6. The Facie, which is No. 73 in the so-called Catalogue of Lamprias and No. 71 in the Planudean order, is apparently preserved in only two MSS. of the Bibliothéque Nationale, Grec 1672 (saec. XIV) and 1675 (saec. XV), conventionally called Parisinus E and Parisinus B respectively.On the MSS. of Plutarch generally cf. the references cited by M. Pohlenz, Plutarchi Moralia, i (Teubner, 1925), Praefatio, p. vi, n. 1, and pp. xxvi and xxviii f. on B and E respectively. These have hitherto been supposed to be independent copies of a single archetypeWyttenbach (Plutarchi Moralia [Oxford, 1795], p. xliv) says of B ut videtur, ex E, aut ejusdem exempli codice, ita descriptus ut antiquiores melioresque simul adhiberentur; unde quaedam lacunae uberius etiam expletae, et plura menda sanata. M. Treu, Zur Geschichte der Uberlieferung von Plutarchs Moralia, ii (Ohlau, 1881), pp. 5-7, argued that B derives from the same source as E, which B must have used later; and his conclusion was generally accepted by later editors. Raingeard’s more complicated stemma (p. xiv of his edition of the Facie) is, in any case, entirely unjustified.; but recently G. R. Manton has put forward strong arguments for thinking that B is a descendant of E through an intermediate manuscript, a copy of E, which was worked over by a scholar who filled in lacunae and inserted conjectures of his own. The Manuscript Tradition of Plutarch Moralia 70-7, Class. Quart. xliii (1949), pp. 97-104. Among the passages discussed by Manton where B has readings other than those of E are none from the Facie, for the text of which Manton (Op. cit. p. 99, n. 1) depended upon Treu’s collation supplemented by Bernardakis’ list in vol. i of his edition, pp. 1 ff.; but I have found no variant reading of B in this essay that would surely gainsay Manton’s hypothesis. Those which might suggest that B is not descended from E are the following: 927 F: τὸν -B for E’s correct τὰ before ἐμβριθῆ; 929 B: ἔχων δὲ -B, ἔχων δὲ τοῦτο -B for the correct ἑκὼν δὲ; 932 D: πεποιημένων -B for E’s correct πεπεισμένων: 937 F: ἐπιφερομένη -B, φερομένη -E for the probable original ἀντιφερομένη; 938 D: ἀναγινώσκων -B for E’s correct ἀναγινώσκοντος; 943 D: καταγινομένας -B for E’s correct καταδυομένας, Manton’s conclusion has been rejected by K. Hubert (Rhein. Mus. xciii [1950], pp. 330-336), but Hubert’s defence of the independence of B and E has been counterattacked by Einarson and De Lacy (Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], pp. 103 and 106, with notes 36 and 56).
I have collated both manuscripts from Photostats which were generously put at my disposal by Dr. William C. Helmbold; and I have recorded under the usual symbols the variant readings of each of them, for I soon discovered that not only is Bernardakis’ report of the mss. untrustworthy, but that the same must be said of Raingeard’s in his recent edition of the dialogue, and that even Treu’s collation (see note b, p. 26) is not free of errors. I have not recorded mere omissions or variations of accent or breathing, however, unless the sense is affected by them; and I have regularized crasis and elision without regard to the manuscripts or report of them, for they show no consistency in this matter.For example, in 931 D they have τὰ αὐτὰ πάσχειν ὑπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ταὐτὰ (B, ταυτὰ -E) ποιεῖν ταὐτὸν . . . and occasionally οἶδ ὅρως and ἀλλ ὅρως, although they do not ordinarily elide the α of oἶda and ἀλλά. Almost invariably both E and B have μὴ δὲ instead of μηδὲ or μηδ. On these matters cf. T. Doehner, Quaestionum Plutarch. Particula Altera and Tertia (Meissen, 1858 and 1862), especially iii, p. 51, and ii, p. 35, n.