BMCR 2004.10.09, Kalli, The manuscript tradition of Procopius

Maria K. Kalli, The manuscript tradition of Procopius' Gothic Wars: a
reconstruction of family y in the light of a hitherto unknown
manuscript (Athos, Lavra H-73). BzA 205.  Mu+nchen-Leipzig:  K.G. Saur,
2004.  Pp. 197; pls. 16.  ISBN 3-598-77817-1.  EUR 86.00.

Reviewed by N.G. Wilson, Lincoln College, Oxford
Word count:  1293 words
-------------------------------

This monograph is a study of a manuscript of Procopius' Wars Books 5-8
which has not been used before, even though its existence was revealed
in a printed catalogue published as long ago as 1925. Since it turns
out to be the oldest extant witness, datable to the late 13th century,
it is of some importance, and the author's detailed description of its
place in the manuscript tradition is to be welcomed. The introduction
(pp.1-8) summarises the work of previous editors of the text. Chapter 1
(pp.9-20) is a description of the codex (referred to as Ath). It was
written by six scribes, and there are helpful plates in addition to
drawings reproducing key features of the individual scripts; the hands
are typical for scholars of the period. Chapter 2 (pp.21-131) is the
study of the text provided by Ath. This includes a very detailed survey
of its errors, which are classified into eighteen categories. Ath is
close to L (Laurentianus 69.8); it takes its place alongside L as joint
representative of the y-family. Having established this the author
passes to a description of the later MSS in this family (pp.132-148).
There is some discussion of variant readings indicative of stemmatic
relationship.  A final Chapter (pp.149-168) is a general discussion of
intellectual activity in the Palaeologan period. A brief conclusion is
followed by appendices, of which the first prints from MS Salamanca
2750 the Greek text of a letter dated May 17 1574 from Antonios
Calosynas to a Spanish patron, tentatively identified as Diego de
Covarrubias. The bibliography occupies pp.178-197.

The upshot of these researches is that Ath provides some good readings.
While those listed on pp.26-28 are relatively trivial, some that follow
on pp.29ff. are interesting in that they confirm editorial conjectures.
On pp.32-35 some "new defensible readings" are listed.

This is a useful piece of work. But the reviewer is obliged to report
that there is a good deal wrong with the book, and that the valuable
elements in it could and should have been published as a substantial
article rather than in the inflated form which is now offered to the
scholarly world. There are innumerable misprints, including some that
display inability to use the diacritics necessary for Spanish or the
transcription of Slavonic names, and there are a number of infelicities
in the English. A good proof-reader who is also a native speaker could
have eliminated all these blemishes. Publishers who care for their
reputation should recognise a duty to authors and readers and make
efforts to eliminate such shortcomings. One may add that if the text is
essentially a dissertation presented for a university degree, which it
appears to be, supervisors and examiners have not done as much as might
be expected. It should also be said that the final chapter does not
really add anything new of importance to our knowledge of the period;
it was of course right and proper to insist that a candidate for a
higher degree should possess the background knowledge of the field that
is displayed here, but it did not follow that there was any
justification for printing such an essay.

I pass now to individual matters, some of which are relatively minor,
others not.

P.3 Menander Protector has been edited by R.C. Blockley in 1985 and
should no longer be cited from Dindorf.

P.4 (and 166) Leonardo Bruni 's surname is given as Brutus.

P.12 One would have liked the plate of hand C to show a specimen of the
hyphen joining words divided at line-end. Fortunately plates 7b and 9b
show this feature in hand D, where it is at the beginning of the
following line instead of the position we are accustomed to. This
interesting palaeographical feature has been studied by D.J. Murphy in
Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 36 (1995) pp.293-314.

P.14 The marginal note is described as a subscription, which it is not,
and from the limited amount of the wording that can be understood I
very much doubt if it is hagiographical.

P.19 It is worth remarking that the chances of a manuscript of this
date having watermarks in the paper are very slim.

Pp.21ff. In the discussion of Ath's readings the author does not get to
the point at once by looking for shared errors that are more than mere
orthographical slips and would not be likely to occur independently in
more than one manuscript. It may be significant that she does not list
in her bibliography the manuals of Maas and West. In this part of her
work she blends two inquiries, one stemmatic, the other an analysis of
errors in the MSS. This was not a good idea. She frequently remarks
that a reading of Ath is not found in later MSS. This is prima facie
evidence that Ath has no direct descendants, or that if it does, the
scribes have been able to eliminate a large number of errors by
consultation of a better copy. From the data given it appears that the
later MSS are basically members of the other family; in a few passages
they show agreement with Ath, which indicates contamination. The table
of variants printed on p.174 has had its left-hand margin cut off,
which is irritating for the reader, and in any case it includes a good
deal of insignificant matter.

P.96 It is suggested that the scribe was unable to recognise a dual
form. But educated Byzantines were very familiar with them.

P.99 There is a mistake in handling the variant
<greek>eiwqei/san</greek> (the accent is perhaps a scribal fault). The
author takes it as a feminine participle, whereas in fact it is a third
person plural verb and not at all puzzling as a variant in the context.
It is however distinctive enough to be useful for stemmatic analysis
and yet does not figure in the table on p.174.

P.132ff. This chapter on the y-family offers a little more information
about the manuscripts rather than systematic collation.

P.135 By a very odd error it is suggested that a fifteenth-century MS
belonged to John IV Lascaris, son of Theodore II.

P.137 Plate 14a shows the date in the Basel MS, which is misprinted in
the text (it is 23 May). Also the date of 24 May given for Antonios
Calosynas' letter in the Salamanca MS is wrong because on p.173 the
Greek states that it was the 17th of May.

Pp.172-3 are an appendix giving the text of the letter just mentioned.
It is always worth having the text of this kind of correspondence
printed as it throws light on various matters of interest. But as
printed here it is full of error, and I do not know how the blame is to
be apportioned. In line 5 the form of the infinitive is an oddity and I
suspect it may be wrong. In line 13 <greek>a)/gesqai</greek> is wrong.
The writer wonders why Procopius is not available to students of Greek
yet. <greek>a)/gasqai</greek> is required. In line 20
<greek>prosfilh/s</greek> is the expected adjective. In line 21
<greek>h(mio/los</greek> is a mystery. <greek>u(me/teros o(/los</greek>
might be right. The verb <greek>diatelei=</greek> must be converted
into the imperative. In line 24 <greek>ei)/mi</greek> is to be read as
<greek>ei) mh/</greek>, so that the meaning is "suitable for no-one
other than yourself".

P.187 In the bibliography Aubrey Diller has been metamorphosed into his
unrelated German colleague Hermann Diller.

I am not pleased to write a review in which the negative element is
substantial. As I said above, the author has done a useful job. One may
hope that she can be encouraged to do other useful pieces of research
in the future. But when one ventures for the first time into this
rather complex field one does need a great deal of help.