The Text of the Iliad

Author(s): T. W. Allen
Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, (Mar., 1899), pp. 110-116
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/695408
Accessed: 12/05/2008 12:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
110 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
THE TEXT OF THE ILIAD.1
(An Abstract of a Paper read beore the
Oxford Philological Society, December 2,
1898.)
THE Italian Libraries contain 107 MSS. of
the Hiad, all, except the Ambrosian frag-
ments, minuscules, dating from the tenth to
the eighteenth century. The Vatican has
31, the Laurenziana 22, the Ambrosiana 18,
the Marciana 14; smaller collections contain
21. If we divide them according to age,
the Ambrosian fragments are said to be of
the vth-vith century, two MSS. are saec.
x-xi, two saec. xi, three saec. xii, three saec.
xii-xiii, nineteen saec. xiii, five saec. xiii-
xiv, sixteen saec. xiv, two saec. xiv-xv,
thirty-three saec. xv, eighteen saec. xvi, one
saec. xviii.
From this number there are to be sub-
tracted (1) MSS. already collated and im-
portant from their age: viz. the Ambrosian
fragments, A (= Yen. 454), B (= Ven. 453),
C (= Laur. 32, 3), D (= Laur. 32, 15);
(2) most of the xvith century MSS. and the
one xviiith century copy. Many of these
MSS. consist of excerpts, e.g. A, or A-B
493, or ABr, and are otherwise neglige-
able.
Seventy-nine MSS. remain. A strictly
numerical calculation divides them into
three classes: I. Families, II. Independent
MSS., III. Contaminated MSS.
I.-FAMILIES.
Of these there are fifteen, which I have
designated by italic letters.
a = Vat. 11 [Vatic. graec. 915 s. xiii] L 2
[Laur. 32, 1 s. xv] M 13 [Ambros. E
56 inf. s. xv].
=
b L 3 [Laur. 32, 4 s. xv] L 4 [Laur. 32, 5
s. xiv.] L 10 [Laur. 32, 22 s. xv] L 14
[Laur. 32, 31 s. xiv] Ang. [Angelica C
I. 2 s. xiii] Vat. 29 [Ottoboni 342 s. xiii-
xiv] Vat. 31 [Pius II. 38 s. xvi].
c = L 5 [Laur. 32, 6 s. xv] M 9 [Ambr. I.
98 inf. s. xv-xvi] Mo [Estensis III. D.
1 My conclusions,properlyspeaking,hold only of
the ItalianMSS., but sincethe specimenspublished
by Dr. Leaf (Journal of Philology, xx. 237 sq.) of
the two most importantcollectionsoutsideof Italy
-London and Par.s-fall under one or anotherof
the familiesI have constructed,I have given my
statementsa generalcharacter.
4 s. xv] Vat. 2 [Vatic. graec. 27 s. xv]
Vat. 15 [Vatic. graec. 1318 s. xiii]
d = L 6 [Laur. 32, 8 s. xiii-xiv] L 8 [Laur.
32, 11 s. xiii] L 18 [Laur. 91 sup. 2 s.
xiii] Vat. 4 [Vatic. graec. 29 s. xiii]
Vat. 27 [Ottoboni 58 s. xv] Harley
5600 [s. xv].
e = L 7 [Laur. 32, 10 s. xv] L 15 [Laur. 32,
38 s. xiv] L20 [Laur. Conv. soppr. 139
s. xiii] M 6 [Ambros. H 77 sup. s. xv]
Vat. 24 [Urbin. 136 s. xv] Ven. 9
[Marc. IX. 2 s. xvi].
= L 9 [Laur. 32, 18 s. xv] L 12 [Laur. 32,
27 s. xiv] L 17 [Laur. 91 sup. 1 s. xiii-
xiv- Vat. 5 [Vatic. graec. 30 s. xiv] Vat.
14 -Vatic. graec. 1317 s. xiii] Vat. 22
[Pdatin. 180 s. xv] Vat. 26 [Urbin. 138
s. xv] N 1 [Neapolitanus III. E 37
s. xiii].
g L 11 [Laur.32, 25 s. xvi] L 16 [Laur.
