Repetitions and their Removal by the Copyists of Greek Tragedy Peter Pickering T IS BEYOND DOUBT that what Jackson in Marginalia Scaenica I calls “unconscious repetitions by the copyist” occur.1 (By “unconscious” Jackson means little more than “erroneous”; he is not considering changes deliberately introduced by a copy- ist.) I present here the results of an attempt to examine those instances where verbal repetitions found in manuscripts of Greek tragedy are due to scribal error, and to assess some of the circumstances in which such errors appear.2 An unexpected discovery was that besides introducing repetitions scribes can be detected (or perhaps rather some scribes can sometimes be detected) removing repetitions. Editors quite frequently emend away repetitions found in 1 J. Jackson, Marginalia Scaenica (Oxford 1955), Addenda B, 223. Jackson wittily depreciates the value of listing the large number of examples, and does not therefore attempt any systematisation. There are frequent allusions to scribal repetition in editors’ discussion of individual cruces. Repetitions due to the author rather than a copyist are surveyed in my article “Verbal Repetition in Prometheus and Greek Tragedy Generally,” BICS 44 (2000) 81–99. 2 The research was undertaken as part of work for a Ph.D. at University College London. My thanks are due especially to my supervisor, Professor Janko, and to my examiners, Dr Dawe and Professor Carey, for their many helpful comments on my thesis, to Professor Easterling for her comments on an earlier draft of this article, and to the anonymous referee. The collations on which the research was based were: for the alphabetic plays of Euripides, Murray’s OCT (I 1902, II2 1913, III 1907); for Aeschylus Supplices H. Friis Johansen and E. W. Whittle (Copenhagen 1980); for Aeschylus Septem contra Thebas Page’s OCT of 1972 and R. D. Dawe, The Collation and Investigation of Manuscripts of Aeschylus (Cambridge 1964; Dawe reports a number of var- iants relevant to this study which are not in Page, presumably because they are not significant in the constitution of the text); for Sophocles Trachiniae the third edition of Dawe’s Teubner Sophocles Tragoediae (1996); and for Euripides Hip- polytus Diggle’s OCT of 1984: cited below by editors’ names. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000) 123–139 © 2001 GRBS 124 REPETITIONS AND THEIR REMOVAL texts as transmitted, and in doing so must be assuming that those repetitions were the result of copyists’ errors. Sometimes, also, the manuscript tradition presents alternative readings, one with a repetition and one without. Among the considerations an editor must have in mind in choosing which to prefer is whether a copyist has introduced into a text a repetition not originally there or has removed, deliberately or inadvertently, a repetition the author had written. 1.1 Apographs: Erroneous repetitions Any rigorous study must attempt to separate out erroneous repetition by an individual copyist from other sources of error, especially ones due to contamination in an open recension. Only if we can be sure that one manuscript is a pure apograph of another extant manuscript can we be sure that errors in the first are due to its copyist and to him alone. Where the reading of the copy is different, it must be either by mistake (and “mistake” is the right word even in the unlikely but possible circumstance that it produces the original words of the author), or by de- liberate conjecture. There are many apographs in the libraries of the world, but the labour of collating them is not normally undertaken once their totally dependent status has been demon- strated; and even when they have been collated, those collations are rarely published. Fortunately, however, the Euripidean manuscript usually de- noted P (one half being Palatinus gr. 287 and the other Lauren- tianus conv. soppr. 