P. Aelii Aristidis opera quae exstant omnia, vol. 1: Orationes I - XVI

936 Pages·1976·30.908 MB·English, Greek

by  Friedrich Walter Lenz, Charles Allison Behr, Aelius Aristides

P. AELII ARISTIDIS
OPERA
QUAE EXSTANT OMNIA .
P. AELIT ARISTIDIS
OPERA
QUAE EXSTANT OMNIA
EDIDERUNT
FRIDERICUS WALTHARIUS LENZ 1
et
CAROLUS ALLISON BEHR
LUGDUNI BATAVORUM E. J. BRILL 1976
P. AELIT ARISTIDIS
OPERA
QUAE EXSTANT OMNIA
VOLUMEN PRIMUM
ORATIONES I-XVI COMPLECTENS
ORATIONES I ET V-XVI
EDIDIT
FRIDERICUS WALTHARIUS LENZ1
PRAEFATIONEM
CONSCRIPSIT ET
ORATIONES II, III, IV
EDIDIT
CAROLUS ALLISON BEHR
SEGI
^
Ww ow
€ rm
c
LUGDUNI BATAVORUM E. J. BRILL MCMLXXVI
ISBN 90 04 04722 0
Copyright 1976 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche
or any other means without written permisson from the publisher
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
PREFACE
Something must be said about the genesis of this book. Bruno
Keil (1859-1916), the founder of this enterprise, published in 1898,
volume II, containing orations XVII-LIII, of his planned three
volume edition of Aristides. For various reasons he chose not to
complete this work. Consequently volume I, which was to contain
orations I-XVI, and volume III, the scholia, never appeared.
Keil's legacy to Aristides included a collation of all of the important
manuscripts which are employed in this edition, a collection of
photostats of parts or all of some of these manuscripts, as well as
of others of less value, descriptions of nearly two hundred Aristides
manuscripts (most from personal observation), essays and other
writings on the text tradition (some of this now lost), and his copy
of Dindorf's edition with marginalia.
Between Keils death and 1926 the project languished. Then,
with the support of Wilamowitz, it was resumed by Friedrich
Walter Lenz (1896-1969) and Georg Wilhelm Sieveking (1895-
1945). The inadequacies of Keil's collation were realized, and to
remedy this deficiency new photostats were added to the collection.
Sieveking withdrew from the undertaking, but Lenz continued the
work, collecting, collating, and even re-examining some of the
manuscripts im situ. When he came to the United States, Lenz was
able to take his now extensive collection with him. The first fruits
of his textual studies, which go back to the 1930's, are collected in
the important Aristeidesstudien and in his publication and elucida-
tion of the Aristeides Prolegomena. Before his death, Lenz completed
the editing of orations I and V-XVI,!) and most of the scholia to
oration I and much of that to oration III. I have intentionally
refrained from interfering with his work (even leaving untouched
his occasionally odd use of different abbreviations for the same
codex in different orations), except to correct slips of the pen, to
1) A subscription to Lenz’s autograph of I indicates that it was completed
on September 26, 1941 and revised by December 12, 1963. A subscription to
the autograph of XV states that V-XVI (sic) were completed on June 26,
1946(?), although much later a second version of XVI was prepared, and
the text of V-XV greatly altered.
VI PREFACE
employ my earlier published system of paragraphs in oration I,
and to bring the apparatus up to date.
I myself have recollated the manuscripts from photostats for
orations II, III, and IV. I have edited the text of these orations,
and I have also composed the introduction to this work on the
history of the text and the previous editions, as well as the des-
cription of the manuscripts. I shall also see to the revision of the
edition of volume II (orations XVII-LTII), and to the completion
of the edition of the scholia.
Although an attentive reader will note some disagreement with
Keil and Lenz in matters of fact and theory about the Aristides
manuscripts, he should in no way assume that I hold anything but
the greatest admiration for my co-workers. If it were not for their
arduous efforts, this work could not have appeared at all. They
were both deservedly distinguished scholars. I never had the
privilege of meeting Lenz, but between the time when he asked me
to prepare à new edition of volume II and his death, I often cor-
responded with him, and his letters to me showed a great warmth