32, 47 s. xiii] M 4 [Ambros. E 35
sup. s. xv-xvi] M 5 [Ambros. F 101
sup. s. xii M 11 [Ambr. L 116 sup.
s. xii-xiiij R 1 [Riccardiana 30 s.
xiii].
h = M 1 [Ambros. A 101 sup. s. xiii] M 12
[Ambros. M 86 sup. s. xv] Vat. 3
[Vatic. graec. 28 s. xiv] Vat. 6 [Vatic.
graec. 31 s. xiii] Vat. 19 [Palat. 6 s.
xiv.] Vat. 23 [Palat. 310 s. xv-xvi]
Ven. 2 [Marc. 455 s. xiii-xiv] Ven. 4
[Marc. 458 s. xii-xiii]. Paris grec 1805,
2766 supplemnent grec 144.
i = B.M. Pap. 107 [s. 1 B.C.] 'H' [Vindo-
bonensis 117 s. xiii] ' Vrat. d' [No. 25
s. xv] Ven. 13 [Marc. IX. 33 s. xv].
k = Vat. 13 [Vatic. graec. 1316 s. xii-xiii]
Mc [Monte Cassino S. 94 s. xiii].
I = Vat. 25 [Urbin. 137s. xv] Ven. 3 [Marc.
456 s. xv] Harley 5693 [s. xv].
m L 19 [Conv. soppr. 48 s. xiv] Vat. 18
=
[Vatic. graec. 1626 s. xv.] Ven. 6 [Marc.
459 (b) s. xiv].
n = Vat 12 [Vatic. graec. 1315 s. xii] Gf
[Grotta Ferrata Z. a. xxiv s. xiv] Harley
1771 Is. xv].
o =- D [Laur. 32, 15, s. x-xi] Ge [Genevensis
44 s. xiii] Vat. 14 Vat. 22 (see also
under f).
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 111

p = P [Perugia bibl. comun. E 48 s. xv] Pa Pap. Ven. A marg. Eust.--

[Parma H H II. 27 s. xv]. H (Eviot, yp. Yen. A.;
6 ?pEa'o'ovrEs
eXavvovWEscet.
Several of these 'families' have a very
? 170 e' (yp. Ven. A): aC' cet.
slight claim to the title, and are to be re- I 5 BSoppas(yp.), Rhet. gr. III. 211 :
garded more as convenient abbreviations
than as independent streams of tradition. 13opE'Y)cet.
' 286 E,uvw (Ven. A superscr. Eust.):
More than one family also is really a member
of another; thus b is connected with g, c is
subordinate to h, n also seems a far-off (p Ven. A in textu):
C 68 Elarave']r70'av
member of h, p has a vague connection with cet.
e?arave,tcuvov
the Venetus A. The important groups C0 235 Eab/rv 8' (Eust.): 8' om. cet.
which remain in, and require consideration,
are e, f, g, h, and z. Of these e seems to Unsupported II.-Of the 28 likely or
have points of contact with La Roche's ' G' possible 7rMoAosA 168 (ind ~KdOoEE~ 388
(Vindob. 39 s. xiv) and the editio princeps, are the most striking.
f approximates to B and C, which as Dr.
Leaf has shown most nearly constitutes a f Ancient-
vulgate; g is the family first made out by M 246 v5' with Zen.; &' cet.
Dr. Leaf (I.c. p. 194 sq.), there represented
C 424 0eTtswith Zen.; 0&L cet.
by two late MSS., one at Stuttgart, the other
at Cambridge (' S Cant.'); h is the striking Pap. Ven. A marg. Eust.-
group the importance of which was first B 456 Kopv~f Eust.; Kopv+ps cet.
brought out by Dr. Leaf in his epoch-making O 58 ~ravcra/&evtEust.; 'ravca~d/evov
paper, Journal of Philology, xviii. 181 sq. cet.
i also is a family whose claims were recog- 134 7r~/xa,ev a:Aw Ven. A; wraartcet.
nised by Dr. Leaf, 1.c. p. 192; only one of
my MSS., Ven. 13, belongs to it. Unconfirmed-
To compare these five families among H 342 7yyvsfor a/z~&.