172) was fully collated before it was generally accepted to be totally dependent (in the so-called “alphabetic” plays)3 on the manuscript usually denoted L (Laurentianus plut. 32.2).4 The readings of P are thus reported alongside those of L 3 Cyclops, Heraclidae, Supplices, Electra, Hercules, Iphigenia Taurica, Ion, Helena, and Iphigenia Aulidensis. 4 Diggle in the preface to vol. II of his OCT says “[Zuntz] controversiam illam diuturnam, quanam necessitudine L et P inter se coniuncti sint, omnino diremit” (p.VI). Diggle refers to G. Zuntz, An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides (Cambridge 1965) 13–15, where Zuntz describes how a mark in L copied as a colon in P proved to have been a tiny piece of straw. PETER PICKERING 125 in earlier apparatuses, such as that of Murray; a large number of them are also discussed by Zuntz.5 Another, and more recent, published collation of an apograph is that by Friis Johansen and Whittle of Aeschylus Supp. Scurialensis T.1.15, which they denote by E. They published this collation in the belief that the manuscript was not a descendant of Mediceus Laurentianus 32.9; that contention is generally discredited.6 A study of the apparatuses in Murray and Friis Johansen was made.7 All instances where a substantially different word is read in the apograph from that in its exemplar were examined (differences of accent or breathing, or simply of inflection, were passed over, as were all but very striking differences in non-lexi- cals).8 Something like 125 substantial differences were found.9 Table 1 lists the 17 instances where a significant divergence in the readings of apograph and exemplar is certainly, probably, or possibly to be ascribed to the influence of a nearby word.10 5 Zuntz (supra n.4). On p.136 he lists the types of error to which P was prone: dropping single letters, especially consonants; changing or adding letters; writing a wrong but similarly pronounced vowel; and repetition. 6 M. L. West, Aeschyli Tragoediae (Teubner 1990), says in his preface “Quod H. Friis Johansen et E. W. Whittle contenderunt, Md [sc. their E] non a M genus habere sed auctoritate sua aliquid valere, non magis mihi persuaserunt quam aliis viris doctis” (p.XVII) There may, of course, have been a manuscript inter- mediate between M and E. 7 Murray’s readings quoted in this article have all been checked against the published facsimiles of L and P: J. A. Spranger, Euripidis quae inveniuntur in Codice Laurentiano (Florence 1920) for L, and Euripidis quae in codicibus Pala- tino graeco inter Vaticanos 287 et Laurentiano Conv. Soppr. 172 (Florence 1939– 46) for P. 8 With the alphabetic plays of Euripides, despite the total dependence of P on L care is necessary when looking at each particular case, since corrections in L (whether or not by Triclinius) may or may not have been carried into P. 9 Proportionately more divergences were found in Aeschylus’ Supplices than in the alphabetic plays of Euripides; that may be because its text is much more corrupt in all respects. 10 In general the simplifying, but plausible, assumption is made that influence, if there is any, is from the closest word, whether it precedes or follows. What may be an eighteenth instance is cited by L. von Sybel, De repetitionibus verborum in fabulis Euripideis (diss. Bonn 1868) 35. He claims that P originally had tÊxhw for d¤khw in Heraclidae 933 following tÊxhn in 930 and preceding tÊxhn in 935. This is not reported in Murray, nor is it discernible in the 126 REPETITIONS AND THEIR REMOVAL Play & line Euripides L reading P reading Nearby word Heracl. 