Version classiqueVersion mobile

De l’autorité à la référence

 | 
Isabelle Diu
, 
Raphaële Mouren

Première partie. Éditer et étudier les Anciens

Stemmata editionum and the birth of the so-called vulgates of Greek texts (Plato, Plutarch and Isocrates)

Stefano Martinelli Tempesta

Résumé

Il arrive de lire que la vulgate imprimée d’un auteur classique naît avec l’apparition de l’editio princeps, comme si celle-ci devait son autorité au seul fait d’être venue au monde. De ce point de vue, il n’est pas étonnant que les rapports généalogiques entre les éditions imprimées soient souvent négligés ou simplifiés, à l’avantage d’une filiation verticale entre l’édition précédente et celle qui la suit immédiatement. En réalité, afin de comprendre le phénomène qui confère à une édition l’autorité nécessaire pour devenir le texte de référence, que n’importe quel commentateur ou éditeur postérieur consultera, il faut appliquer aussi aux exemplaires imprimés, y compris annotés, avec quelques adaptations, la méthode stemmatique. Une telle étude permet de comprendre quelles éditions ont effectivement eu une descendance et par quel processus génétique l’une d’entre elles a pris une position prééminente par rapport aux autres. Cette contribution propose trois exemples de résultats possibles, analysant la transmission imprimée de Platon, des Moralia de Plutarque et du corpus d’Isocrate.

Texte intégral

I. — Preliminary remarks

1When the kaleidoscopic spread of the manuscript tradition ends up in a printed edition, the text suddenly takes a somewhat fixed shape. In the case of Greek texts this usually, though not always, happened between the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century : this is the text which, with minor changes, will be transmitted to the following editions, until scholars will turn back to the manuscripts, at first in a sporadic way, in order to emend the received text, but then in a methodical way, in order to produce what we call a modern critical edition. Such a sketch of the situation, though not altogether false, is, in my opinion, too hasty and simplistic.

2My focus in this paper will be on showing that the best way to cast light on the various aspects of a complex cultural phenomenon such as the development of a vulgate is a wise use of the stemmatic method. What we actually read about the use of manuscripts and other printed editions in frontispieces and prefaces can be either confirmed or confuted by the study of the textual relationships between the printed editions, hence the necessity of a detailed textual examination in order to understand the various steps whereby an unstable text becomes a more or less fixed text.

3At the outset we should remember that the stemmatic method has to be used with some cautions in the case of printed editions : for instance, we should keep in mind that misprints are usually easily rectifiable and that scholarly editors almost always tried to improve the received text either ope ingenii or – if possible – ope codicum (or, as it were, ope editionum). In other words, as in printed editions the percentage of trivial – and therefore easily rectifiable – mistakes is usually high, we cannot draw stemmatic conclusions from their absence. On the other hand, agreements in error as regards little misprints, which can often pass unnoticed, may hold some clues to the direct relationship between two printed editions. Such trivialities are of course of no relevance to anyone who is dealing with a manuscript tradition.

  • 1 For a survey of theoretical and practical problems relating to the emendatio in the age of printed (...)

4Moreover we should not forget that sixteenth century scholars were not systematic in collating manuscripts and other editions ; their textual criticism was mostly stimulated by passages, in the received text, which seemed to them suspect or manifestly corrupt1. So we have to distinguish all the meaningful agreements which can hardly be transmitted by contamination, from all those that are probably due to collation. Last, but not least, we should keep in mind the possibility that not all of the exemplaria of a printed edition are always and invariably mutually identical in every detail, a fact on which the tools of textual bibliography focus.

  • 2 Λύσις ἢ περὶ φιλίας, Florentiae, [apud Iunctas], V. Kal. Febr. MDLI [more Florentino, i.e. 1552]. S (...)
  • 3 In the case of Isocrates a special investigation should be devoted to the wide independent circulat (...)

5The discussion will focus on three Greek prose writers, who played a major role in shaping Greek humanism between the fifteenth and the sixteenth century : Plato, Plutarch and Isocrates. I shall deal exclusively with complete editions, leaving aside editions of single works, though sometimes important, as Piero Vettori’s edition of Plato’s Lysis2 : as a matter of fact, textual events like these only rarely have consequences for the development of a vulgate3.

6I will also leave aside the case of manuscripts copied from printed books, as well as that of manuscripts copied from other manuscripts after the editio princeps had appeared (see supra, Paola Degni’s contribution, p. 9-10) : as a matter of fact, the development of a modern vulgate is strictly connected with the spread of printed editions.

  • 4 S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale… An up-to-date survey in id. « Introduction », in Pl (...)

7For the results of my research, I refer the reader to the stemmata editionum at the end of the paper. I built them up on the basis of three case studies, the manuscript tradition of which I have thoroughly investigated : the Lysis of Plato, Plutarch’s On the quiet of mind and Isocrates’ Panegyricus4.

II. — Plato

  • 5 See the evidence for my stemmatic reconstruction in S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale(...)
  • 6 Omnia Platonis Opera, Venetiis, in aedibus Aldi et Andreae Soceri mense septembri MDXIII. For the p (...)
  • 7 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 182-189, and id., « Introduzione », in Plat (...)
  • 8 As stated by M. Schanz, Über den Platocodex der Markusbibliothek in Venedig App. Class. 4 Nr. 1, Le (...)

8Let us start by discussing Plato (see stemma number 1)5. The first edition of Plato in Greek appeared in Venice in September 1513 and was published by Aldus Manutius with the editorial help of Marcus Musurus6. The manuscript Musurus used (or prepared) for the print is probably lost, but it was arguably the result of a contamination of the text of Marcianus Gr. 186 with that of Parisinus Gr. 18117. The ultimate source of both manuscripts is the « archetype » of the second branch of Plato manuscripts for the first seven tetralogies (Marcianus Gr. App. Cl. IV.1, henceforth ms. T)8.

  • 9 Platonis Omnia Opera cum commentariis Procli in Timaeum et Politica, Basileae, apud Ioan. Valderum (...)
  • 10 On Oporinus see P. G. Bietenholz, Der Italienische Humanismus und die Blütezeit des Buchdrucks in B (...)
  • 11 A fifteenth century ms., containing Respublica, Timaeus, Leges and Epinomis, belonged to William Gr (...)
  • 12 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 189-191, and id., « introduzione », in Plat (...)

9In March 1534 the first Basel edition appeared9. It was published by J. Valder and the text was prepared by Johannes Oporinus and Simon Grynaeus, who also made an important revision of Ficino’s translation two years before [1532]10. Oporinus and Grynaeus based their edition exclusively upon the Aldine text, which was probably used by Grynaeus in revising Ficino’s original translation, as well. Grynaeus actually had in his hand a manuscript (Oxford, Corpus Christy College, ms. 96)11, but apparently never used it either to rectify the received text or to emend Ficino’s translation12.

  • 13 Platonis Opera Omnia, Basileae, apud Henricum Petrum anno salutis humanae MDLVI.
  • 14 On M. Hoppers see P. G. Bietenholz, Der Italienische Humanismus…, p. 63 and 148. On Peraxylus see B (...)
  • 15 S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 71-76 and 122-123 ; Plato, Liside…, p. 67-68 an (...)

