Critical Notes to a Psellian Silentium

I. THE PSELLIAN TRANSMISSION

Among the thirty-eight orations by Michael Psellos collected in the first Teubner volume dedicated to him, ${}^1$ the fourth one is a σελέντιος λόγος ${}^2$ speaking about the fasting (νηστεία), containing also a brief reference to a situation of war and alliance with "the people beyond the Danube – τὸ ύπὲρ τὸν Ἰστρον ἔθνος" (l. 142). ${}^3$ Since the two critic editions are full of gaps and wrong reading from the manuscript, these failings must be filled by basing upon both the studies on Byzantine scholarship developed in the last twenty years and a new careful reading of the manuscript. The text was handed down only by the Laur. 57.40 (L in Psellos' traditions), ${}^4$ at. fols. 198v-202v; both the editions did not take into account manuscript's peculiarities and their apparatus are incomplete.

The first problem is the date of L: all the editors took for granted the date by Bandini, i. e. the beginning of the ${15}^{th}$ century; only recently the actual date (the end of the ${11}^{th}$ century) emerged. ${}^5$ This dating mistake caused a poor consideration of L and its variae lectiones, although it is one among the most important witnesses of Psellos' texts.¹

Littlewood ${}^6$ considers L among the codices deteriores and says that their "lectiones... quamvis fortasse sint Pselli ipsius, in apparatum relegavi."² Leaving aside that he reports in apparatus just less than the half of what could be reported, this method is entirely wrong for the constitutio textus: it is a contradiction to say that some variants maybe deriving from the author himself are not considered. On the other hand, if the main idea is to publish a new critic edition, ${}^7$ then its readers would expect to see what the variants are, what the previous editors innovated, what they got wrong. ${}^8$ In particular, the idea of codices deteriores in Psellos' transmission must be completely forgotten: his texts are often handed down by codices unici, whose almost all derived from what Psellos himself called³ "my personal register— τὰ ἡμὲτερα σχέδια δελτάρια."9 This was available at the Palaiologan era's beginning yet;10 it means that the 'original' texts had been reading at least for two centuries after Psellos' death, and sometime the same text circulated in different versions.11

It can therefore easily be inferred that each single Psellos' work needs to be examined on its own. Nothing must be overlooked, nor should the possibility be excluded that supposed later innovations might derive actually from the author himself.

In this way, I will try to accomplish this purpose on Or. min. 4, by adopting the following criteria: the text by Littlewood will be transcribed as it is in a list form, accompanied by a critical comment, by providing corrections or suggestions of them; the lines not written in Littlewood's apparatus are followed by an asterisk. The purpose of this paper, and it is worth pointing out here, is not to replace the previous edition: it merely aims to provide, through the list that follows in the next pages, a point of reflection for anyone wishing to prepare a new critical or commented edition of the text in the future.

II. NOTES

3 (ἀπὸ δύσεων): L has ἀποδύσεων, which the editors silently corrected. Although this operation is not wrong, it does not consider what the language evolutions are: for instance, as scholars well know, it is very frequent in the manuscripts to read διαταῦτα instead of διὰ ταῦτα. ${}^{12}$ It would be better, in my opinion, to keep the lectio of L, since it testifies a different usage from both the ancient and the modern one.

5* (ἐπὶ τὰς ἡλιακὰς ταὐτας ἀκτῖνας περιφερόμεθα): L has ἀκτίνας, which the editors silently corrected like the previous one. In Byzantine orthography, there is frequent interchangeability between properispomenon and paroxytonon:13 this reflects, as at 3, a mere graphical evolution, which does not imply significant morphosyntactic changes; so, the correction can be avoided.

10-12* (ἀνεωγόσι τοίνυν τοῖς ὁφθαλμοῖς τὸ τῆς νηστείας ὑποδεξώμεθα φῶς, ἵνα τὴν θείαν ἰδόντες καὶ παθόντες λαμπρότητα φωτοειδεῖς καὶ αὐτοὶ τοῖς ὁρῶσι φαινοίμεθα): The last verb is written as φαινόμεθα in L, corrected as φαινώμεθα by Drexl (Kurtz kept as L) and as φαινοίμεθα by Littlewood. The L scribe is clear to make a mistake by writing the present indicative;14 and the present optative by Littlewood cannot be accepted, since the main verb is not a past-tense indicative. Thus, with Drexl, I prefer to read it as present subjunctive.