282 ¥bhn Ïbrin Ïbrin 280 (p) Supp. 374 §w afie¤ eÈsae¤ eÈsebØw 373 (p) Supp. 539 xr∞n dØ altered to de› de› 536 (p) HF 74 patØr svtØr s–zv 72 (p) HF 1368 kal«n kak«n kakã 1366 (p) Ion 545 n°ou lÒgou lÒgvn 544 (p) Ion 1453 ¶labew ¶balew ép°balon 1453 (p) IT 503 fyone›w frone›w frone›w 503 (f) IT 637 lãb˙w bãl˙w bal« 635 (p) IT 733 ı tÆnde ˜tan d¢ ˜tan te 730 (p) Hel. 864 fãsgan' bãrbar' bãrbar' 864 (p) Hel. 1186 xroÚw xyonÚw xyonÚw 1179 (p) Hel. 1618 xrhsim≈teron svfron°steron s≈fronow 1617 (p) Aeschylus M reading E reading nearby word Supp. 334 leukostefe›w neostefe›w neodr°ptouw 334 (f) Supp. 353 bot∞ri bat∞ri ±libãtoiw 352 (p) Supp. 606 ín ≤bÆsaimi ín ≤gÆsaimi ghraiò 606 (f) Supp. 632 g°nei xene› xeoÊsan 632 (f) Table 1: Scribal Errors of Repetition in Apographs11 ——— facsimile; Wecklein (Euripides Heraclidae [Leipzig 1898]) merely reports d¤k in rasura in 933. Sybel supports his contention by the observation that an apograph in Paris has tÊxhw. Sybel’s thesis was that all the (to his mind) pointless and burdensome repetitions (“molestae” in his terminology) found in the received text of Euripides were due to copyists, and he was looking hard for cases where that could be demonstrated. The evidence for P’s reading is not strong enough to use here. 11 There was nothing relevant to repetition in Cyclops, Electra, or Iphigenia Aulidensis. “Nearby word” gives its line-number and whether it (p)recedes or (f)ollows the word it seems to have influenced. PETER PICKERING 127 Most of the divergences do not need this influence to explain them (being the errors in single letters to whose prevalence Zuntz has drawn attention, or errors due to metathesis of bal- and lab-),12 though several indubitably do. There are in Table 1 six cases where the apograph has cer- tainly repeated whole or part of a previously occurring word instead of the word actually in the exemplar: Heraclidae 282, Hercules 74, Ion 545,13 IT 733, Helena 864, Helena 1618. There are seven cases where a divergent reading in the apograph is possibly due, at least in part, to influence from a previously occurring word: Eur. Supplices 374, Eur. Supplices 539,14 Hercules 1368,15 Ion 1453, IT 637, Helena 1186, Aesch. Supplices 353. There are four instances—three in the Scurialensis of Aeschylus— where the word influencing the repetition is a later one in the same line. Two of these are certain: IT 503, Aesch. Supplices 334. Two are no more than possible: Aesch. Supplices 606, 632. 12 An assumption behind all the work reported here is that scribal errors are not purely random events. However careless a scribe—and by common consent the scribe of P was a particularly careless one—there is a pattern in his care- lessness, which a systematic study would reveal. In this article it is only pat- terns relating to repetition that are studied. 13 The inflexional form is that required by the context, but the word is found in the previous (tetrameter) line. 14 W. S. Barrett, however, Euripides Hippolytos (Oxford 1964) 164–165, draws attention to the general tendency for de› to replace xrÆ in transmission. 15 Although the confusion of kal«n and kak«n is common it may have been influenced here by kakã also at line-end two lines earlier. L writes con- secutive lines in adjacent columns, while P goes straight down the column. If the cause of the error is a mechanical slip of the scribe’s eye, then a scribe copying P from L would be particularly liable to repetition from two lines back. But erroneous repetitions may be due rather to the retention in the scribe’s mind of a word encountered recently. (There is extensive psychological literature on this “priming” effect.) 