10The second Basel edition, published by Henricus Petrus in 1556, represents an improvement of the first Basel edition13. As we know from Marcus Hoppers’ preface to Basil Amerbach, the Flemish scholar and book collector Arnoldus Arlenius Peraxylus collated a copy of the first Basel edition with some manuscripts he found in Italy : « nactus superioribus annis in Italia quaedam manuscripta Platonis exemplaria, conferre cum iis Valderianum », that is to say the first Basel edition14. As it seems, these manuscripts are to be identified with Marc. App. Cl. V.1 (T) – the archetype of the second family – and Marc. Gr. 184, the de luxe copy prepared by Johannes Rhosus for Bessarion, also belonging to the same branch of the tradition15.

  • 16 Platonis Atheniensis philosophi summi ac penitus divini Opera quae ad nos extant omnia, per Ianum C (...)
  • 17 Cornarius’ Eclogae were reprinted by Iohann Friedrich Fischer ; see supra, n. 88.
  • 18 «… adhibui quattuor exemplaria, tria impressa ut vocant, Aldinum unum, et Basiliensia duo, et manu (...)
  • 19 S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 202-204.

11In 1561 Hieronymus Froben published in Basel a posthumous Latin translation of the complete Plato by the famous scholar and physician Janus Cornarius (1500-1558)16. Each platonic tetralogy in this translation is followed by an Ecloga, in which the author collects his philological notes17. As Cornarius himself states, he collated the Aldine text with the two Basel editions and with a manuscript from the Lobcovicz library (ex bibliotheca Hassistenia) now lost18. As a matter of fact, a study of the translation and of the so-called Eclogae confirms Cornarius’ statement and allows us to say that Cornarius used Ficino’s translation as well19.

12Aldus’ edition immediately became the received text, the one to which the following editors had to refer to as the starting point for emendation. This is what we can confidently argue in the case of the first Basel edition ; and the same could be said about Grynaeus’ revision of Ficino’s translation as well as of Cornarius’ translation and Eclogae. Yet, in Basel, Arlenius – hardly by accident – decided to base his collation upon the first Basel edition rather than upon Aldus’ text, so we should admit that the received text at this time was still somewhat unsettled.

  • 20 Platonis Opera quae extant omnia, ex nova Ioanni Serrani interpretatione, [Genevae], excudebat Henr (...)
  • 21 S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 205-212 ; Plato, Liside…, p. 86 and n. 383. Ste (...)
  • 22 For a history of the printed editions of Plato from Stephanus onwards see Ch. Brockmann, Die handsc (...)

13The definitive settlement of the Greek text is to be seen in the edition of Henricus Stephanus II (Geneva 1578)20. In spite of what Stephanus declares both in the preface to the first volume and in the preface to the Annotationes in the third one, he actually did not made use of manuscripts, but he based his edition upon Aldus’ text, emending it both ope ingenii and with the help of all the previous editions, some of which he never quotes (particularly amazing is the case of Arlenius’ text, as well as that of Cornarius’ Eclogae, both of them already noticed by Iohann Friedrich Fischer in 1771)21. Stephanus’ text was then reproduced without major changes during the following two centuries and became the reference text for the so-called vulgate of Plato until Immanuel Bekker, turning back to a considerable number of manuscripts, inaugurated a new era in the history of Plato’s text. In Bekker’s eclectic apparatus we can detect the first appearance of variant readings belonging to all the branches of Plato’s manuscript tradition, whereas all the manuscripts involved in « building up » the vulgate actually belong exclusively to the second family, the archetype of which still survives (ms. T)22.

III. — Plutarch’s Moralia

  • 23 See the evidence for my stemmatic reconstruction in S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione (...)

14Let us now turn to Plutarch’s Moralia (see stemma number 2)23. In the history of printed editions there are some remarkable similarities between Plutarch and Plato :

  • 24 Plutarchi Opuscula LXXXXII. Index Moralium omnium, et eorum quae in ipsis tractantur, habetur hoc q (...)
  • 25 On Ambrosianus C 195 inf. see S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 54-58. See also A (...)
  • 26 Musurus’ handwriting has been recognized in the margins of ms. J : see M. Sicherl, « Musuros-Handsc (...)

151) The first edition was an Aldine (Venice, 1509)24. The editorial work was done mainly by Demetrios Dukas, who collated the ms. J (Ambrosianus C 195 inf., dating from the thirteenth century) most probably with the « archetype » of the Planudean edition, ms. alpha (Ambrosianus C 126 inf.)25. Other important scholars were involved in Aldus’ project, such as Erasmus, Gerolamo Aleandro, Niccolò Leonico Tomeo and maybe Marcus Musurus as well26.

  • 27 Plutarchi Chaeronei Moralia opuscula, multis mendarum milibus expurgata, Basileae, per Hier. Froben (...)
  • 28 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, quae usurpantur. Sunt autem omnis elegantis doctrinae penus ; id es (...)
  • 29 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Philosophorum et Historicorum principis Varia scripta, quae Moralia vulgo di (...)
  • 30 See D. Wyttenbach, « Praefatio », in Plutarchi Cheronensis Moralia id est opera, exceptis Vitis, re (...)
  • 31 For a general survey, see S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 169-221.

162) There were two Basel editions, the first of which was the basis for the second, the former being much less important than the latter. The first Basel edition was published by Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius in 1542 and does not represent a significant textual improvement, apart from some corrections of Aldus’ misprints and a few conjectural changes27. The second Basel edition was published by Eusebius Episcopius in 1574 ; the text was prepared by Wilhelm Holtzmann, known as Xylander, who had already published a Latin translation (Basel 1570 and Paris 1570, as well) and a number of philological notes, appended to the reprint of his Latin translation by Thomas Guarinus (Basel 1572)28. The Animadversiones were not added in the reprint of Xylander’s translation by Hieronymus Scottus (Venetiis 1572). They were printed at the end of the second volume of the second Stephanus’ edition, as well as in its following reprints (Francofurti 1620 and Parisiis 1624). In the preface to the edition in Greek (1574) Xylander makes a complaint about the scarce utility of the manuscript Episcopius gave him (ms. Episcopianus) and declares that he emended the text of the first Basel edition mainly by way of conjecture29. Still, in the philological notes we find often mentioned a manuscript (scriptus), which was arguably akin to the famous Parisinus Gr. 1956 (D)30. Furthermore, Xylander arguably knew a conjecture we actually find in the margins of an exemplar of the first Basel edition belonging to Donato Giannotti31.

  • 32 Plutarchi Chaeronensis quae extant opera, Cum Latina interpretatione. Ex vetustis codicibus plurima (...)
  • 33 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 164-165 ; F. Becchi, Le edizioni a stampa…, (...)
  • 34 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Quae extant omnia, cum Latina interpretatione Hermanni Cruseri, Guilielmi Xy (...)
  • 35 For the history of Plutarch’s editions from Wyttenbach onwards see S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Pubbli (...)