themselves, I have borrowed the method M 118 ,x?ct7 for ,u?0zi?.
employed by Dr. Leaf (I.c. p. 188). I differ- 491 o&ra~efor
entiate them according to the proportion of _ aora(r'e.
their peculiar readings, and these accordingly 506 ?'XAs?o
for XXa/Ae.
as they are (1) Alexandrian or otherwise O 78 xBoa7~rs~rdrwla
for 0ea kev?KwA:vos.
ancient, (2) found in papyri, on the margin Two members of the family, Vat. 14 and
of the Venetus A, or in Eustathius,
(3) un- N 1, break away in certain books and show
authenticated by external evidence, but in- some striking peculiarities.
trinsically valuable.
This method gives the following results: g Ancient-
unconfirmed
Z 266 aviwrycnl with Zen. Ar. and
Peculiar L1. Ancient. PAPEsetn
A. Eust. but likely. Herodian; avirrorTO cet.
C 77 2 8 28 (I) 303 [fXfevwith Ar.; IeX~v cet.
f 54 2 4 8
g 72 2 5 40
h 184 49 7 64 Pap. Ven. A marg. Eust.-
i 56 5 ? 394
8 27 / with Eust.; 0~v cet.
A 72 'lov with Eust.; et^evcet.
The unique position of h is evident; the
others are tame by comparison. f is in all P 480 ?7ri~-]o'o/xa with Ven. A in text.;
&rto-cet.
respects the flattest and least characterised 415ovK av with Ven. A in text.;
family. ov f&avcet.
I proceed to give specimens of the peculiar T 133 7rpoSwith Ven. A in text.; :r'
lections of these groups: cet.
, 474 o~vTat Ven. A superscr.; Ol?V-
Ancient- ?arcet.
? 415 v with Ar.; et cet.
A 132 avEou 7rawTpos, Cf. aVTwxaXOLO Unconfirmed-
7raTp6S Zen.; aVTm-qxaxolo oo/o
os cet. E 872 ?Py' agrqXaforKap-epa ?pya.
[C 14 &vr &~ vyas 7,ucv with i, Ar.; Z 343 &ldfi?eTo82ayvvatvK<for 7rpocrfv'oa
vjas &'
&r ;evYaLcet.] peirXcOtXocrt.
112 THE CLASSICAL REVlEW.

?) 4 d/,a for vTro. $ 127 coswith Aristophanes for ds.

520 TEfor 8~. 576 rLswith the 7roAmria[for phw.
694 a&ro&,7rEvfor '1r 'LreV.
P 728 &"~eral for XA'crat. This list is so long that I will omit the
Y 60 rGXosfor nes. details of the other two categories; agree-
X 207 eX&vfor j,aXAor. ments with Papyri, Ven. A marg. and Eust.
363 for are markedly few (7); on the other hand
d8poTrjTa avSpor~ra.
136 (X~E for EXE. the unconfirmed but probable readings are
very numerous.
The abundance and the interest of this The members of this large family (to
class of reading constitute g's claim to which Dr. Leaf's Paris MSS. grec 1805 and
consideration. 2766 and supplement grec 144 are to be
h Ancient i Aristarchean 11. added) are very variously related to each
other, possess many interesting private
A 260 for Kp~l~pcr. readings, and play very different parts in
Kp~rljpt
321 o:radEfor 'ave. representing the family; in the construction
465 Ir&,osfor o'vos. of the archetype the evidence of ' L Lips.'
6 531 a3o/devov for a8o/uevzv 8'. and the Aristarchean readings as known
for 'OL O'eS.
560 eOtKOTe from the scholia assist.
787 ZXEyX&es
for eAXcya. i. The value and the internal relation of
H 475 avdpa7roSoo(r for avdpa1ro8cGro"t. this family cannot be settled with accuracy
481 7r?L/vai T p' XG?laL for 'r until we possess a new and reliable collation
7rL??iv7rplv Xepv pi. of ' HI' (Vindob. 39) its oldest member.
? 7 0E&vfor 0?os. In the meanwhile it is plain that Ven. 13
228 iXey~eTsfor ~XeyXea. and the fragment Vrat. d are descended more
(Ar. ed.
