On the Authorship of Pseudo-Archilochus, Frr. 327–328 W² (290–291 Τ.)

Abstract

This paper unveils a new manuscript witness of the fragments of Pseudo-Archilochus, frr. 327–328 W² and presents new evidence to support the attribution of these fragments to Marcus Musurus, as was already postulated by their first editor, Giovanni Tarditi.

Keywords:

• pseudo-Archilochus
• spurious fragments
• Marcus Musurus
• new manuscript witness

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Murray Edwards Language Solutions and Academic Language Experts for proof-reading and editing the English version of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 See Tarditi (1961, 311–316). In Tarditi (1968, 206–207), these poems are numbered 290 and 291, respectively. They have been published by West (²1989, I, 106–107); Gerber (1999, 288–291); and most recently, Swift (2019, 200–202), and Condello–Magnani (2019, 140). A reproduction of the relevant folium was published by Tarditi (1961, 313), and the entire manuscript is now available at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Barb.gr.69.

2 See Tarditi (1961, 311 n. *).

3 See Condello (2016, 48 n. 64); and Condello–Magnani (2019, 69–104).

4 Roberto Nickel (2003, 302) alone argues for Archilochean authorship of at least fr. 328: “Der Text ist eine Satire auf die Scheinheiligkeit und würde aufgrund seiner Botschaft gut zu Archilochos passen.”

5 See Tarditi (1961, 311–316); and Casadio (1996, 78–81). Aristophanes’ editio princeps with scholia was published in 1498, and Hesychius’ dictionary in 1514, both in Venice by the Aldine Press. In the case of the Hesychius’ edition, Musurus used the codex unicus Venice, BMarc. gr. Z 622, which features the corrections he made between 1509 and 1514 (Speranzi 2013, 284). On Musurus as editor of these volumes, see Ferreri (2014, 93–111 and 174–178).

6 See Condello–Magnani (2019, 116–131). The copyist’s identity was anticipated by V. Capocci in his addenda et corrigenda (1958, XXVI), and later confirmed by Condello (2016, 49), and Condello–Magnani (2019, 70), but see the following note.

7 See Condello–Magnani (2019, 131–139). His works were full of sexually explicit content and irreverence (see Houle 2005, 1–10). According to Condello–Magnani (2019, 131), Thomas Cerbu (University of Georgia, GA, USA) per litteras even states that Jean-Jacques Bouchard might be the copyist of the pseudo-Archilochean fragments in the Barberini manuscript.

8 For other possible dates that range between the fifth and the twelfth century, see Garzya (1961, 44–45).

9 This copy remains unidentified in the most recent catalogue of printed books of the Archivo Capitular of Toledo Cathedral Library, which states that it was most likely printed between 1501 and 1600 (see Fernández Collado, Rodríguez González, and Castañeda Tordera [2009, 261 n° 969]; it was correctly described in the previous catalogue: Octavio de Toledo [1906, 9 n. 17]). In addition, it is missing in the library’s catalogue of incunabula (see Fernández Collado, Rodríguez González, and Castañeda Tordera 2012), despite being included in García Craviotto (1989, I, 62 n° 2389). It is also mentioned in the Incunabula Short Title Catalogue (ISTC) (https://data.cerl.org/istc/ia00765000). As usual in the incunabula period, this edition lacks a title page (see Cole 1971, 303–316). Besides, it does not have the final quire with colophon indicating date and printer (ff. 273–279), as is the case with most copies of this edition (see Hutton 1935, 117).

10 See Monfasani (2006, 199). San Silvestro al Quirinale was granted to the Dominicans of the Florentine Congregation of St Mark by Pope Julius II in 1507 as their convent in Rome. On Acciaiuoli’s handwriting, see Eleuteri-Canart (1991, 60–62), and Maiorino (2013, 661). What is noteworthy is that his interest in Greek epigrams moved him to collaborate in the edition of Angelo Poliziano’s epigrams, included in his Opera Omnia, Venice, 1498, ff. kk1^v–8^v (see Pontani 2002, xxvi–xxx).