173) We can single out Stephanus’ edition as the responsible for the settlement of the vulgate of Plutarch. Henri Estienne II published his first edition in thirteen octavo volumes, the last ten including all the Latin translations hitherto published32. The basis for the text was the Aldine, emended – as Stephanus himself alleged – ex uetustis codicibus. Still, the study of textual evidence compels us to conclude that Stephanus took advantage of the widespread collections of variant readings, rather than of any manuscript33. One year after Stephanus’ death, the text of his first edition was reprinted in two sumptuous folio volumes (Frankfurt, 1599) – containing, beside the Greek text, Cruserius’ translation of the Lives and Xylander’s of the Moralia –, which were reprinted two more times, with the sole addition of the text of the De fluviis (Frankfurt, 1620 and Paris, 1624)34.Stephanus’ text was then reproduced until the end of the eighteenth century, when Wyttenbach’s monumental edition appeared35.

IV. — Isocrates36

  • 36 . The present paper provides a synthetic sketch of my stemmatic analysis of the main printed editio (...)
  • 37 See M. Menchelli, « Isocrate commentato tra manoscritti e stampa : Il Laur. LVIII,5 e l’incunabolo (...)
  • 38 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, « La tradizione manoscritta del Panegirico di Isocrate : gli apografi d (...)
  • 39 For a general survey of the textual tradition of the corpus isocrateum, see my note quoted supra, n (...)
  • 40 A recent description of the manuscript can be found in M. Fassino, La tradizione manoscritta dell’E (...)
  • 41 A recent description of the ms. can be found in M. Fassino, op. cit., p. 36-40. Bibliography in P.  (...)
  • 42 For the manuscript tradition of the Antidosis, see P. M. Pinto, Per la storia
  • 43 For a full discussion of all the relevant details, see S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Per l’identificazi (...)

18The long lasting history of the vulgate of the Corpus Isocrateum begins with Demetrius Chalkondylas (see stemma number 3). His edition was published in Milan in 1493 by Ulrich Scinzenzeler and was based on the ms. Par. Gr. 2931, sporadically emended by Chalkondylas himself with the aid of some Laurentian manuscripts (Laur. 58.5 [N], 87.14 [Q], and maybe 59.24 as well)37. Par. Gr. 2931 is a direct copy of Vat. Gr. 65 (Λ), which is the only independent manuscript including all twenty-one speeches by Isocrates, though not the pistles38. Isocrates’ textual tradition is twofold39. On the one side there is only one independent witness (Urb. Gr. 111, henceforth ms. Γ)40, which had a tiny descent : this is the oldest manuscript (dating from the end of the ninth century), the ancestor of which was an edition probably coming from a late antique rhetorical school. On the other side there is a number of independent witnesses, the ancestor of which was an edition probably coming from a late antique philosophical school. Only one of these independent witnesses had a large descent, especially between the fourteenth and the fifteenth century : this manuscript was Lambda (Vat. Gr. 65, dating from the eleventh century, namely from the year 1063)41. Early in its life Lambda was damaged by the loss of a number of quires including a large part of the Antidosis (paragraphs 72 to 309)42 ; moreover, a tear in the last page caused the partial loss of the final words of the speech Against Callimachum. These physical features of the exemplar account for the gaps we actually find in the copies. In particular Chalkondylas restored in the ms. Par. Gr. 2931 the wording of the end of Against Callimacum borrowing the conjectures Michael Souliardos proposed in the ms. Par. Gr. 299143. Therefore a short Antidosis as well as Souliardo’s wording of the last paragraphs of Against Callimachum found their way into the editio princeps and hence into the so-called vulgate.

  • 44 Ἰσοκράτους λόγοι. Ἀλκιδάµαντος, Κατὰ σοφιστῶν. Γοργίου, Ἑλένης ἐγκώµιον. Ἀριστείδου Παναθηναικός. Τ (...)
  • 45 . See M. Menchelli, « Isocrate commentato… », p. 31-32, and S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Per l’identif (...)

19Chalkondylas’ edition provided the basis for the first Aldine (Venice, 1513), the text of which was prepared by Aldus with the cooperation of Marcus Musurus44. They emended Chalkondylas’ text either by way of conjecture or taking advantage of a manuscript apparently identifiable with Vat. Pal. Gr. 135, which will be later acquired by Ulrich Fugger probably in Venice45.

  • 46 As already noticed by E. Drerup, Isocratis Opera omnia…, p. clxvi. Isocratis excellentissimi viri a (...)
  • 47 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Per l’identificazione… », p. 239.

20The authority of Chalkondylas’ text rapidly waned after the appearance of the Aldine in 1513 ; nevertheless both Johann Setzer’s edition (Hagenau, 1533) and the first Basel edition (maybe published by Johannes Oporinus in 1546) took advantage of it46. A number of unsold copies of Chalkondylas’ edition were put in circulation in 1535 with a new frontispiece : the typology of the Greek characters of a couple of replaced pages suggests Andreas Kounadis as the responsible for this marketing operation47.

  • 48 Isocratis orationes omnes, quarum nomina in sequenti invenies pagina. Addita variae lectionis annot (...)
  • 49 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Un equivoco di lunga durata : separazione e ricongiunzione nella tras (...)
  • 50 Isocratis Atheniensis rhetoris orationes et epistolae, Venetiis, [ex Officina Farrea], MDXLII [MDXL (...)
  • 51 Isocratis Atheniensis rhetoris orationes et epistolae, [Imprimebat Petrus Nicolinus Sabiensis et So (...)

21Setzer’s edition as well as Peter Braubach’s (Frankfürt, 1540) stem from the first Aldine, yet the most influential editorial event before Wolf and Stephanus was the second Aldine edition, in which for the first time Isocrates’ speeches and epistles were printed together48. Paulus Manutius, as I argued, reprinted with minor changes the text of previous authoritative editions from Aldus’ Press, namely the first Aldine of the speeches and the editio princeps of the Epistolographi, published by Aldus in 149949. Two unimportant editions, both published in Venice, stem directly from the second Aldine, namely those published by Farri brothers in 1542/4350 and by Petrus Nicolinus Sabiensis in 154951.

  • 52 Isocratis orationes, partim doctorum virorum opera, partim meliorum exemplarium collatione, nunc de (...)
  • 53 We can confidently neglect the so-called second Basel edition, published by Thomas Guarinus in 1565 (...)
  • 54 Isocratis Orationes omnes, quae quidem ad nostram aetatem pervenerunt una et viginti numero, una cu (...)
  • 55 Isocratis scripta, quae quidem nunc extant, omnia, Graecolatina, postremo recognita, annotationibus (...)
  • 56 See S. Martinelli Tempesta in S. Martinelli Tempesta and P. M. Pinto, « L’Isocrate “vetustissimus”… (...)

22The first Basel edition, arguably published by Oporinus in 1546, was much more important, because, together with Braubach’s edition, it provided the basis for the work of the most influential Isocratean scholar of the sixteenth century, Hieronymus Wolf52. Wolf used Braubauch’s edition to emend the text of Isocrates’ speeches and the first Basel edition to establish the text of Isocrates’ epistles53. Wolf’s early philological activity on Isocrates closely resembles Xylander’s work on Plutarch : at first a Latin translation (Basel, Oporinus, 1548) with critical notes, and then an edition in Greek, with variae lectiones in the margins (Basel, Oporinus, 1551/53)54. Yet there is a remarkable difference : Xylander’s edition of Plutarch’s Moralia in Greek was not so influential, whereas the editio maior of Wolf’s Isocrates (Basel, 1570, in two folio volumes), soon became the most authoritative text55. To prepare his editio maior, Wolf collated his Brubachianum exemplar with Setzer’s edition as well as with the first Aldine. He used, in addition, some marginal notes by Guillaume Budé and a partial collation of a Fuggeranus manuscriptus vetustissimus, quite probably identical with the Vat. Pal. Gr. 13556. Nevertheless, Wolf’s main concern was to emend the text by way of conjecture.

