.13–121.13; Kortekaas 1984, p. 368–375: RA 39.19–41.37, RB 39.21–41.37; Kortekaas 2004, p. 202–211: RA 39.17–41.3, RB 39.18–41.3; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 68.15–70.20, (RB) 109.17–111.11

φ 4vb: conpungi . . .× . . . ait: Schmeling 1988, RA 32.21–34.1, RB 73.7–74.14, RC 121.13–123.1; Kortekaas 1984, p. 374–379: RA 41.3–41.37, RB 41.3–41.37; Kortekaas 2004, p. 210–213: RA 41.3–41.36, RB 41.3–41.34; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 70.20–72.1, (RB) 111.11–112.17

φ fol. 2ra: Licet . . .× . . . committantur ad: Schmeling 1988, RA 34.1–37.6, RB 74.14–76.13, RC 123.1–126.3; Kortekaas 1984, p. 374–389: RA 41.37–43.24, RB 41.37–43.18; Kortekaas 2004, p. 213–223: RA 41.36–43.23, RB 41.34–43.14; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 72.1–75.3, (RB) 112.17–114.14

φ fol. 2rb: auras . . .× . . . vindicetur: Schmeling 1988, RA 37.6–38.8, RB 76.13–78.31, RC 126.3–128.5; Kortekaas 1984, p. 388–393: RA 43.24–43.7, RB 43.18–45.23; Kortekaas 2004, p. 222–229: RA 43.23–<45.9>, RB 43.14–45.21; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 75.3–<76>, (RB) 114.14–116.1

φ fol. 2va: fi lia . . .× . . . virgo: Schmeling 1988, RA: 38.8–39.4, RB: 78.3–78.23, RC: 128.5–129.2; Kortekaas 1984, p. 392–397: RA 43.7–46.20, RB 45.23–46.20; Kortekaas 2004, p. 226–231: RA <45.97>–46.18, RB 45.21–46.17; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) <76>–77.6, (RB) 116.1–116.22

φ fol. 2vb: Ut . . .× . . . calcantem: Schmeling 1988, RA: 39.4–39.23, RB: 78.23–79.12, RC: 129.2–20; Kortekaas 1984, p. 396–397: RA 46.20–47.12, RB 46.21–47.12; Kortekaas 2004, p. 230–234: RA 46.18–47.10, RB 46.17–47.10; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 77.6–78.1, (RB) 116.22–117.13

φ fol. 3ra: calcantem . . .× . . . maior: Schmeling 1988, RA: 39.23–40.15, RB: 79.12–79.26, RC: 129.20–130.14; Kortekaas 1984, p. 396–399: RA 47.12–48.17, RB 47.12–48.14; Kortekaas 2004, p. 234–237: RA 47.10–48.14, RB 47.10–<48.14>; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 78.1–78.21, (RB) 117.13–117.27

φ fol. 3rb: hominum . . .× . . . mea: Schmeling 1988, RA 40.15–41.15, RB 79.26–80.26, RC 130.14–132.12; Kortekaas 1984, p. 398–403: RA 48.17–49.7, RB 48.15–49.9; Kortekaas 2004, p. 236–241: RA 48.14–49.7, RB <48.15–49.18>; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 78.21–79.23, (RB) 117.27–119.2

φ fol. 3va: ostendit . . .× . . . ait: Schmeling 1988, RA 41.15–41.28, RB 80.26–81.11, RC 132.12–133.9; Kortekaas 1984, p. 402–405: RA 49.7–50.6, RB 49.10–50.7; Kortekaas 2004, p. 240–243: RA 49.7–50.5, RB 49.8–50.6; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 79.23–80.8, (RB) 119.2–119.15

φ fol. 3vb: cives . . .× . . . premium: Schmeling 1988, RA: 41.28–42.25, RB: 81.11–31, RC: 133.9–135.2; Kortekaas 1984, p. 404–407: RA 50.6–50.35, RB 50.7–50.35; Kortekaas 2004, p. 242–254: RA 50.5–50.33, RB 50.6–50.26; Garbugino 2010, p. (RA) 80.8–81.8, (RB) 119.15–120.5


"The Text of Apollonius Pictus: A Critical Transcription", in: Apollonius Pictus, 153–174

Documents

Transcript of "The Text of Apollonius Pictus: A Critical Transcription", in: Apollonius Pictus, 153–174