128 REPETITIONS AND THEIR REMOVAL The conclusion so far is: a copyist is found introducing a repetition into a text from up to three (or possibly seven) lines earlier or from later in the same line.16 1.2 Apographs: repetitions removed Besides the cases of erroneous complete or partial repetition, there are five cases in the alphabetic plays of Euripides17 where P removes a repetition in L within three lines; in three of these the repetition is one that we would recognise as a figure of speech: Heraclidae 27: L’s ka‹ sÁn kak«w prãssousi sumprãssv kak«w is destroyed by P’s sumpãsxv.18 Hercules 1100: the first hand of P destroys ¶sƒze pleuråw §j §moË t' §s–zeto by writing ¶doje.19 IT 669: ¶fyhw me mikrÒn: taÈtå d¢ fyãsaw l°geiw is destroyed by frãsaw in P. In two cases P removes a repetition which we would not recognise as a figure of speech, and which obtrudes: IT 1018: laye›n for labe›n after labe›n in 1016. Helena 739–740: P reads m°llousin for m°nousin in m°nein t' §p' ékta›w toÊw t' §moÁw karadoke›n | ég«naw o„ m°nousin.20 This occasional removal of a repetition does not seem to have been noticed in discussions of the relationship of L and P in the alphabetic plays. There are indeed three other possible exam- 16 Line distances are calculated according to the standard numeration of modern texts. Such a line is not, of course, an exact unit of measurement, since many lyric lines are shorter than trimeters; but the only practical alternative, the word, varies more in length than the line. 17 There is no similar case with the manuscripts M and E of the Supplices of Aeschylus. 18 In Andromache 462 P very similarly reads pãsxv for the prãssv of all other manuscripts in efi d' §g∆ prãssv kak«w, | mhd¢n tÒd' aÎxei: ka‹ sÁ går prãjeiaw ên. 19 ¶doje is not clear on the facsimile. 20 m°nousin is usually emended to m°nous¤ m' following Musgrave. PETER PICKERING 129 ples,21 though since the original repetitions are neither obviously figures of speech nor particularly obtrusive the removal is not striking. It is worth drawing attention in this context to four instances where an alteration or variant in L (that is, not in its copying by P) removes a repetition, whether or not that was the purpose: Electra 311: L and P have éna¤nomai d¢ gumnåw oÔsa par- y°now, following gumnÚn in 308. Triclinius writes na›kaw above (gu)mnåw. This alteration (which is printed by most modern editors, omitting the preceding d¢) is ascribed by Zuntz to Triclinius’s use of another manuscript to correct an error that L had found in his exemplar.22 Kovacs however retains gumnåw, regarding guna›kaw as a conjecture by Triclinius in order to provide éna¤nomai with an object (Kovacs himself does this by emend- ing pary°now to pary°nouw); avoidance of repetition just might have been a subsidiary motive.23 Electra 435: P and, apparently, L in its original state read ·n' ı filãdelfow ¶palle delf‹w. filãdelfow is emended by Tri- clinius to f¤laulow. Triclinius, who was aware of the need for strophe and antistro- phe to respond, would have been attracted by an alteration (coming from Aristophanes Ranae 1317) which secured respon- sion, as well as making better sense. Ion 648–649: In kal«w ¶lejaw, e‡per oÓw §g∆ fil« | §n to›si 21 In Eur. Supplices 217 tÚ gaËron d' §n fres‹n kekthm°noi P has xers‹ for fres‹n; but confusion between fres¤ and xers¤ in manuscripts is curiously common, and no influence from frÒnhsiw in the previous line is needed to account for it here. In Hercules 829 ZeÊw nin kak«w drçn P has nËn for nin. These words are easily confused through itacism, and nin in the previous line is unlikely to be relevant. In IT 329 P’s lab≈n for bal≈n in oÈde‹w tå t∞w yeoË yÊmat' eÈtÊxei bal≈n is another example of the frequent confusion of the strong aorists of bãllv and lambãnv, and nothing to do with peribalÒntew in line 331. 22 Zuntz (supra n.4) 107. There seems to be little evidence for this other manu- script. 23 P. D. Kovacs, Euripides III (Loeb 1998). There is, incidentally, no repeti- tion in Kovacs’ text, since he deletes 308. 