  • 57 Isocratis Orationes et Epistolae cum Latina interpretatione Hier. VVolfii, ab ipso postremo regogni (...)
  • 58 See P. M. Pinto, « Per la storia… », p. 72-81 ; S. Martinelli Tempesta, « L’Isocrate di Michele Sof (...)
  • 59 By means of the unpublished Wolf’s correspondence E. Zingg argues that : (a) Wolf was aware of Sofi (...)

23Twenty-three years after Wolf’s editio maior, in 1593, Henri II Estienne published his Isocrates57. In an obscure letter to Jan Gruter (dating from Leiden, May 21, 1607) Joseph Justus Scaliger claims that Stephanus once met Michael Sofianòs and saw in his hand an Isocrates auctus ; this was arguably an exemplar including the Antidosis without the gap inherited from the copy of Lambda, which was the starting point of the so-called vulgate. Nowadays we know almost every detail of the story58 : Michael Sofianòs had in his hands a copy of Gamma (Urb. Gr. 111), the Ambr. O 144 sup., featuring the whole Antidosis, as well as a text that was considerably different from that of the so-called vulgate. Therefore Sofianòs planned a new edition of the whole Isocratean corpus and tried to come to an arrangement with Johannes Oporinus. Unfortunately Sofianòs passed away in 1565, so the plan was not carried out and Oporinus decided to publish Wolf’s editio maior in 1570. What was probably the exemplar of Sofianòs’ edition to be delivered to Oporinus survives in an annotated copy of the first Aldine now in the Ambrosian Library : here we find a passage emended by Sofianòs with the aid of a variant reading he found in the copy belonging to Stephanus, whose edition appeared in 1593. We are compelled to conclude that Stephanus was already working on Isocrates in the 1560s59. Presumably, Stephanus hoped to obtain Sofianòs’ Isocrates auctus, and thus to supplant Wolf’s editio maior, which is why – we may argue – he hesitated to publish his own Isocrates. Be that as it may, Stephanus’ hopes were disappointed and he had to print Wolf’s Latin translation beside the text of the second Aldine emended either by way of conjecture or with the aid of Wolf’s editio maior.

  • 60 Andreae Mustoxydis, Ισοκρατους λογος περι της αντιδοσεως, ἤδη πρῶτον εἰς τὴν άρχαίαν γραφὴν διασκευ (...)

24At the end of these complicated vicissitudes the so-called vulgate was twofold : on the one side there was Wolf’s largely conjectural text, on the other Stephanus’ edition, mostly resembling Paulus Manutius’ text. Nevertheless, the text of the so-called vulgate was basically one and the same, resembling a single witness of the second branch of the manuscript tradition (Lambda). A new era was inaugurated at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when Andreas Mustoxidis, taking advantage of Ambr. O 144 sup. (Epsilon) and Laur. 87.14 (Theta), published the first edition of the whole Antidosis (1813) and when Immanuel Bekker discovered Gamma in the Vatican Library and published an altogether new Isocrates (1823)60.

V. — Conclusions

25Now, let us make some concluding remarks.

261) The birth of a vulgate is mostly a non-linear process. A correct stemma gives us the opportunity to understand the complexities of the process and prevents us from simplifying its picture.

272) If we read the stemmata not only from a textual perspective, but also from an historical point of view, we can reconstruct some details concerning the dissemination of Greek Humanism from Italy to the Europe of Reformation.

283) Furthermore, from the perspective of the history of printing, we may notice that the Basel editors were mostly trying to free themselves from the authority of Aldus’ press, whereas the starting point of Stephanus’ editions was the text established by Aldus’ press.

29But this is the boundary where a philologist, such as myself, should stop and make way for historians.

Stemmata editionum

Fig. 1. Plato (case study : Lysis)

Fig. 1. Plato (case study : Lysis)

Fig. 2. Plutarch (case study : De tranquillitate animi)

Fig. 2. Plutarch (case study : De tranquillitate animi)

Fig. 3. Isocrates (case study : Panegyricus [+Epistulae])

Fig. 3. Isocrates (case study : Panegyricus [+Epistulae])

Notes

1 For a survey of theoretical and practical problems relating to the emendatio in the age of printed books see E. J. Kenney, The Classical Text : Aspects of Editing in the Age of Printed Books, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1974 (Sather Classical Lectures, 44) ; it. trad., Testo e metodo : aspetti dell’edizione dei classici latini e greci nell’età del libro a stampa, ed. A. Lunelli, Rome, 1995.

2 Λύσις ἢ περὶ φιλίας, Florentiae, [apud Iunctas], V. Kal. Febr. MDLI [more Florentino, i.e. 1552]. See S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale del Liside di Platone, Florence, 1997, p. 191-197. In the stemma I built up there (p. 212) I argued that Henricus Stephanus made use of Vettori’s edition, but the evidence does not allow this conclusion. On Vettori’s edition of Plato’s Lysis see also R. Mouren, « Auteur, autorité, référence dans le livre humaniste, xve-xvie siècles », supra, p. 20-21 and 23-24.

3 In the case of Isocrates a special investigation should be devoted to the wide independent circulation of Ad Demonicum, Ad Nicoclem and Nicocles, but I shall not deal with this topic here.

4 S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale… An up-to-date survey in id. « Introduction », in Plato, Liside, ed. F. Trabattoni, t. I : Edizione critica, traduzione e commento filologico di S. Martinelli Tempesta, Milan, 2003, p. 13-106 ; id., Studi sulla tradizione testuale del De tranquillitate animi di Plutarco, Florence, 2006 ; id., « Nota sulla tradizione manoscritta del corpus isocrateo », in Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini (CPF). Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura greca e latina, part. I. 2 : Cultura e filosofia (Galenus - Isocrates), Florence, 2008, p. xviii-xxx (with further bibliography).

5 See the evidence for my stemmatic reconstruction in S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 182-212. See also an up-to-date bibliography in id., « Introduzione », in Plato, Liside…, p. 83-86.

6 Omnia Platonis Opera, Venetiis, in aedibus Aldi et Andreae Soceri mense septembri MDXIII. For the possible role played by Nicolò Leonico Tomeo in emending the text see F. Vendruscolo, « Manoscritti greci copiati dall’umanista e filosofo Nicolò Leonico Tomeo », in ODOI DIZHΣIOΣ. Le vie della ricerca. Studi in onore di Francesco Adorno, ed. M. S. Funghi, Florence, 1996, p. 543-555, in part. p. 551-553.

7 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 182-189, and id., « Introduzione », in Plato, Liside…, p. 83 and n. 362. Most recently B. Vancamp, Untersuchungen zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung von Platons Menon, Stuttgart, 2010 (Palingenesia, 97), p. 103-105.