405 a7raXO?y<rovTai 2) for or less directly from 'IH,' and have lost
dwraXOo'?o'(at. some of the original property of the family
I 73 TroXAo'Lyap for roX&eoc8'. in the process, while on the other hand, as
472 e&for v7r'. happens in every family, they exhibit
564 cXaae o ,tv for XAaT,
orT f/w. several good readings of their own.
681'raci)s for co's. Dr. Leaf (1.c. p. 192 sq.) tabulates the
K 431 [~r:r6fJaXoi for [rb7rora,oA. peculiar ll. of 'EI'; many of these are
505 v~ov for vyrocr. found to be no longer peculiar. Those that
A 103 edvrE for EdOras. remain are-
144 ovSa spet'rev for ov8ei ~pdo'OrI.
M 68 ~eT'for fiov'XT. Ancient-
144 ~r6vosfor <6fio;. r 193 Ke<>aAv Ar., KEjaX,cet.
192 [Ven.
ov8as ~pecevfor ovo&AppedOrr. 13].
211 &t~rkitroeasfor ^'t~rAX:o'o'ets. N 115 Tr ((v T?tw), for cet.
318 a&AXesS for ad VEtrs. 289 OUK?V (a5 K0ova[), oVK av cet.
N 399 o a'0a1za&ov for o y7'ao,.
235 Xdptv 1eu& [Ven. 13].
o 173
(eloe) for 1e) Xdpiv. II 710 rvTO6v Zen., iro\Xov cet. [Ven.
Kara for 'Ti.
13].
276 r~s for s. qS281 o6ecr0atfort. Txion for adoya&.
418 t)KV for &~ca. 446 ?rdk?Aristoph., ~rdkwv cet.
P 202 e'rzfor e' '. l 635 '?rdArR?v
Ar., FraA7cet.
C 198 a'Tos (and Zen.) for a*os.
T 390 'rp? for 'd,e. Ven. 13 agrees in three out of these six
ancient readings, in addition it offers of its
Y 263 pea &ieevoeor-ai for peZa 8'
own
4 195 ogre for o38e. I 214 dra?'pas Ar. for era'p's.
213~a/ S for /a?ea0 ?'. S 283 IK~alov(with Vrat. d) Strabo,
for tKOVTO.
ii. Other coincidences with ancient editions
are- Under the head of Pap. Fen. A marg. ;gust.
Z 436 &v ,ert$ with Aristophanes for ' H' is reported to exhibit-
?K ffcSioi). Q381 o,eoa& Eust. for eX,o'ai.
JL 44 8edSa with Aristophanes for M160 avrEovEust. for 'v'ew. [Ven.
&{8o0. 13].
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
N 331 ~ap~apovwaS (&YaXX~ Ven. A),
for 8~aX4akotw. [Vena. 13].
~- 342aAAov foravSpis.IVa3n.
(Syrr.)
13].
O 639 ,140Xov (marg. Yen. A, Eust.) for
avmKros. [Ven. 13].
Y 143 avaTyKat7yt(yp' Ven. A), for
avd.TK~t~t.
q) 101 84 (&v aRXX Ven. A), for r~.
[Wnr.
13].
with five of wvhich places Ven. 13 agrees;
it adds of its ownk
II 84"aot with Eust. for"a7a
The unsupported readings peculiar to the
family may be left over till fuller collations
of ':EI' and 'Vrat. d' are to hand; the
most remarkable is II 736 Xdg?ro' E ' Ven.
13 and Eust. for atE~o of cet. The familyr
fifteen seem worth consideration, but only
has further the singular distinction of a
one, Z,uev~ 789 probably right.
palpable connection with one of the oldest
uncials, B. MI.Pap. 107 of the first century
B.C. (the older of the two HIarris papyri),
which agrees with it at ~ 357, 413, 427,
546, 617.
Il.-INDEPENPENT MSS.