11 Inc. Toledo, BCp 81-38, f. Ai^v (for a reproduction of this subscriptio, see Galán Vioque [2022b, 243]).

12 See Jacobs (1798, I/1, cxxiv): Haec scholia [= Musurus’ notes] reperiuntur in exemplo editionis Florentinae, cui adscripta sunt manu Acciaiolii ex Epigrammatario M. Musuri. Hoc exemplum Romae seruatur in Bibliotheca Em. Cardinalis Zeladae, ubi illud tractauit Guil. Uhdenius, qui haec Scholia uulgatis pleniora esse per litteras mihi significauit (“These scholia are found in the copy of the Florentine edition, where they are attributed by the hand of Acciaiuoli as taken from M. Musurus’ book of epigrams. This copy is preserved in Rome in the Library of Em. Cardinal Zelada, where it was handled by Guil. Uhdenius, who made it clear to me through letters that these scholia were more complete than those that have been already published”). He refers to Wilhelm Uhden (1763–1835), Prussian Ambassador to the Vatican from 1795–1802 (see Schönfels 2014), and to the editio Wecheliana (Wechel 1600). A large amount of the letters to and from Jacobs are held at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek under the heading Jacobsiana (see Dachs 1970, 77; for an index, see Nachlass von Friedrich Jacobs (1764–1847), available at https://bibdorm.bsb-muenchen.de/datenkern-download/13af0f3a-3f06-4e55-9dce-8d4e6236afeb/retrieve).

13 See Mercati (1952, 64–65), Pérez Martín (2010, I, 578, and 581); McManamon (2013, 25); and Miguel Alonso (2018, 360).

14 See Pérez Martín (2010, I, 568–574); and Guerrieri (2014, 229–250). After his death, most of his printed volumes were purchased by Pope Pius VII (Barnaba Niccolò Maria Luigi Chiaramonti), and ended either in the Vatican Library, or the Piana library in Cesena (see Mercati 1952, 80–89; Bignami Odier 1973, 184, and 219–220 n. 23; Gnola 1998, 697–712; Pérez Martín 2010, I, 582; Errani 2020, 108–131).

15 See Madrid, BNE 13449 [olim Uu-25], f. 467: Acciaioli: Epigramas griegos con escolios ms. al margen 4° 81-38 (Acciaioli: Greek epigrams with handwritten scholia in the margin) (cf. also f. 416^v). This volume is absent from the previous handwritten catalogues, one dated to 1727, elaborated by Fr. Diego Mecolaeta and Fr. Martín Sarmiento (see Madrid, BNE 13413, ff. 54–64^v), and another undated (but supposed to belong to the eighteenth century), where it is mentioned an “Epigrammata. Grecè” (Madrid, Universidad Complutense BH 173, p. 26), but it is identified as volume 26–28, an old shelfmark of a copy of Johannes Brodaeus’ 1549 edition still held at the Cathedral library (shelfmark 83-3; cf. Octavio de Toledo 1906, 85 n° 183; Fernández Collado, Rodríguez González, and Castañeda Tordera 2009, 275 n° 1032). Brodaeus’ edition is also listed in both the 1727 and 1808 catalogues (f. 60 and f. 467, respectively). On the 1808 catalogue and its manuscript witnesses, see Guerrieri (2014, 242).

16 This scholium is a note on Eidothea, the sea-nymph daughter of Proteus, who also appears in the Anthology at AP V17.4 (Gaetulicus), but this epigram is not in the Planudean Anthology. Here, Musurus reflects on the legend that Helen remained in Egypt and never went to Troy. This is first mentioned in Stesichorus’ Palinode (see Pl. Phaedr. 243a; see also Hdt. 2.112–120) and was used by Euripides in his Helena (see Woodbury 1967, 157–176).

17 Nicander’s poems were surprisingly fashionable in the Renaissance and beyond (see Santamaría Hernández 2004, 125–173, and Radici 2012). His editio princeps with scholia was printed by Aldo Manuzio in 1499.

18 For the diffusion of Pindar in the fifteenth century, see Tissoni (2009 and 2014, 13–14), and Galán Vioque (2022a, 239–254).

19 Pausanias is one of the main sources for the scholia to the Planudean Anthology. Musurus planned to publish Pausanias’ first edition in 1516 using Florence, Bib. Ricc. 29 as the printer’s copy (see Diller 1957, 181; Speranzi 2013, 268–269; Ferreri 2014, 228; 517–518, and Galán Vioque 2019, 289 n. 18).

20 Since the guard leaves at the end of the volume are not paginated, I have foliated them as f. a, and f. b.

21 It is a scholium on the expression μηδὲν ἄγαν, which is testified in the Planudean Anthology at AP V 299.1 (Agathias) and VII 683.1 (Palladas). The scholia to Euripides’ Hippolytus were well known to Musurus, as he had copied Venice, BMarc. gr. IX 10, most probably from Paris, BnF gr. 2713 (11th), between 1494 and 1500 (ff. 135–179^v contain Hippolytus with scholia) (see Turyn 1957, 336; Speranzi 2013, 81–82; 229–231; Ferreri 2014, 502–503; and Cavarzeran 2014, 21, and 2016, 27).