8 As stated by M. Schanz, Über den Platocodex der Markusbibliothek in Venedig App. Class. 4 Nr. 1, Leipzig, 1877.

9 Platonis Omnia Opera cum commentariis Procli in Timaeum et Politica, Basileae, apud Ioan. Valderum mense martio, anno MDXXXIIII.

10 On Oporinus see P. G. Bietenholz, Der Italienische Humanismus und die Blütezeit des Buchdrucks in Basel, Basel/Stuttgart, 1959, passim ; M. Steinmann, Johannes Oporinus : Ein Basler Buchdrucker um die Mitte des 16 Jahrhunderts, Basel, 1967 ; C. Gilly, Die Manuskripte der Bibliothek des Johannes Oporinus, Basel, 2011. On Grynaeus see P. G. Bietenholz in Contemporaries of Erasmus : A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. P.  G. Bietenholz and T. B. Deutscher, 3 vol., Toronto/Buffalo/London, 1985-1987, t. II, p. 142-146. J. Monfasani, « For the history of Marsilio Ficino’s translation of Plato : the revision mistakenly attributed to Ambrogio Flandino, Simon Grynaeus’ revision of 1532, and the anonymous revision of 1556/1557 », in Rinascimento, n. s. 27, 1987, p. 293-299, and J. Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance, 2 vol., Leiden/New York/København/Köln, 1991, t. II, p. 479-480.

11 A fifteenth century ms., containing Respublica, Timaeus, Leges and Epinomis, belonged to William Grocyn and John Claymond : see N. G. Wilson, « A list of Plato manuscripts », in Scriptorium, 16, 1962, p. 386-395, in part. p. 389 (nr. 119) ; J. Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance…, vol. II, p. 480, n. 19.

12 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 189-191, and id., « introduzione », in Plato, Liside…, p. 84 and n. 367. Most recently B. Vancamp, Untersuchungen…, p. 105. Vancamp argues that f. 308 (r. 4)-372 of the ms. Laur. 85.14 (a fifteenth century ms. containing Timaeus, Respublica III, Symposium, Alcibiades II, Hipparchus, Amatores, Meno, belonged to Harmonius Atheniensis : see N. Wilson, A List…, p. 387 [n° 37], a restoration by the hand of Francesco Zanetti (not Camillus, as Vancamp says), are copied from the first Basel edition. On Francesco Zanetti see most recently P. Canart, « Varia Palaeographica », in Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae X, Vatican, 2003 (Studi e testi, 416), p. 119-307, in part. p. 119-121 (reed. in id., Études de paléographie et de codicologie, collab. M. L. Agati and M. D’Agostino, Vatican, 2008 (Studi e testi, 451), p. 1295-1302, in part. p. 1295-1298), A. Gaspari, « Le “mani” di Camillo Zanetti : il caso di scriba S, “occidental arrondi” e Francesco Zanetti », in Actes du VIe colloque international de paléographie grecque (Drama, 21-27 septembre 2003), 3 vol, ed. B. Atsalos and N. Tsironi, Athens, 2008, t. I, p. 345-358, III, tav. 8-9, P. Degni, « Tra Gioannicio e Francesco Zanetti : manoscritti restaurati presso la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana », in Oltre la scrittura. Variazioni sul tema per Guglielmo Cavallo, ed. D. Bianconi and L. del Corso, Paris, 2008, p. 289-232, D. Speranzi, « La biblioteca dei Medici : appunti sulla storia della formazione del fondo greco della libreria medicea privata », in Principi e signori : le biblioteche nella seconda metà del Quattrocento, ed. G. Arbizzoni, C. Bianca and M. Peruzzi, Urbino, 2010, p. 217-264, in part. p. 220-221 (with further bibliography).

13 Platonis Opera Omnia, Basileae, apud Henricum Petrum anno salutis humanae MDLVI.

14 On M. Hoppers see P. G. Bietenholz, Der Italienische Humanismus…, p. 63 and 148. On Peraxylus see B. Reis, Der Platoniker Albinos und sein sogennanter Prologos, Wiesbaden, 1999 (Serta Graeca, 7), p. 168-170, ill. 4. Platonis Opera Omnia…, f. a2v, reprint. in Iani Cornarii Eclogae in Dialogos Platonis omnes nunc primum separatim editae cura Ioh. Frider. Fischeri, accesserunt praefationes Aldi Manutii, Simonis Grynaei Marcique Hopperi editioni dialogorum Platonis Venetae et Basileensi utrique praemissae, Lipsiae, 1771, p. 175-180, in part. p. 177.

15 S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 71-76 and 122-123 ; Plato, Liside…, p. 67-68 and n. 284. Most recently see L. Ferroni, « Per una nuova edizione dello Ione platonico : la discendenza del Marc. Gr. App. Class. IV 1 [T] », in Bollettino dei Classici, s. iii, 27 (2006 [2008]), p. 15-87, in part. p. 68-71, and Vancamp, Untersuchungen…, p. 65-66.

16 Platonis Atheniensis philosophi summi ac penitus divini Opera quae ad nos extant omnia, per Ianum Cornarium medicum physicum Latina lingua conscripta. Eiusdem Iani Cornarii Eclogae decem…, Basileae MDLXI. See the bibliography quoted by S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 200, n. 63. See also Ilse Guenther in G. Bietenholz, Contemporaries of Erasmus…, t. I, p. 339-340. The Aldinum exemplar belonged to and annotated by Cornarius is now preserved in the Zentralbibliothek at Zurich (Shelfmark VE2). I warmly thank Emanuel Zingg, who found the copy, which I have been looking for in vain for a long time, probably due to a mistake in the catalogues. I am preparing a specific contribution on it.

17 Cornarius’ Eclogae were reprinted by Iohann Friedrich Fischer ; see supra, n. 88.

18 «… adhibui quattuor exemplaria, tria impressa ut vocant, Aldinum unum, et Basiliensia duo, et manu scriptum unum, quod ex Bibliotheca Hassistenia generosus Baro Henricus Vuildefelsius a Sebastiano Heroe Hassistenio mihi impetravit… » : Platonis Atheniensis philosophi… Opera…, p. 63 (reprint in Fischer, Iani Cornarii Eclogae…, p. 4). Gerard Boter has shown that this lost manuscript cannot be identified as Pragensis Roudnicianus VI Fa 1 (well known as Lobcovicianus) : G. J. Boter, « The codex Hassensteinianus of Plato », in Revue d’histoire des textes, 18, 1988, p. 215-218.

19 S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 202-204.

20 Platonis Opera quae extant omnia, ex nova Ioanni Serrani interpretatione, [Genevae], excudebat Henricus Stephanus, 1578.

21 S. Martinelli Tempesta, La tradizione testuale…, p. 205-212 ; Plato, Liside…, p. 86 and n. 383. Stephanus’ words in the note to the reader in volume I are quoted and discussed in full by G. Boter, The textual tradition of Plato’s Republic, Leiden/New York/København/Köln, 1989, p. 248. See I. F. Fischer, Iani Cornarii Eclogae…, f. *3, *4v-*5. Some features of Stephanus’ text are discussed by A. Rijksbaron in Plato, Ion or On the Iliad, edited with introduction and commentary by A. Rijksbaron, Leiden/Boston, 2007, p. 254-255.

