Studi sulla tradizione del testo di Isocrate (review)

Shortly before the end of the twentieth and early in the twenty-first century two important contributions to the study of the textual tradition of Isocrates were published. In 1997 K. S. Worp and A. Rijksbaron published an edition of a wooden codex of the fourth century found in Egypt at ancient Kellis, which contains the first three orations of the corpus: Ad Demonicum, Ad Nicoclem (both complete), and Nicocles, which is complete except for the last eleven sections. Six years later, B. G. Mandilaras published a new Teubner in three volumes, of which the first constitutes generous prolegomena with complete inventories of mss., papyri, editions, and translations, as well as a multifaceted bibliography and a full presentation of the indirect tradition beginning with Dionysius of Halicarnassus and ending with Michael Apostolius (fifteenth century).

Also in 2003 A. Carlini and D. Manetti organized a seminar on the textual tradition of Isocrates at Pisa (April 2003). Five months later nine papers from this seminar were published under the supervision of Fassino and Martinelli Tempesta. Divided into three sections, these papers deal with the manuscript tradition (Martinelli Tempesta, Fassino, de Leo, Menchelli), the indirect tradition (Vallozza, Pinto), and the papyrological studies (Andorlini, Pruneti, Messeri).

In his study of manuscripts of the Panegyricus, Martinelli Tempesta discusses shortcomings in the editions of Drerup and Mathieu Bremond, and he concludes (on the basis of twenty-five of thirty-one manuscripts) that codex Salamantinus 279 (fifteenth to sixteenth centuries) is a primary witness. Fassino also demonstrates that codex S is primary for the Helen, and he establishes with a convincing selection of photographs of G. (Urbinas 111, ninth to tenth centuries) and D (Vaticanus gr. 936, early fourteenth century) that the main hand of D was responsible for corrections in G and that later addenda to D, which contain Helen (1–13) and Evagoras (25–38), date to the fifteenth century and derive from a contaminated copy of codex Vatic. 65 (L, dated 1063). Variants from the addenda are shown to merit inclusion in the critical apparatus. In a third article de Leo deals with the excerpts from De Pace (25–56 and 132–145), which appear at Antidosis (66). He rightly concludes that textual variants need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which Mandilaras has done.

In terms of the indirect tradition Vallozza correctly demonstrates that citations from seven orations in Stobaeus (fifth century) call into question Pasquali's theory that the works of Isocrates were circulated in corpuscula. Pinto writes on the first of two chapters (159 and 260) devoted to Isocrates in the Bibliotheca of Photius (ninth century) in terms of text-historical implications and concludes that this chapter cannot be identified with any of the extant manuscripts. Menchelli's paper on manuscripts of prefatory material (vitae, argumenta) attempts to show that these can be associated with sixth-century Platonism in Alexandria. On the other hand, since Mandilaras has a selection of this material reprinted from earlier editions, her findings provide a basis for a new edition of prefatory material.

I next consider three papers on papyri: Andorlini publishes an identification of a fragment from Helen (11) from PSI inv. 2058 (saec.2/3); Pruneti suggest new dates for PSI 120, PBodl MS Gr. Class d 163 and PAlex inv. 613; and Messeri contributes a full description of PLitLond 131, which contains De Pace 13–145, in terms of palaeographic features and editions, and reaffirms Kenyon's dating.

Although each of these papers deals with a limited area in the textual history of Isocrates, details do have relevance to the overall picture, and, had publication of these papers been delayed, revised versions would doubtless have profited from engagement with Mandilaras' Teubner.