Textus Originalis

DE CODICIBUS LIBRORUM XI—XII.

ἁμαρτωλὸς πατρώνυμον ἔχων ἀνδρέας καὶ χῖος τὸ πάτριον.*) Neque vero inseruit Gregorius folia 1, 309, 310, sed ab initio in codice vacua relicta explevit, quare admodum probabile fit ipsum librum, quem librarius saeculi X vel XI transscriberet, et initio et in fine fuisse mutilum. Folia omnia ab eodem Gregorio numerata sunt excepto quod numero caret ultimo, sed errore bis numeravit 52 (νβ) et 179**) (ροη), ut penultimum sit τζ (307). Argumentum***), quale reliquis libris praepositum est, ante XI desideratur, tresque in codice sunt lacunae maiores et nonnullae minores, quae in ceteris non reperiuntur. Ac primum quidem in folio 38 verso post vocem εὔνοιαν (XI 67) quatuordecim versus non sunt expleti, ut desint verba μετὰ — ἐλευθερίας, itemque in folio insequenti recto vacui sunt duodeviginti versus quatuordecim illis ex adverso positi, itaque post vocem κειμένας (XI 68) desiderantur verba ἀξιοῦντες — ἀποχωρῆσαι. Deinde in libro XIV sex deinceps folia, quaternionis vicesimi septimi 2—7, quibus continebantur verba αὐτοὶ δὲ προεξαναστάντες (c. 101) — διὸ καὶ τὸ πεδίον (c. 114) exciderunt inter f. 208 et 209, quae cum Gregorius signaverit notis numeralibus continuo sequentibus σς et σζ, apparet huius iam aetate illa defuisse. Lacunae minores ut

*) Iota subscripta in codice constanter omissa addidit Bergmann et correxit peccata συναιρωμένου — ὧδ᾿ ἔληξα — πατρόνυμον. Verba νοεμβρίου et ἰνδικτιῶνος per compendia scripta sunt. — De Gregorio plura attulit Joh. Saccelion in Ephemeride Atheniensi, quae inscribitur Νέα Πανδώρα 1866 p. 165. **) Bergmann scripsit 197, errore, ut ex ipsius schedis cognovi. ***) De argumentis libr. XIII. XIV. XVI in Bergmanni scriptis nihil relictum est.

Traduzione

English — scholarly

ARETHE Knowledge Engineering Division

ON THE MANUSCRIPTS OF BOOKS XI—XII.

ἁμαρτωλὸς πατρώνυμον ἔχων ἀνδρέας καὶ χῖος τὸ πάτριον.*) But Gregory did not insert folios 1, 309, 310; rather, he filled in leaves that had been left blank from the beginning, wherefore it becomes quite probable that the book itself, which a scribe of the 10th or 11th century transcribed, was mutilated both at the beginning and at the end. All folios were numbered by Gregory himself, except that the last lacks a number, but he mistakenly numbered twice 52 (νβ) and 179**) (ροη), so that the penultimate is τζ (307). The argumentum***), such as is placed before the remaining books, is missing before Book XI, and there are in the codex three larger lacunae and several smaller ones, which are not found in the others. And first indeed, on folio 38 verso after the word εὔνοιαν (XI 67), fourteen lines are not filled in, so that the words μετὰ — ἐλευθερίας are missing; likewise, on the following folio recto, eighteen lines are empty, positioned opposite those fourteen, and so after the word κειμένας (XI 68) the words ἀξιοῦντες — ἀποχωρῆσαι are missing. Then in Book XIV, six consecutive folios, 2—7 of the twenty-seventh quire, which contained the words αὐτοὶ δὲ προεξαναστάντες (c. 101) — διὸ καὶ τὸ πεδίον (c. 114) fell out between f. 208 and 209, and since Gregory marked them with the consecutive numerical notes σς and σζ, it is apparent that they were already missing in his time. As for the smaller lacunae that exist,

*) Bergmann added the iota subscripts consistently omitted in the codex and corrected the errors συναιρωμένου — ὧδ᾿ ἔληξα — πατρόνυμον. The words νοεμβρίου and ἰνδικτιῶνος were written in abbreviations. — Joh. Saccelion provided more details about Gregory in the Athenian periodical entitled Νέα Πανδώρα 1866 p. 165. **) Bergmann wrote 197, in error, as I learned from his own notes. ***) Nothing on the arguments of Books XIII, XIV, XVI is left in Bergmann's writings.

Commentario Arethe

concept syn_diod_v2_XIII_001
homoioteleuta

Homoioteleuton (ὁμοιοτέλευτον, 'similar ending'): one of the most common causes of scribal error. When two nearby words or phrases end with the same letters, a copyist's eye may skip from one to the other, omitting everything in between (saut du même au même). Vogel identifies this as the primary cause of the smaller lacunae in codex P. This type of error is crucial for textual critics because it is (1) mechanical rather than intentional, (2) predictable from the text's content, and (3) can sometimes be reversed if we know the lost text from other witnesses.