**; and on the question of hiatus cf. Helmbold, Class. Phil. xxxiii (1938), pp. 244-245, and xlv (1949), pp. 64 f. with his references, and for a much stricter view Ziegler, Plutarchos von Chaironeia, 295-298. To emend for the sole purpose of eliminating hiatus is to take unwarranted liberty with the text; but, on the other hand, to introduce hiatus by emendation is certainly inadmissible. It should be observed, however, that in the Facie, besides the exceptions to avoidance of hiatus listed by Ziegler (Op. cit. 296-297), final αι, οι, ει, and ου before an initial vowel may always be possible (cf. for ου e.g. τοῦ ἰδίου ἀέρος in 944 A), ἄνω and κάτω are permissible before any word beginning with a vowel (cf. ἄνω ἔχειν and κάτω ἄνυθεν in 924 C which guarantee ἄνω ἐστιν in 926 A), and other cases of hiatus which cannot reasonably be eliminated occasionally occur (e.g. χείλη εἰκόνας [921 C], τουτὶ εἴρω [935 D]). In conformity with the usage of Professor Babbitt and regardless of the manuscripts, I have printed the forms γίγνεσθαι, γιγνώσκειν, and οὐδείς, though the manuscripts usually have γίνεσθαι, γινώσκειν, and οὐθείς; but I have adopted the form duei=n throughout. I have tried to the best of my ability to assign emendations to those who first proposed them; but for some which appear without ascription in all modern editions, and the author of which I have been unable to discover, I have had to be content with the unsatisfactory note, editors. For the suggestions said to be written in three different hands on the margins of the copy of the Aldine edition now in the Bibliothéque Nationale (RÈs. J. 94), I have had to rely upon the report of Raingeard in the apparatus criticus of his edition (cf pp. xvi f. of his Introduction)P. Raingeard, Le ΠΕΡΟ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΟΣΠΟΥ de Plutarque, texte critique avec traduction et commentaire (Paris, 1935). Raingeard’s text is fantastically conservative, reproducing E for the most part even where E gives impossible Greek; and yet his report of the manuscripts is frequently erroneous either explicitly or by implication. The translation is worse even than the text; and the commentary, especially where it touches upon philosophical and scientific questions, is more often wrong than right, almost everywhere inadequate, and frequently absurd.; all of these I indicate without differentiation by the formula, Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94. Upon Raingeard’s report and those of Reiske, Wyttenbach, Hutten, and Bernardakis I have had to rely for the variant readings of the Aldine edition and of the edition of Xylander; but the edition of Froben (Basiliensis, 1542), as well as those of Stephanus (1624), Reiske, Wyttenbach, Hutten, Dübner, Bernardakis, and Raingeard, and the translations of Xylander, Amyot, Kepler, Kaltwasser, the two translations of Prickard,See note b, p. 18. Prickard’s translation of 1911 was reviewed by W. R. Paton, Class. Rev. xxvi (1912), p. 269, and by L. C. Purser, Hermathena, xvi (1911), pp. 309-324, whose review is rather a series of notes and suggestions for almost two score passages in the essay. and that of portions of the essay by Heath,Sir Thomas L. Heath, Greek Astronomy (London, 1932), pp. 166-180. I have consulted and compared throughout.
Those emendations which, so far as I know, are original with me are indicated by the initials H. C. Besides the editions, translations, and articles already mentioned in this Introduction, the chief aids to my study of the text have been the following:
Adler, Maximilian: Diss. Phil. Vind. x (1910), pp. 87 ff. (cf. note b, p. 18). Wiener Studien, xxxi (1909), pp. 305-309. Zwei Beiträge zum plutarchischen Dialog De Facie in Orbe Lunae, Jahresbericht des K. K. Staatsgymnasiums in Nikolsburg, 1909-1910 (Nikolsburg, 1910). Wiener Studien, xlii (1920-1921), pp. 163-164. Festschrift Moris Winternitz (Leipzig, 1933), pp. 298-302.
Apelt, Otto: Zu Plutarch und Plato, Jahresbericht Gymnasium Carolo-Alexandrinum zu Jena, 1904-1905 (Jena, 1905). Kritische Bemerkungen, Jahresbericht Jena, 1905-1906 (Jena, 1906).
Chatzidakis, G. N.: Athena, xiii (1901), pp. 462-714.
Cobet, C. G.: Novae Lectiones (Leiden, 1858). Variae Lectiones (Leiden, 1878). Collectanea Critica (Leiden, 1878).
Emperius, A.: Emperii Opuscula Philologica et Historica . . . ed. F. G. Schneidewin (Göttingen, 1847), pp. 287-295.
Hartman, J. J.: Plutarcho Scriptore et Philosopho (Leiden, 1916), pp. 557-563.
Herwerden, H. van: Lectiones Rheno-Traiectinae (Traj. ad Rhen., 1882). Mnemosyne, xxii (1894), pp. 330-337, and xxxvii (1909), pp. 202-223.
Kronenberg, A. J.: Mnemosyne, lii (1924), pp. 60-112, and Ser. III, x (1941), pp. 33-47.
Kunze, R.: Rhein. Mus. lxiv (1909), pp. 635-636.
Madvig, J. N.: Adversaria Critica, I (Hauniae, 1871), pp. 664-666.