22 For a history of the printed editions of Plato from Stephanus onwards see Ch. Brockmann, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung von Platons Symposion, Wiesbaden, 1992 (Serta Graeca, 2), p. 5-16, and Plato, Liside…, p. 95-103.

23 See the evidence for my stemmatic reconstruction in S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione testuale…, p. 162-168.

24 Plutarchi Opuscula LXXXXII. Index Moralium omnium, et eorum quae in ipsis tractantur, habetur hoc quaternione. Numerus autem arithmeticus remittit lectorem ad semipaginam, ubi tractantur singula, Venetiis, in aedibus Aldi et Andreae Asulani soceri mense martio MDIX. See the bibliography quoted by Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione (supra, n. 4), p. 162, n. 3. See also F. Becchi, Le edizioni a stampa del De fortuna di Plutarco, Naples, 2008, p. 11-17.

25 On Ambrosianus C 195 inf. see S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 54-58. See also A. Escobar, « Notas en torno al supuesto autógrafo de Demetrio Ducas : el Ambr. C 195 inf. », in Actas del I Simposio sobre humanismo y pervivenxia del mundo clásico (Alcañiz, mayo 1990), t. I.1, Cádiz, 1993, p. 425-430, who identifies Cesare Stratego’s handwriting in the f. of J restored in fifteenth century. The handwriting is, in fact, very similar, but I am not sure that it is identical : see S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Pubblicare Plutarco : L’eredità di Daniel Wyttenbach e l’ecdotica plutarchea moderna », in Plutarco. Lingua e testo, ed. G. Zanetto and S. Martinelli Tempesta, Milan, 2010, p. 5-68, in part. p. 66, n. 201. On Ambrosianus C 126 inf. see S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 50-54. Most recently A. Rollo, « Per la storia del Plutarco Ambrosiano (C 126 inf.) », in Plutarco, Parallela minora. Traduzione latina di Guarino Veronese, ed. F. Bonanno, Messina, 2008, p. 95-129. On Demetrios Dukas see most recently T. Martínez Manzano, « Hacia la identificación de la biblioteca y la mano de Demetrio Ducas », in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 102, 2009, p. 717-730.

26 Musurus’ handwriting has been recognized in the margins of ms. J : see M. Sicherl, « Musuros-Handschriften », in Serta Turyniana. Studies in Greek literature and palaeography in honor of Alexander Turyn, Urbana/Chicago/London, 1974, p. 564-678, in part. p. 572-573, and A. Cataldi Palau, « Su alcuni possessori di manoscritti greci. I. Alcuni manoscritti appartenuti a Giorgio Valla. II. Un nuovo manoscritto appartenuto a Marco Musuro », in Studi Umanistici Piceni, 14, 1994, p. 141-155, in particular p. 153, n. 51. On Musurus see A. Cataldi Palau, « La vita di Marco Musuro alla luce di documenti e manoscritti », in Italia medioevale e umanistica, 45, 2004, p. 295-369, and D. Speranzi, Marco Musuro : Libri e scrittura, Rome, 2013 (Bolletino dei classici, 27).

27 Plutarchi Chaeronei Moralia opuscula, multis mendarum milibus expurgata, Basileae, per Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium MDXLII. See S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 164, and F. Becchi, Le edizioni a stampa…, p. 17.

28 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, quae usurpantur. Sunt autem omnis elegantis doctrinae penus ; id est varii libri morales, historici, physici, mathematici, denique ad politiorem litteraturam pertinentes et humanitatem, omnes de Graeca in Latinam linguam transcripti summo labore, cura ac fide, Guilelmo Xylandro Augustano interprete, accesserunt indices locupletissimi, Basileae, per Thomam Guarinum MDLXX. The same translation appeared in Paris in the same year by J. Du Puys. This became the vulgate translation thanks to Stephanus’ second edition (Francofurti, 1599).

29 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Philosophorum et Historicorum principis Varia scripta, quae Moralia vulgo dicitur, vere autem Bibliotheca et Penus omnis doctrinae appellari possunt. Incredibili cura ac labore, et fide summa, multis mendarum millib. expurgata, indicib. locupletiss. instructa, a Guil. Xylandro Augustano : et inclytae ac florentiss. Basileae honoris gratia dedicata. Cum privilegio Cesareae Maiestatis ad annos X, Basileae, per Eusebium Episcopium et Nicolai Fr. haeredes MDLXXIIII.

30 See D. Wyttenbach, « Praefatio », in Plutarchi Cheronensis Moralia id est opera, exceptis Vitis, reliqua, Graeca emendavit, notationem emendationum, et Latinam Xylandri inpterpretationem castigatam, subiunxit, animadversiones explicandis rebus ac verbis, item indices copiosos, adiecit D. Wyttenbach, t. I, Oxonii, 1795, p. ci ; J. Irigoin, « Histoire du texte des “Œuvres morales” de Plutarque », in Plutarque, Œuvres morales, t. I.1, Paris 1987, p. ccxxvii-cccxxiv, in particular p. ccxcv and n. 2 ; S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 166 ; F. Becchi, Le edizioni a stampa…, p. 22-27. Gregorius N. Bernardakis chose D as the basis for his edition : see S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Pubblicare Plutarco… », p. 37-44.

31 For a general survey, see S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 169-221.

32 Plutarchi Chaeronensis quae extant opera, Cum Latina interpretatione. Ex vetustis codicibus plurima nunc primum emendata sunt, ut ex Henr. Stephani Annotationibus intelliges : quibus et suam quorundam libellorum interpretationem adiunxit. Semylii Probi de vita excellentium imperatorum liber. Cum privilegio caes. maiestatis, et Christianiss. Galliarum regis, anno MDLXXII.

33 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 164-165 ; F. Becchi, Le edizioni a stampa…, p. 17-22.

34 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Quae extant omnia, cum Latina interpretatione Hermanni Cruseri, Guilielmi Xylandri, et virorum doctorum notis et libellis variantium lectionum ex mss. Codd. diligenter collectarum, et indicibus accuratiss., Francofurti, Apud Andreae Wecheli heredes, Claudium Marnium, et Iohannem Aubrium MDXCIX. Thanks to the aid of Louis Servin, Étienne Turnebus and Jean Pelerin, at the end of the volumes the editors published Iohannes Vulcob’s, Adrien Turnebus’ and Jacob Bongars’ variae lectiones (with the abreviation V., T. and B.), i.e. the variant readings they wrote in the margins of their own printed exemplaria. Turnebus’ Aldine still exists (it is now preserved at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Rés. J. 94 : see S. Martinelli Tempesta, Studi sulla tradizione…, p. 200-206), as well as Bongars’ (now preserved at the Burgerbibliothek in Bern, Bongars IV 969, and I am currently working on it). On the contrary, as far as I can tell, we know nothing about Iohannes Vulcob’s exemplar : for Vulcob’s variae lectiones to the Vitae and their relationship with Marc Antoine Muret, however, see J. F. Palm, « Observationes criticae in quosdam Plutarchi locos », Zeitschrift für Altertumswissenschaft, 3, 1836, f. 549-559. Plutarchi Chaeronensis Quae extant omnia, cum Latina interpretatione Hermanni Cruseri : Guilielmi Xylandri. Accedit nunc primum libellus eiusdem De Fluviorum montiumque nominibus, cum versione Maussaci, et virorum doctorum notis, et libellis variantium lectionum ex Mss. Codd. diligenter collectarum, et indicibus accuratiss. Cum gratia et privilegio S. Rom. Imper. Vicarii ad Annos XII, Francofurti, in Officina Danielis Davidis Aubrierum, et Clementis Schieichii, Anno MDCXX. Plutarchi Chaeronensis Omnium quae extant operum, tomus secundus, continens Moralia, Guilielmo Xylandro interprete, Lutetiae Parisiorum, Typis Regiis, apud Societatem Editionum, MDCXXIV.