130 REPETITIONS AND THEIR REMOVAL so›sin eÈtuxÆsousin f¤loiw L gives lÒgoiw as a grãfetai variant for f¤loiw. This alteration could have been motivated by failure to realise that f¤loiw is neuter, and the repetition irrelevant. IT 553: In Œ pandãkrutow ≤ ktanoËsa x» ktan≈n Triclinius seems to have emended ktan≈n to yan≈n. This alteration is as striking a removal of a repetition as any noted above. Triclinius’ motive was perhaps however nothing to do with repetition, but that he was reading the line, with Diggle in his OCT, in the simpler way (Orestes has just told Iphigenia that Agamemnon was killed by gunÆ, and she laments the slayer and the slain); Diggle would presumably explain ktan≈n as an erroneous repetition by a copyist somewhere in the trans- mission. 2.1 More complex traditions: erroneous repetitions The degree of analytical rigour possible where one manuscript is an apograph of another is not attainable in a more complex tradition, where there is no uncontaminated stemma. But study of the manuscript tradition of other plays should help to re- inforce or refine the conclusions set out above. Three plays were therefore studied—Septem, Trachiniae, and Hippolytus—with the aim of examining every significant variant (that is one where different dictionary words are read, not where there is a differ- ent inflectional or orthographical form of the same dictionary word) and of separating out all cases where repetition might be relevant to the observed difference in readings.24 Tables 2, 3, and 4 below set out the instances in each of the traditions where a difference in readings may with a high degree 24 Variants that turn only on interjections or on the presence or absence of anadiplosis have not been covered. For the collations on which the studies were based see supra n.1. Some manuscript variants turning on repetition have been gleaned from Sybel (supra n.10); they are not mentioned in Diggle’s appara- tus, presumably as being what Diggle calls “manifestos singuli codicis errores” (I p.xiv). PETER PICKERING 131 line Page, OCT Variant Nearby word In line Variant found in 46 kataskafåw katafagåw taurosfagoËntew 43 (p) P 86 ÙrotÊpou Ùr(r)oktÊpou ılÒktup- 83 (p) all but Igggg M 121 érh˝vn érge¤vn ÉArg°Ûoi 120 (p) DDDD 126 pÊlaiw pãlaiw pãlƒ 126 (f) M ac 240 tarbosÊnƒ tarboskʃ bÒsketai 244 (f) Y 267 eÈgmãtvn Ùlugmãtvn ÙlolugmÚn 268 (f) Y 333 értitrÒpoiw értidrÒpoiw »modrÒpvn 333 (f) RRRRggggrrrr M s.l. 333 »modrÒpvn »motrÒpvn értitrÒpoiw 333 (p) UUUUBBBBHHHHRRRRggggrrrr var in OQ 350 értitr°feiw értibr°feiw br°montai 350 (f) CaPV 359 yalamhpÒlvn yalamhpÒllvn pollã 360 (f) C 386 fÒbon lÒfon lÒfouw 384 (p) Y 410 stugoËny' timoËny' tim«nta 410 (p) Nd 497 ÖArei êyeow ¶nyeow 497 (p) DDDDac 787 pikrogl≈ssouw pikronÒmouw sidaronÒmƒ 788 (f) RRRRggggrrrr 881 dvmãtvn dÒmvn dÒmvn 880 (p) HKNAVY RRRRggggrrrr 906 t°low m°now m°nei 902 (p) Y, var in BDDDD 928 teknogÒnoi paidogÒnoi pa›da 929 (f) Q, P s.l. 1048 x≈ran pÒlin pÒliw 1046 (p) Y Table 2: Scribal Errors of Repetition in Septem 132 REPETITIONS AND THEIR REMOVAL line Dawe Variant Nearby word In line Variant found in 143 payoËsa pãrei paroËsa 141 (p) AUY 182 kék ka‹ ka‹ 182 (p) R 240 eÈxa›w eÈkta›' eÈkta›a 239 (p) AUY 339 §f¤stasai §p¤stasai §pistÆmhn 338 (p) all but Lpc K A s.l. Y s.l. 558 fÒnvn fyÒnvn fy¤nontow 558 (p) Zo 673 maye›n labe›n labe›n 670 (p) L 744 may∆n par∆n pãr' 744 (p) P.Oxy. 1805 ac 947 prÒter- pÒter- pÒtera 947 (p) all but LT 965 fore› fvne› ÙjÊfvnow 963 (p) K 1008 épole›w épole›w m' épole›w m' 1008 (p) Lac 1212 genÆsetai fyonÆsetai fyÒnhsiw 1212 (p) ZgZo 1273 pãntvn yanãtouw yanãtouw 1276 (f) A Table 3: Scribal Errors of Repetition in Trachiniae of plausibility be ascribed to erroneous repetition of, or in- fluence from, a nearby word. The summary of the manuscript evidence in them does not lay claim to completeness—correc- tions and grãfetai variants may be ignored; the sigla used are those of Page, Dawe, and Diggle respectively. It must always be remembered that there are very many variant readings in texts without there being any word in the vicinity at all like the in- truder. The tables must be read with that caveat.