Mras, K.: Zeitsckrift für die österreich. Gymnasien, lxv (1914), pp. 187-188.
Naber, S. A.: Mnemosyne, xxviii (1900), pp. 329-364.
Papabasileios, G. A.: Athena, x (1898), pp. 167-242.
Pohlenz, Max: Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, xxxii (1912), pp. 648-654. Götting. Gelehrte Anzeig. clxxx (1918), pp. 321-343.
Sandbach, F. H.: Proc. of the Cambridge Philological Soc., 1943.
Harold Cherniss
Addendum Since this Bibliography was compiled in February 1953 some publications dealing with the De Facie have come to my attention which require a brief notice.
Konrat Ziegler in Plutarch über Gott und Vorsehung, Dämonen und Weissagung (Zürich, Artemis-Verlag, 1952) has written a brief summary of the essay (pp. 42-45) and has translated the myth (940 F 945 D into German (pp. 268-278) with the addition of a few explanatory notes. He makes one noteworthy alteration in the text at 941 A - B: adopting τὸν δὲ βριάρεων ἔχοντα φρονρόν, after which he puts a full stop, he removes the following words, τῶν τε νήσων παρακάτω κεῖσθαι (?), from their position in the MSS. and places them after κυκλῳ θάλαττα in 941 B three lines below.
The question of the MSS., which is touched upon in the Introduction § 6 supra, has been discussed, though without specific reference to the Facie, by R. Flaceliére in his edition and translation of the Amatorius (Plutarque: Dialogue sur lamour [Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1952], pp. 35-37) and in an article, La Tradition manuscrite des traitÈs 70-77 de Plutarque, Rev. Ètudes Grecques, lxv (1952), pp. 351-362. By a different route he reaches the same conclusion as did G. R. Manton, namely that B is derived from E, probably through an intermediate manuscript now lost. cf. Irigoin, Rev. de Philologie, xxviii (1954), pp. 117-119. In Gnomon, xxv (1953), pp. 556-557 K. Hubert replied to Flaceliére’s arguments and again sought to establish the independence of B with respect to E.
Flaceliére in his article entitled Plutarque et les Èclipses de la lune (Rev. tudes Anciennes, liii [1951], pp. 203-221) is primarily concerned with the interpretation of De Genio Socratis, 591 C, but in connection with this he discusses Facie, 933 D - E and 942 D - E and argues that in the former of these two passages Plutarch depends upon the calculations of Hipparchus (cf. my note in Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], p. 145 referred to in note e on 933 E s.v.).
G. Zuntz in Rhein. Mus. xcvi (1953), pp. 233-234 has proposed several emendations in the text of the essay:
940 E: He is right in assuming that Bernardakis’ ὑμεῖς is a misprint for ἡμεῖς of the MSS., but ὅσαπερ which he condemns and emends is, of course, correct; he apparently misunderstood the construction, ὅσαπερ ἡμεῖς (scil. χρώμεθα) ἄερι.
942 F: After τίς δ’ οὗτός ἐστιν; he would add [ἔφην· ὁ δ’·], thus producing the same effect as did Reiske’s punctuation. cf. on this sentence my note in Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), pp. 150-151.
943 D: He would write τὸ ἄλογον καὶ [τὸ] ραθητικόν on the strength of Def. Orac. 417 B (p. 75. 23 [Sieveking]). This would be possible but is unnecessary, since καὶ can here be taken as explicative.
944 C: He suggests Φερσεφόνης οὖδος ἀντιχθόνιος or Φερσεφόνης οὖδος ἀντίχθονος, apparently unaware of von Arnim’s far more probable emendation (see notes d and e on p. 221 s.v.). His further supplement, τὰ δὲ [πρὸς τὰ] ἐνταῦθα, is quite unnecessary.
944 E: To ἔρωτι τῆς περὶ τὸν ἥλιον εἰκόνος he would add [τoῦ ἑνὸς] or [τoῦ νοητoῦ] or [τἀγαθoῦ] on the ground that the phrase as it stands is unintelligible. The following words, δι’ ἧς ἐπιλάμπει κτλ., themselves explain what Plutarch means (see note g on 944 E s.v.), and there is no excuse for any supplement at all.
945 B: He rightly defends Kaltwasser’s alteration of Τυφὼν to Πύθων (see Introduction, p. 12, note b supra).
H. C. November 1954
To my great regret I have been unable to take account of Professor M. Pohlenz’s edition of this essay in Plutarchi Moralia, vol. v, Fasc. 3 (Leipzig, Teubner, 1955), since it became available only after this volume had already been paged and corrected for printing.
H. C. February 1956