That is, MSS. that agree too little with
any family to be attached to it, and exhibit
too manyrpeculiarities for these to be the
result of correction. They are
M 8 [Amhr. I 58 sup. s. xiv] Vat. 1
[Vatic. graec. 26 s. xiii], Vat. 10 [Vatic.
graec. 903 s. xii], Vat 16 [Vatic. graec. 1319
s. xii], Vat. 21 [PaIat. 150 s. xv], Ven. 1
[Marc. 431 s. xiv], Ven. 5 [Marc. IX. 3 (a)
s. xv], Ven. 10 [Marc. IX. 16 s. xv] Ven. 11
[Ix. 21s. xv-xvi],Bal [Barberini
I. 161
s. xiv], Mo 2 [Estenesis II. D. 5 s. xv] N 4
[Neapolitanus Bibl. Naz. II. F. 3 s. xiv].
Tlhe most noticeable are Vat. 1, Vat. 10,
Vat. !6, and Ven. 1.
P'eculiar.Anc. Pap)&c.Ucnire
Vat. 1. 49 8 6 15
Vat. 10. 17 7 4 1
Vat. 16. 34 10 9 8
Vten.1. 17 l 3 1 ?
I give examples of the readings'
Vat. 1. Ancient--
A 424 Kay& with Ar. and others for
/x~rd,
A 426 lov with As. for ~Jr.
I 19 TOTE with Ar. forrp[v.
O 377ZKXv~wvith Zen. for (KTVrr.
640 ayy7AX'/vwith Zen. fordTTeMqTs.
NO. CXII. VOL. XIII.
113
q' 48 orap?rd/u?Oa
ancient (wit.h B. M.
Pap. 128) for 7rav~txEOa(Ar.).
with Ar. for KcaraEt:
135 K:aradvverav
Pap. Ven. A ma6rg.Eust.
? 264 I~EXdrraswith Ven. A in text,
for &K8' ' 'al
854 v7r~p with Ven. A in text, for
VTTEK.
N 207 &vtKpar~p~ v/c&p with 8yr., for
832 ~rap&,Ven. A marg., &;rcet.
X 23 o'sv?/5~7a (D and 7p. Ven. 4), for
301 ~'dpot~ Fye(yp' M 1), for a'dAa~
r~ 7E cet.
Of the thirty-five unsupported readings
Vat. 10. Ancienbt--
K 176 'orao'rT]o'ovfravo'7'~]oov.
95 ~ ut vid. with Zen. for (rv.
T385 (BfT with Aristophanes for 'VT
or avrE.
X 48 ovs (as atAAot)for robs.
64 a~rTvas Stobaeus for 'a7
251 8resas a~ Xapdo'rtepa&for 8[ov.
478 ~V ot~o~ut vid. as aL Kotvdrepa&
for Kar&a8~,uta.
Pap. ven. A marg. Eu4st.-
O 116 r[rreo'Oac
(Ven. A suprascr.) for
II 455 ~cya (Ven. A marg.for t~ovra~.
T 423 corr. ~Xda~o(Eust.) for ~Xado'al.
403 7rakX&s a0rvr (Ambr. marg. Ven.
A), for Xtp~ ~'aXat2.
Of the unsupported11.X 195 7roJt is pos-
sible, 40 70'ara 8?/for ao'arOat or atEvat is
interesting.
The large proportion of~ ancient readings
(7) and semi-ancient readings (4) in a smnall
total (17) is remarkable.
Vat. 16. Ancient-
? 787 apt(rrotwvith Ar. (anld 'L') for
ay/~rot.
K 146 ~,rdwith Ar. (and T) for s7rcv.
252 ~raptoXtOK~v
with Ar., ~'apdX~yf
cet.
A 135 ~do~with Aristoph., ~toos cet.
455 >,u/etKEOdvtoKT,ptogcrt IZ (tz--
WsAr.) for ~rr~[K~--i of cet.
M 340 ~rafrat yap ~woSxarowith Ar.
(and Ven. A) for wracrasyap
114 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

.a 351 'er 'rr0v with Zen. for JTrEnLTr-point directly. However it will be agreed
TOY. that the period must be certainly a long one.
The five families all contain members as old
with Zen. and Aris-
412 f,eEfA^KiEv
as the thirteenth century, and the younger
toph. for fiefiX\rK?. members in each case are not descended
Pap. Ven. A Eust.- directly from these. One family, o, contains
I 318 with Ven. A a MS. of the tenth to eleventh century, and
tcrrf pOLpaL (i/L another, f, is closely allied to two eleventh
DT), for La/ fo?pa.