14* (öση τε πρακτική): L has τὲ, which the editors likely did not notice; cf. ἀκτίνας at 5.

53 (-54) (πῶς δὲ φείσομαι τοῦ προπάτορος αἰδοῖ τῆς πλάσεως...): The verb is conjectured by Kurtz, but L clearly has φήσομαι (it is not "in rasura," as Littlewood says: the ink is just faded). Obviously, this conjecture assumes that φήσομαι is a mistake because of iotacism, but it does not consider this is a lectio difficilior: the future indicative at vox media is extremely rare compared to the vox activa. ${}^{15}$ It would be better, therefore, to preserve the manuscript: there is no reason to change a word which also makes sense on its own.

60-61 (ἀλλὰ σοῦ μὲν ἄν εὐλόγως φεισαίμην κλαπέντος...): L has φησαίμην; cf. φείσομαι at 53.

62* (ooi): L has ooì; the editors had no reasons to make it enclitic.

69*-70 (προσυφανθὲν... καὶ προσαρτηθὲν): This is a perfect example of glaring false reading from manuscript by the editors: L (at fol. 200r) clearly has προσυφάν ${}^{\theta }$ and προσηρτή ${}^{\theta }$, unequivocally abbreviations for προσυφάνθη and προσηρτήθη. Kurtz misread προσυφανθὲν (as did Drexl and Littlewood) and proposed an unlikely προσηρτηθὲν by analogy; Drexl restored the latter one as in L, but Littlewood followed Kurtz's mistake removing the augment. By keeping both verbs in explicit form, the text flows better; moreover, following L's punctuation, the sentence (68-71) will sound better this way: ${}^{16}$ ὁρᾶτε γὰρ τουτὶ τὸ σῶμα ἡμῶν τὸ παχὺ καὶ ἀντίτυπον· τὸν ἐπιπροσθοῦντα ζόφον τῆς ψυχῆς ταῖς μαρμαρυγαῖς, ὑστερον προσυφάνθη ταῖς ἡμετέραις ψυχαῖς· καὶ προσηρτήθη τῇ φύσει βαρὺ καὶ βρίθον [cf. below at 70] ἐφόλκιον, ἀφ' οὖ, τοῦ ξύλου τῆς κακίας γευσάμενοι, τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς ἀπεκλείσθημεν.

70* (βρίθον): L has βρίθον; cf. ἀκτίνας at 5.

75* (δεσμῶτις ἐστιν): L has ἐστιν; the enclitic accent can be removed.

76* (ψυχὴ ὡσπερ τινὶ δεσμωτηρίῳ καθειργμένη τῷ σώματι): L has ὡς πέρ τινι; since the pronoun is indefinite, the grave accent is unnecessary.

77* (σιδηροῖ): L has σιδηροὶ, which was accepted by Kurtz (Drexl changed and so did Littlewood); since it is the adjective σιδήρεος and there is not any relevant morphosyntactic change, it can be accepted in the text like ἀκτίνας at 5 or, at least, written in the apparatus with an servandum?.

88 (καταναλίσκων): The verb is written by Littlewood between the cruces desperationis, and he says in apparatus that Westerink "correctly suspected – recte suspicatus est" it, and he had the doubt whether to conjecture as καταδιώκων or not. L clearly has καταναλίσκων, but basing upon what Littlewood says, without consulting the manuscript, one might think there is an empty space on the page; this is not the case, because Psellos here is speaking about "surpassing the practical and earth-related virtues – τὰς πρακτικὰς καὶ περὶ γῆν ἐρπούσας καταναλίσκων τῶν ἀρετῶν." As Psellos himself says elsewhere, ${}^{17}$ duty of man is to elevate himself from the virtues of the earthly level, in order to understand and contemplate those of the "exemplary level – παραδειγματικὸς βαθμός." The meaning of the text, therefore, is that fasting is not meant to follow hard upon ${}^{18}$ the earthly virtues, but to surpass them, to reach a higher stage than the human one.