35 For the history of Plutarch’s editions from Wyttenbach onwards see S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Pubblicare Plutarco… ». See, in particular, p. 8-31 for an analysis of the history and of some features of Wyttenbach’s edition.

36 . The present paper provides a synthetic sketch of my stemmatic analysis of the main printed editions of Isocrates in fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For more details, see S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Il testo del Panegirico isocrateo nel cinquecento », in Isocrate : verso la nuova edizione Oxford, forthcoming. For a general survey, see E. Drerup in Isocratis Opera omnia, recensuit, scholiis testimoniis apparatu critico instruxit E. Drerup, t. I, Lipsiae, 1906, p. clxiv-clxxi. Although many details need revising, this survey is still fundamental.

37 See M. Menchelli, « Isocrate commentato tra manoscritti e stampa : Il Laur. LVIII,5 e l’incunabolo di Demetrio Calcondila e Sebastiano da Pontremoli. Il Vat. Pal. Gr. 135 e l’Aldina di Marco Musuro », in Res Publica Litterarum, 28, 2005, p. 5-34, and S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Per l’identificazione delle fonti manoscritte dell’editio princeps delle Orazioni di Isocrate : il caso del Panegirico », in Cuadernos de filología clásica (G)- Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos, 16, 2006, p. 237-267. See also E. Zingg, « Der Parisinus Gr. 2931 und der Laurentianus pl. 58.5 als Vorlagen des Archidamos-texte der editio princeps von Isokrates », in Eikasmòs, 22, 2011, p. 389-407.

38 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, « La tradizione manoscritta del Panegirico di Isocrate : gli apografi del Vat. Gr. 65 (L) », in Segno e Testo, 5, 2007, p. 173-225, in part. p. 197-198 and 217-218.

39 For a general survey of the textual tradition of the corpus isocrateum, see my note quoted supra, n. 74. See also « Missing archetype : the transmission of the Isocratean corpus and the problems of the constitutio textus », in Handschriften- und Textforschung, Festschrift für Dieter Harlfinger, ed. C. Brockmann, Wiesbaden, forthcoming.

40 A recent description of the manuscript can be found in M. Fassino, La tradizione manoscritta dell’Encomio di Elena e del Plataico di Isocrate, Milan, 2012 (Il filarete, 284), p. 28-32. Bibliography in P. M. Pinto, Per la storia dei testi di Isocrate : la testimonianza d’autore, Bari, 2003, p. 38-40.

41 A recent description of the ms. can be found in M. Fassino, op. cit., p. 36-40. Bibliography in P. M. Pinto, Per la storia…, p. 42-44. See also M. Menchelli, « Il notaio Teodoro e l’Argumentum dell’Evagora tra gli scolii del Vat. Gr. 65 (L) : estratti da un commentario neoplatonico su vita e opere di Isocrate », in Atti e Memorie dell’Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere « La Colombaria », 70, 2005, p. 65-92.

42 For the manuscript tradition of the Antidosis, see P. M. Pinto, Per la storia

43 For a full discussion of all the relevant details, see S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Per l’identificazione… », p. 249-252. There (p. 252) I explained why I think it more probable that Souliardos was the source of Chalkondylas. Still, given that Souliardos introduced the emendations after the transcription of the text, we should consider also the possibility that Souliardos used Par. Gr. 2931 (with Chalkondylas’ wording of the last paragraphs of Against Callimachum) in order to emend his own early transcription in ParGr. 2991. However I am still convinced that the latter possibility is less probable than the former.

44 Ἰσοκράτους λόγοι. Ἀλκιδάµαντος, Κατὰ σοφιστῶν. Γοργίου, Ἑλένης ἐγκώµιον. Ἀριστείδου Παναθηναικός. Τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ῥώµης ἐγκώµιον. Isocratis orationes. Alcidamantis contra dicendi magistros. Gorgiae de laudibus Helenae. Aristidis de laudibus Athenarum. Eiusdem de laudibus urbis Romae, Venetiis, in aedibus Aldi, e Andreae soceri, IIII nonarum Maii M.D.XIII.

45 . See M. Menchelli, « Isocrate commentato… », p. 31-32, and S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Per l’identificazione… », p. 257-259.

46 As already noticed by E. Drerup, Isocratis Opera omnia…, p. clxvi. Isocratis excellentissimi viri ac summi oratoris orationes magna cum diligentia impressae, Haganoe ex officina Seceriana, Mense Septembri. Anno MDXXXIII.

47 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Per l’identificazione… », p. 239.

48 Isocratis orationes omnes, quarum nomina in sequenti invenies pagina. Addita variae lectionis annotatione, Francofurti, anno MDXL [ἐν τῇ Φραγκωφορδίᾳ παρὰ τὸν µῆνον ποταµὸν, παρὰ πέτρῳ τῷ βρουβαχίῳ, ἔτει χιλιοστῷ πεντακοσιοστῷ τεσσαρακοστῷ].

49 See S. Martinelli Tempesta, « Un equivoco di lunga durata : separazione e ricongiunzione nella trasmissione delle “Epistole” isocratee », in Acme, 60.1, 2007, p. 261-272. On the Aldine of the Epistopographi see M. Sicherl, Griechische Erstausgaben des Aldus Manutius : Druckvorlagen, Stellenwert, kultureller Hintergrund, Paderborn 1997, p. 155-290 ; id., « Die Aldina der griechischen Epistolographen (1499) », in Aldus Manutius and Renaissance culture : essays in memory of Franklin D. Murphy, ed. by D. S. Zeidberg with the assistance of F. Gioffredi Superbi, Florence, 1998 (Villa I Tatti, 15), p. 81-93.

50 Isocratis Atheniensis rhetoris orationes et epistolae, Venetiis, [ex Officina Farrea], MDXLII [MDXLIII].

51 Isocratis Atheniensis rhetoris orationes et epistolae, [Imprimebat Petrus Nicolinus Sabiensis et Socii, sumptum vero faciebat Melchior Sessa], Venetiis, MDXLIX.

52 Isocratis orationes, partim doctorum virorum opera, partim meliorum exemplarium collatione, nunc demum multo quam antea emendationres excusae. Quibus iam quoque praeter aliorum editionem accesserunt, eiusdem Isocratis Epistolae, atque Harpocrationis et Suidae difficiliorum apud eundem dictionum explicatio, Basileae, [Anno Salutis MDXLVI, Mense Martio]. That this edition was printed by Oporinus has been argued by P. M. Pinto in S. Martinelli Tempesta and P. M. Pinto, « L’Isocrate “vetustissimus” di Ulrich Fugger tra Hieronymus Wolf e Edward Henryson », in Quaderni di Storia, 67, 2008, p. 111-140, in part. p. 119-120.