N 6
IKamOTdvO/ T' century MSS., B and C. On the whole I
(with aAAoL), T' think we shall be moderate if we suppose
om. cet.
.-. 9 the archetypes of these families to be not
~?oswith Eust. co~ocet. later than the ninth, or even the eighth,
119 Ven. A
/z&uv?,&v YAAz (and T),
/JzEvE cet. century-the period of the rise of minus-
with Eust., cule. Much the same may be said of the
294 fpos cet.
~pos A origin of the independent MSS.
X 403
T?pTrLKdpavvoS (Ven. marg.), We have then (to part company, for con-
cet.
ov'zfEveaco'ot venience' sake, with the independent MSS.),
0) 28 pxfs '7ypVen. A (B. M. Pap. 128 five archetypes which more or less com-
and Vrat. A arqs.
'), for pletely represent the whole of the tradition
Eight unsupported 11. seem possible, later than 800 A.D. Towards following
P 639 and e.g.
constantly them yet further back there are two
tx?'yafor txaXa, /xEu/nSa
for ~rpoo'r7v9a. methods: (1) comparison among themselves,
Ven. 1. Ancient- (2) comparison with older documents, i.e.
with papyri.
A 83 with Zen. for The comparison of the five archetypes
pda?ov
N 583 ave/ke with Ar. ~pao(at.
for among themselves leads to hardly any ap-
(and'L')
preciableresult, except that h stands apart
to the end. e,f, and g appear almost equi-
Pap. Ven. A Eust. distant one from the other; as against h
H113 TovroV for
(TOVTOV y? 7p.Ven. A) they hold together, and probably descend
tovruf ye. froma single source. The age of this arche-
I 381
~pXo'uLevov,yp' Ven. A. for?pXo- typeis obviously a matter of pure imagina-
}.tEVOV. tion. Ihave not included iin these calcu-
lations.
The only possible unsupported reading is
I 258 apyeZoL. Among the very numerous papyri (or
uncials)that are now available, the follow-
ing show the most marked character, and
III.-CONTAM1NATEDMSS. aretherefore suitable forcomparison :-

All Homeric MSS. maybe called contam- (1) The Ambrosian fragments; ?saec.
inated in some degree; the MSS. I include v-vi. Mai, Iliadis f&agmenta antiquissima,
inthis class are such as incline
to definite Mediolani,1819.
families in different books. They are M
7 s. vi. B.M.
[Ambr. I. 4sup. s. xiii] M 10 L 73 (2) The Syriacfragments;
[Ambr.
sup.s. xiii-xiv] Vat. 9 [Vatic. graec. 902 Add. MSS.17, 210; Cureton, Fragments of
s. xiii]Vat 20[Palatin. theIliad of Homer,1851.
12s. xiii] Vat. 26
s. xv]-a small class, and ?s. iv. Published by A.
[Urbin. 138
practically
very (3)Bodleian;
undistinguishable from the more H.
irregularmembers of the families. Sayce, ap. Petrie, Hawara Biahmuand
Arsinoe,1889.

Sofar our material consists of fifteen (4)Br. Mus. Pap. 126 (Harris II.);s.
families, of which five may be taken as iv-v. (F. G. Kenyon in Classical Texts,
representative, and a number of indepen- p.81).
dent MSS.of which four are the most sub- (5) B. M. Pap. 136;s. iii. Ib.
p. 93.
stantial. The questionthat next arises is,
howfar can these documents
betaken back, (6)B. M. Pap. 114 (Bankes); s. ii. See
Catalogueof Ancient Manuscripts in the
andwhat is the age of their archetypes
X
It British Museum, Part I. Greek, 1881, p. 6.
isvery difficult to say how long a period of
timeis necessary forthe
T growth of a family; (7) B. M. Pap.732 (A. S.Hunt, Journal
know of no evidence
that bears on the ofPhilology, xxvi. p. 25 sqq.); s.i A.D,
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 115

(8) B. M. Pap. 107 (Harris I.); s. i B.C. similar to the later papyri, e.g. to the Syriac
Catalogue of Ancient Manuscripts, &c., p. or the Ambrosian.