91* (ταώ): L has ταῶ; cf. ἀκτίνας at 5.

93* (ζωόν ἐστιν): L has ἐστιν; cf. the same at 75.

94 * (πτωξ): This is the reading in L, accepted by all the editors; Littlewood correctly suggests in apparatus to conjecture as πτυγξ, since Psellos is listing birds in this passage. It would be better to modify the text and explain the scribe's mistake in apparatus.

100-104 (ópãç tòv oùpavòv... tῶν ἀστέρων χόρον;): Littlewood's correction to πηγὴ instead of πηγὴν L at 102 is right (the latter was preserved by Kurtz and Drexl), as it is analogous to the other nominatives in the sentence. Littlewood rightly specifies in the apparatus that πηγὴν τοῦ is addition supra lineam, but he forgets to mention it is post correctionem; simply stating it was made by an alia manus is not enough: the marginal sign at fol. 200v likely indicates that the scribe himself suggested to another one to correct. ${}^{19}$

114 (πάντα δὲ τῇ ἀκολακεύτῳ γαστρὶ χαριζόμενοι): Kurtz doubtfully suggested to change ἀκολακεύτῳ into ἀκολάστῳ. I honestly do not understand the meaning of this conjecture: the passage is speaking about the gratitude to fasting; so, how could fasters be "totally grateful for the undisciplined paunch?" ${}^{20}$

128* (κάκεῖνός μοι): L has κάκεῖνος; it is very frequent in Byzantine manuscripts to find a properispomenon word followed by an enclitic without the second accent.

131 ${}^{\ast }$ (ἐκ θεοῦ τε): L has τὲ; cf. the same at 14.

132* (αί χεῖρές μου): L has χεῖρες; cf. κάκεῖνος at 128.

133 (οἱ δάκτυλοί μοι): It is part of a quotation from Ps. 151, 2; Littlewood indicates in apparatus that in the biblical text there is μου instead of μοι (so did not notice Kurtz and Drexl). I honestly do not know how useful it is to highlight only this difference: would it be better to add this might be a lapsus scribae or a quotation from memory by Psellos himself?

136* (ἐκεῖνός μοι): L has ἐκεῖνος; cf. κάκεῖνος at 128.

142 (-143) (... πρφην καθ' ἡμῶν ἐντεῖνον τὰ τόξα... νῶν ύπὲρ ἡμῶν τὸ βέλος ἀφίησι): L has ἐντεῖνων (so did Kurtz); the imperfect tense is by Drexl, very interesting but not necessary in my opinion. Keeping L's participle better conveys the metaphor for war first and alliance later by Psellos, especially if intended as an adversative or concessive clause: "... while/although they aimed the bows against us until yesterday... now they shoot the arrow for us."

156* (Φαραώ): L has Φαραῶ; cf. ἀκτίνας at 5.

164 ${}^{\ast }$ (ooi): L has ooì; cf. the same at 62.

167* (αὐλαξ): L has αὐλαξ (so did Kurtz); cf. ἀκτίνας at 5.

168* (δοκοῦσί μοι): L has δοκοῦσι; cf. κάκεῖνος at 128.

176(-177) (τεσσαρακονθήμερον): L has τεσσακονθήμερον, silently corrected by Kurtz.

177* (τεσσαράκοντα καὶ ὀκτῷ): L has μ'καὶ η'; the editors did not indicate it. While it is legitimate for an editor to write numbers in word rather than using their numerical symbols, it would be better to specify in the apparatus if they are written differently in the manuscripts. ${}^{21}$

178* (τεσσαράκοντα): L has μ'; cf. the previous above.

178-184* (αί μὲν γὰρ... καὶ κατάλυτον): The whole sentence is partially copied, partially synthesized (very roughly in both cases) in Vat. Chis. R.IV.12, ${}^{22}$ at. fol. VIIr; it is likely just a selection of lemmata without any eclectic value. ${}^{23}$