53 We can confidently neglect the so-called second Basel edition, published by Thomas Guarinus in 1565, most probably a copy of Wolf’s first edition in Greek (Basel 1551/53) : Isocratis Orationes partim virorum doctorum, partim meliorum exemplarium collatione, nunc demum multo quam antea emendatiores excusae. Adiecimus quoque Hieronymi Vuolfii Oetingensis, non omnium modo orationum argumenta, sed et marginum annotationes. Quibus iam quoque praeter aliorum editionem, acesserunt eiusdem Isocratis Epistolae, atque Harpocrationis et Suidae difficiliorum apud eundem dictionum explicatio, Basileae, per Thomam Guarinum, Anno MDLXV. See infra, n. 138. The frontispiece of the second Basel edition is identical with that of the first Basel edition : see supra, n. 52.

54 Isocratis Orationes omnes, quae quidem ad nostram aetatem pervenerunt una et viginti numero, una cum novem Epistolis, e Graecoin Latinum conversae per Hieronymum Wolfium Oetigensem. Quid in hac editione praeterea sit spectandum, versa pagina reperies. [an elegy of Wolf’s ad lectorem is following on the frontispiece. Inc. : Isocratis Latiumque refert et Graecia laudes ; expl. : Mox (nisi fata vetent) uberiora dabo] Cum Caes. Maiest. gratia et privilegio ad quinquennium, Basileae per Ioannem Oporinum [Ex Officina Ioannis Oporini, MDXLVIII]. Isocratis scripta, quae nunc extant, omnia, per Hieronymum VVuolfium Oetingensem, summo labore et diligentia correcta, et de integro conversa : utque studiosorum usui magis accomodata essent, non omnium duntaxat orationum Argumentis, sed et marginum Annotationibus adornata : Latinis et Graecis e regione collocatis. Quorum Catalogum versa statim pagina reperies, Basileae, per Ioannem Oporinum [ex Officina Ioannis Oporini, Anno salutis humanae MDLIII. Mense Augusto]. The prefatory epistle is dated « Lutetiae Parisiorum, Calendis Ianuariis, anno restitutae Salutis humanae 1551 » (f. a5). For the stemmatic position of the Greek marginalia and the relationship with Michele Sofianòs’ famous Isocrates auctus, see my forthcoming contribution quoted supra, n. 36.

55 Isocratis scripta, quae quidem nunc extant, omnia, Graecolatina, postremo recognita, annotationibus novis et eruditis illustrata, castigationibusque necessariis expolita, Hieronymo VVolfio Oetingensi interprete et auctore. Additi sunt rerum et verborum locupletissimi indices. Cum Caes. Maiest. gratia et privilegio ad annos VI, Basileae, ex Officina Oporiniana, [per Polycarpum et Hieronymum Gemusaeos, et Balthasarum Han], 1570 [Anno Salutis humanae MDLXX, Mense Martio].

56 See S. Martinelli Tempesta in S. Martinelli Tempesta and P. M. Pinto, « L’Isocrate “vetustissimus”… », p. 127-140. P. M. Pinto, ibid., p. 113-121, provides an Italian translation, with full commentary, of Wolf’s praefatio preceding the Animadversiones in his editio maior (1570).

57 Isocratis Orationes et Epistolae cum Latina interpretatione Hier. VVolfii, ab ipso postremo regognita. Henr. Steph. in Isocratem diatribae VII : quarum una observationes Harpocrationis in eundem examinat. Gorgiae et Aristidis quaedam, eiusdem cum Isocraticis argumenti. Guil Cantero interprete, [Genevae], excudebat Henricus Stephanus, Anno MDXCIII.

58 See P. M. Pinto, « Per la storia… », p. 72-81 ; S. Martinelli Tempesta, « L’Isocrate di Michele Sofianòs », in Acme, 58, 2, 2005, p. 301-316 ; id., « Alcune vicende del testo isocrateo nel cinquecento : Michele Sofianòs e Piero Vettori », in Vestigia Antiquitatis, ed. G. Zanetto, S. Martinelli Tempesta and M. Ornaghi, Milan, 2007 (Quaderni di Acme, 89), p. 283-312 ; id., « Notizie sull’Isocrate di Michele Sofianòs in alcune epistole di Gian Vincenzo Pinelli a Piero Vettori », in Debita dona : studi in onore di Isabella Gualandri, ed. P. F. Moretti, C. Torre and G. Zanetto, Naples, 2008, p. 285-297. E. Zingg, « Osservazioni sulla ricezione dell’Archidamo nella Germania del cinquecento », in Isocrate. Verso la nuova edizione Oxford, forthcoming, casts new light upon the relationships between Wolf and Sofianòs.

59 By means of the unpublished Wolf’s correspondence E. Zingg argues that : (a) Wolf was aware of Sofianòs’ Isocrates emendatior since January 1553 ; (b) Sofianòs work on Isocrates dates certainly before January 1553 and probably even before November 1552, when he arguably tried to come to an arrangement with Lorenzo Torrentino in Florence (according to Zingg’s interpretation of Sofianòs’ letter to Piero Vettori in A. Meschini, Michele Sofianòs, Padova, 1981, p. 64 [II 1]) ; (c) Sofianòs tried to come to an arrangement with Henri Estienne in 1559 as well, before he applied to Oporinus in 1561 ; (d) according to Georg Tanner, Michael Sofianòs, after he had a look at Wolf’s Isocrates Graecolatinus (i.e. Oporinus’ edition [1553], with Wolf’s variae lectiones in margine), suspected that Wolf took advantage of his own emendations (i.e. of the new readings of the Ambrosianus) thanks to Henri Estienne. See all the details and a full discussion of the evidence in E. Zingg, « Appendice : Wolf e l’Isocratesemendatior di Sofianòs », in Isocrate. Verso la nuova edizione Oxford, forthcoming (supra, n. 36).

60 Andreae Mustoxydis, Ισοκρατους λογος περι της αντιδοσεως, ἤδη πρῶτον εἰς τὴν άρχαίαν γραφὴν διασκευασθεὶς καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα περί που σελίδας ἐπαυξηθεὶς, εν Μεδιολανω 1812, εκ Τυπογραφιας Ι. Ι. ∆εστεφανου. Oratores Attici ex recensione Immanuelis Bekkeri, t. II, Isocrates, Oxonii, 1823 ; Oratores Attici ex recensione Immanuelis Bekkeri, t. II, Isocrates, Berolini, 1823.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1. Plato (case study : Lysis)
URL http://books.openedition.org/enc/docannexe/image/3467/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 51k
Titre Fig. 2. Plutarch (case study : De tranquillitate animi)
URL http://books.openedition.org/enc/docannexe/image/3467/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 43k
Titre Fig. 3. Isocrates (case study : Panegyricus [+Epistulae])
URL http://books.openedition.org/enc/docannexe/image/3467/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 80k

Auteur

Università degli studi di Milano

© Publications de l’École nationale des chartes, 2014

Licence OpenEdition Books

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search