1 sq. At this point we may recapitulate the
evidence we have collected.
(9) B. M. Pap. 128 (Classical Texts, p. 100, We find from the first century B.C. to the
Journal of Philology, xxi. p. 296 sqq.).
16th A.D. a homogenous tradition. No gulf
I classify the peculiar readings of the can be fixed between minuscule MSS.
of S. xiii. and papyrus fragments of the
papyri on the same system as those of the
minuscule MSS., only that the category Christian era. There is no trace of recen-
sions or any external interference with the
'Pap. Ven. A. Eust.' naturally disappears. course of transmission. The body of MSS.,
Total Peculiar.Anc. Possible. which include very nearly the whole of the
variants. available documents, in fact constitute a Vul-
Syr. S. VI. 195 28 2 8 gate. A vulgate which contained many free
Ambr.S. IV.-V. 136 10 3 ? divergences within itself-but not more
Bodl. S.? IV. 18 3 (2 marg.) 1
Harris2. S. IV.-V. 84 36 1 26 than is the case with any natural text that
Pap. 136 S. III. 40 15 0 7 is not the creation of deliberate recension.
BankesS.I. 115 26 2 7 One tendency in it we are able to follow:
Hunt S. I. 99 36 3 15 the variations in question gradually decrease
HarrisI. S. 1.B.C. 39 7 1 ?
with the course of time: the older uncials
Pap. 128S. T.B.C. 94 32 .5 19
are mostly more divergent than the younger,
The Ambrosian, the Bodleian, Pap. 136, the younger uncials vastly more so than the
and Harris I., show least variation; Harris minuscules: a tendency to uniformity may
II., Bankes, Mr. Hunt's papyrus, and Pap. be seen at work. This, like most other pheno-
128, show most. I will not exhibit the mena in the sphere of textual matters, is
variants in detail, since they are at every- unconscious, and the result of continual
one's disposal in the various publications. marginal annotation of variants (intended
The result is as follows:-the papyrus mostly as real corrections of presumed mis-
variants are the same in kind as those of takes) and absorption of these annotations
the minuscules, no gap can be fixed between into the next copy made. We can watch
them. The papyrus-variants increase in this process at work in our actual minuscule
number with the age of the manuscripts. MSS., and it is reasonable to suppose it in
This is on the whole the case, though the operation in centuries where we cannot con-
two Harris fragments contradict the state- trol it. Such a process diversifies ordinary
ment. Of course there was in every period MSS. at the expense of the independent,
a large majority of copies containing the makes common property the variants that
vulgate, but it will be correct to say that had been peculiar to one or other branch,
divergences become more abundant with the and ends by levelling down and up all
antiquity of a copy. The papyri show no copies to the same point. Had not printing
leaning to Alexandria; the most indepen- stepped in to arrest the development, our
dent of them are distinguished by their MSS. would have all passed into the con-
peculiar and unconfirmed readings, not by taminated class, and have presented indeed
their coincidences with Zenodotus or Arist- a rich mass of readings, but with no clue to
archus. They coincide with the minuscule their origin or descent. At present we are
families in many points, and confirm many able by an arithmetical process to distinguish
of their readings, but they do not agree with the families and independent MSS. that I
one family more than another. From h they have mentioned: and though in the earlier
stand completely apart, while no calculation documents these families are not seen to be
can discover a materially greater inclination continued upwards as individual, still the
to e than to f or g. There is the one ap- minuscule families seem to represent the
parent exception of Harris I., which agrees uncial MSS. in a later stage of diplomatic
singularly with the family i. development.
The assistance therefore that papyri afford There are two apparent exceptions to this
towards the genealogy of the minuscule course of Vulgate tradition, the family h
MSS. is rather general than detailed. It and the fragments of Ptolemaic papyrus
seems reasonable to suppose that, since the discovered and published during the last
single families are not continued backwards eight years. The latter have been dealt with
by any papyrus, while their readings are in Professor Ludwich's book, Die homerische
found in papyri generally, the archetypes of ]rlgata als voralexandrinisch erwiesen, Leip-
these families may have been single MSS, zig, 1898, of which an account was given
2
116 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
in the last number of this Review. They do
not affect the age or authority of the Vul-
gate, nor do they support the influence of
the Alexandrians.
