No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
All surviving manuscripts of the Dialexeis of Maximus of Tyre descend from the oldest, Parisinus Graecus 1962 (given the siglum R in Hobein's Teubner text of 1910). Where they diverge, they do so as a result either of error or of attempts at correction. The history of the conjectural emendation of the Dialexeis thus begins with the second oldest manuscript, Vaticanus Graecus 1390 (Hobein's U), which dates from the third quarter of the thirteenth century. Since that time, the most significant contributions have come from two scholars, one of the fifteenth century and one of the eighteenth: Zanobi Acciaiuoli, librarian at the monastery of San Marco in Florence, many of whose corrections found their way anonymously into the editio princeps of 1557 via the manuscript used by Stephanus; and Jeremiah Markland, whose ideas are recorded as an appendix to the second, posthumous edition of John Davies's Maximus, published in 1740. J. J. Reiske's edition of 1774–5 and Friedrich Duebner's of 1840 (rev. 1877) also contain valuable material. But the field is by no means yet picked clean: witness most recently the useful articles of Professors Koniaris and Renehan. I offer the following gleanings of my own.
1 This truth was first established, independently, by Mutschmann, H. (‘Die Überlieferungsgeschichte des Maximus Tyrius’, RhM 56 (1913), 560–83)Google Scholar and, at greater length, Schulte, F. (De Maximi Tyrii codicibus, diss. Göttingen, 1915)Google Scholar. Hobein in his Teubner expressed another view of the tradition, but at the same time followed R down to details of (mis)punctuation and (mis)accentuation: a fine example of discarding one's cake and still getting indigestion.
2 The hand is similar to that of Vat. gr. 106 (dated 1251) and Vat. gr. 64, foil. 226–289 (dated 1269).
3 I hope to publish a proper account of Acciaiuoli's extensive philological work on Maximus at a later date.
4 Further ideas of Markland's – mainly inferior to those he passed for publication – may be seen in his own hand on a copy of Davies's first edition of 1703, now in the British Library (1125 g 11).
5 Koniaris, G. L., ‘Emendations in the Text of Maximus of Tyre’, RhM 108 (1965), 353–70Google Scholar; ‘On the Text of Maximus Tyrius’, CQ 20 (1970), 130–4Google Scholar; ‘Emendations in Maximus Tyrius’, AJP 93 (1972), 424–36Google Scholar; ‘More Emendations in Maximus Tyrius’, Hermes 105 (1977), 54–68Google Scholar. Renehan, R., ‘Some Passages in Maximus of Tyre’, CPh 82 (1987), 43–9.Google Scholar
6 I am very grateful to Donald Russell for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper and pruning some of its wilder growths. Thanks also to the Editor of CQ and its anonymous referee for insisting on improvements to my treatment of 11.139.7.