and generosity as well as an enormous learning and industry. I felt
his death as a personal loss, and I undertook this task as much
from the desire of seeing the completion of his labors in a field in
which he had toiled for over forty years, as from my own wish that
a reliable critical edition of Aristides finally be available.
INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
THE ARISTIDES MANUSCRIPTS
For practical reasons I have divided the Aristides manuscripts
into two groups. In the former are contained first the two Aristides
papyri, which are known up to now, and then, in alphabetical order,
those manuscripts whose names appear in the apparatus of the
text and scholia of this edition, or which, with a few exceptions,
were employed by earlier scholars in editing the text and scholia.
Manuscripts of both primary and subsidiary value are included.
To the second group I have relegated a supplementary list, also
alphabetically arranged, of as many Aristides manuscripts as are
known to me, together with whatever information I could obtain
about them, either from Keil’s notes, library catalogues, or in-
complete sets of photostats. This list, which I am certain is in-
complete, either through the partial loss of Keil’s papers or inevi-
table oversights, does give the vast majority of the extant man-
uscripts. Despite its omissions, it offers a picture of what is
available among the codices deteriores and insights into the changing
pattern of speeches and other Aristides material, which bears upon
the history of the text.
In the description of the contents of each codex, I have employed
the useful system of abbreviations, which Lenz in the Arzsteides
Prolegomena, pp. 4, 41, Mnemosyne Supplement V, 1959, devised
for the various sections of the Prolegomena. The sigla B, C, Pan.,
T, E, C*, H,, H, indicate the following:
B (Bloc) = Prolegomena 3, 737, 1-741, 9 Ddf. = pp. 111-117
Lenz, op. cit.
€ (Xapaxtyo) = 3, 741, 10-742, 8 Ddf. = pp. 118-119 Lenz
Pan. (Παναθηναικός) = 3, 742, 10-744, 22 Ddf. = pp. 121-125
Lenz
T (Ὑπὲρ τῶν Τεττάρων) = 3, 744, 24-751, 28 Ddf. = pp. 127-141,
3 Lenz
E (Εἶδος) = 3, 751, 29-757, 26 Ddf. = pp. 141, 5-151 Lenz
C4 (Xapaxtmp auctus) = pp. 153-155 Lenz
H, (Υπόθεσις) = 3, 435, 17-439, 8 Ddf. = pp. 157-166 Lenz
H, (Ὑπόθεσις) = 3, 433, 3-435, 16 Ddf. = pp. 169-172 Lenz
x THE ARISTIDES MANUSCRIPTS
Explanations of most of the abbreviations used in the ensuing
discussion can be found on p. 3. To these should be added:
a = Vat. gr. 75 (see no. 48)
B or P = Bodl. Canonic. gr. 84 and Par. gr. 2948 (see no. 36)
C = Laur. pl. LIX, 15 (see no. 19)
D = Laur. pl. LX, 7 (see no. 21)
F = (Romanus) Angelicanus III C rr (see no. 5)
P, — Vat. Pal. 9o (see no. 60)
S — Vat. Urb. gr. 122 (see no. 62)
Note that the speeches are numbered throughout according to
Keil's system, even where the references in the first four chapters
must be given by the page and line of Dindorf's edition. So
I = 13 (vol. r, Ddf.) IX = 38 (vol. 1, Ddf.)
II = 45 (vol. 2, Ddf.) X = 39 (vol. 1, Ddf.)
III = 46 (vol. 2, Ddf.) XI = 33 (vol. 1, Ddf.)
IV = 47 (vol. 2, Ddf.) XII = 34 (vol. 1, Ddf.)
V = 29 (vol. τ, Ddf.) XIII = 35 (vol. 1, Ddf.)
VI = 30 (vol. τ, Ddf.) XIV = 36 (vol. τ, Ddf.)
VII = 31 (vol. 1, Ddf.) XV = 37 (vol. 1, Ddf.)
VIII = 32 (vol. 1, Ddf.) XVI = 52 (vol. 2, Ddf.)
The scholia in volume 3 of Dindorf's edition are cited either as
"scholium 3" or 32.᾿ So, for example, III 295, 18 Ddf. signifies
or. 46 in Dindorf’s numeration and p. 295, 18 of volume 2 of his
edition. But scholium 3, 1, 1-24 Ddf. indicates the scholium on
p. 1 of volume 3 of Dindorf.
I. P. Ant. = The Antinoopolits Papyri Part III (1967) no. 182,
edited by J. W. B. Barns and H. Zilliacus. Codex written in single
columns on both sides of the leaf; frg. 2 and 3 are from originally
conjoint leaves; seventh century. Contents: (frg. 1 recto) III 182,
18-19 Ddf. «]wx«w1«/ Ἰοπλιζί θη]σαυρον; (frg. I verso) 183, 18-
19 Ddf. του]τον ἡ ay[tov/ εθιζειν ey[o/ Ἰδοξω δ; (frg. 2 recto) 290,
I-7 Ddf. [απΊαντας — π[ωποτε]; (frg. 2 verso) 290, 18-24 Ddf.
[sup ]popa — πίραγμα]; (frg. 3 recto) 291, 8-14 Ddf. mpoayxolytog —
vn[s]ep[uec); (frg. 3 verso) 292, 5-12 Ddf. xat τοιουτοῖς — αἰνισχει].