The minuscule family which I have called
h, represented to Dr. Leaf by the earlier
designation ' L Lips.,' is remarkable for the
proportion of Alexandrian readings which it
contains. Dr. Leaf
(1.e. p. 201) estimated
it in these figures:
e or one or two MSS., 12 contained by the
[=f] 7, D [=o] 28, G [perh. =el 25,
H [= i] 27, S Cant. [-=] 34, L Lips [] 91.
In my calculation these figures sink to
e=3, f=4, g=2, i=6, h=49.
Though the totals are smaller, the propor-
portionis still further in favour ofh.
Imust confess that I cansee no certain
oreven probable explanation of this singular
position. Dr. Leaf(/. c. p.
204) appears to
think that h is descended froman Alexan-
drianor
prae-Alexandriancopy; an equally
obvious suggestion is that hrepresents a
deliberate recension. Thedifficulties in the
wayof one or both of these viewsare: (1)if h
isa real descendant of an ancient MS.,there
NOTESON LATIN ORTHOGRAPHY.
ATthe meeting of the American Philo-
logicalAssociation in 1895 the following
resolutions were passed:
' recommendations are made with all due
Whereas,American' school editions of
Latin authors exhibit a remarkable
inconsistencyin Latin orthography, chiefly
dueto negligence, often, also, to ignorance
ofthe proper spelling in voguein the time
ofthe respective authors,
Whereas, the orthography of Latin,barring,
possibly,that of the archaic period, has now
been scientifically determined,
Therefore,be it resolved, that a committee
ofthree wembers of the American Philo-
logicalAssociation be appointed by the
chairto report at its next annual meeting
concerninga uniform standard of Latin
orthographyforthe useof school text-books.'
Seethe Proceedings in Vol. xxvi., pp. liv. f.
Acommittee was appointed which the
of
lateProfessor Allen was chairman, and
madea report in the following year, of
which a summary appears in the Proceedings
Vol.
of pp.xxii. if.
xxvii.,
Notwithstandingthe statement in the
secondparagraph of the resolutions, the
committee undoubtedly recognized, that, in
is no trace of it during all the centuries
between the date of this MS. and the thir-
teenth century, and this, though papyri are
being daily published of every century from
the third B.C. to the sixth A.D.; (2) again,
as against both descent and recension is to
be set the imperfection of the Alexandrian
character of the family. There are 133
Aristarchean readings as yet found in no
MS., 82 found sporadically in single MSS.,
other families. This gives a total of 227
Alexandrian or Aristarchean lections which
do not appear in h.
The question requires detailed examina-
tion. The facts just mentioned make it
seem probable that hdiffers fromthe other
families only in degree, and that the same
processwhich accounts for the presence of
Alexandrian readings in the majority of
MSS. also produced h. However this may
be, the family h is the most interesting
featureof the mediaeval Homeric tradition,
andthe moststriking result of recent colla-
tion.
T.W. ALLEN.
spiteof the labours of Brambach and others,
there are still some points upon which
opinions may reasonably differ; and the
caution.
Asto the period whose spelling should be
takenas the standard, everyone ~^willagree
withthe opinion of the committee, that it
cannotbe that of theCiceronian period with
itsquoius, servos, nom. pl.servel, etc.,
equos,
butmust be rather that of the first century
ofour era. Thecommittee further suggests
thatthe M:onumentum Ancyranum may
wellserve as a pattern as far as it goes.
But with this preference for the first
quarter of the century one may reasonably
takeissue. There seems tobe no reason
fordeparting from the judgment of Ritschl
(OpusculaII, pp. 725 f.; followed by
Brambach, iVeugestaltung d. Lat. Ortho-
graphic, p. 67) that Quintilian'sspelling
shouldbegood enough for us. For the
Augustanperiod is one of transition in
mattersof spelling, and it is notuntil later
thata fairly uniform system becomes
thoroughly established. It is true that the
Monumentum Ancyranum shows forthe most