22 In a separate column I add the source when it could be identified.

23 Thanks to D. Speranzi (2010, 337–338), we know that Musurus had access to Vienna, ONB Phil. Gr. 67, the oldest witness of Stobaeus’ Florilegium, either while he was teaching in Padua at the beginning of the sixteenth century, or towards the end of his life in Rome in the 1510s. We also know that before fleeing Padua (1510), he copied some excerpta of Stobaeus now preserved in Paris (BnF gr. 2130). In addition, he left a dedication to Niccolò Sagundino (1402-1464) in Venice, BMarc. gr. IV 29 (see f. I^v), which contains Stobaeus’ Florilegium at ff. 1–309 (see Speranzi 2010, 339–350 [see n. 125]; 2013, 219–220; 247–248; 285–296; Ferreri 2012, 99–107; 2014, 487–488; 546–548; and 499–600).

24 It was published by Pontani (1973–1974, 578), based on Va. To already introduces φάος at l. 6, and offers a different reading on l. 5: ϵἴη δ’ ἀτρϵκὲς To: ϵἰ δὴ τἀτρϵκὲς Va.

25 This epigram is also attested with textual variations in schol. Theoc. 14.48, Phot. υ 47 and 618; AP XIV 73.2–8; and Tzetz. Chil. 9.273.483–489 and 9.291.877–883. The Suda had already been published in Milan in 1499 by Johannes Bissolus and Benedictus Mangius, but the differences between the text of the editio princeps and the quotes noted by Musurus in his scholia lead us to believe that he used an unidentified manuscript.

26 His library was bequeathed to the Pontifical Greek College of Saint Athanasius in Rome, and some of his books were later sold (see Legrand 1895, III, 450, and Bignami Odier 1973, 129–130). A great part of his manuscripts is kept today at the Biblioteca Vallicelliana in Rome (see Berthelot 1887, 850; Martini 1902, 201–233).

27 There are brief mentions to Archilochus at Angelo Poliziano’s commentary on Statius’ Siluae 1.1 and 4.9 (c. 1480), and at Nutricia 644–648 (1491), which probably depend on similar allusions in Latin poetry (see Hor. epist. 1.19.23–25; epod. 6.13; Ov. Ibis 53–54, and Mart. 8.12.6), or in the Greek Anthology (see AP VII 69 [Julianus], 70 [Julianus], 71 [Gaetulicus], 351 [Dioscorides], and 352 [anonymous or Meleager]) (see Bagordo 2010, 85). For similar references to Archilochus in English Renaissance authors, such as Thomas Nashe (1567–c. 1601) and Ben Jonson (c. 1572–1637), see Swift (2019, 52–53).

28 See Condello (2016, 52) and Condello–Magnani (2019, 140–258.9).

29 Among the texts copied on the guard pages, only Pseudo-Archilochus, fr. 328 presents explanatory glosses.

30 On the identification of his handwriting, see Mioni (1975, 294), and Pontani (2002, 575–576). On Musurus’ lessons at the University of Padua, see Ferrai (1876, 35–47); Foffano (1892, 453–470); Sicherl (1978, 45–55); Cataldi Palau (2004, 318–327); Speranzi (2013, 121–130); and Ferreri (2014, 47–48).

31 See Pontani (2002, 583–585).

32 The hypothesis that Musurus’ first commentary on the epigrams existed as a separate booklet at the time that Acciaiuoli was copying the notes on To is reinforced by the fact that the scholia present in To do not originate in Va (see supra).

33 See Vatican City, BAV, Arch. Bibl. 40, f. 2: “Sono nella libraria Apostolica infiniti anzi quasi tutti li libri consumati e guasti dalle tarme, non essendovisi per sin qui trovato rimedio alcuno che vaglia per conservarli da dette tarme” (“There are an infinite number of books in the Apostolic library, in fact almost all of them are worn out and damaged by moths, as up to now no effective remedy has been found to protect them from said moths” (quoted in Ceresa and Vincenti [2016, 409 n. 318], and Galán Vioque [2020, 132]).

34 See Ferreri (2002, 170–171); and Galán Vioque (2020, 132–133).

35 For the content of these guard leaves, see Pontani (2002, 576 n. 3 and 583–585); Ferreri (2014, 20–23, 5, and 63); and Galán Vioque (2020, 132–133).

36 See Pontani (2002, 584).

37 He copied the scholia to the Planudean Anthology twice, since the notes in Inc. Naples, BN S. Q. IX. C. 8 were written by the same hand (see Galán Vioque 2022b, 242).

38 See Galán Vioque (2022b, 240).

39 For Musurus as a poet, see now Pontani and Weise (2022, 47–51).

Additional information

Funding

This research has been funded by the Centro de Investigación en Patrimonio Histórico, Cultural y Natural (CIPHCN), and the Junta de Andalucía through the research projects ‘Los escolios a la Antología Planudea. Manuscritos e incunables, fuentes literarias y edición crítica [P20_01022]’, and ‘Estudio y edición de textos griegos inéditos: los escolios de la Antología Planudea [UHU-202004]’ (FEDER 2020).