Tibil ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 2017 Antonio Tibiletti Luigi Castiglioni πλουταρχίζων and the Text of Plutarch’s Aquane an ignis utilior Antonio Tibiletti F ONE BROWSES the Nachlässe of the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek in Göttingen, several un- published yet interesting documents can be found: they are of great value for the history of classical scholarship and some- times for textual philology itself. This is the case for Cod. Ms. M. Pohlenz 215.9 of the Nachlass of Max Pohlenz, which preserves the draft of Luigi Castiglioni’s brief critical essay Con- iectanea ad Plutarchi Moralia and the reply of Pohlenz, his long- standing friend and editor maximus of Plutarch. Luigi Castiglioni1 was a “peerless expert on Plutarch’s Moralia.”2 He studied Plutarch’s works from the earliest years of his academic career, commenting on hundreds of passages; as a result, he wrote essays, taught classes, and published reviews of the volumes of the new Teubner edition which came out be- 1 Luigi Castiglioni (Azzate, 28 Sept. 1882 – Milan, 23 Feb. 1965) was professor of Latin literature and classical philology at the University of Milan (1926–1952). He studied and graduated at the Scuola Normale in Pisa, where he knew Giorgio Pasquali. He considered Girolamo Vitelli (pro- fessor of Greek literature in Florence) his most important teacher. Ignazio Cazzaniga and Alberto Grilli were his pupils in Milan and later successors to the University chair. Biography: A. Grilli, “Castiglioni, Luigi,” DBI 22 (1979) 169–171. Some recollections in A. La Penna, “Ritratti critici di contemporanei. Luigi Castiglioni,” Belfagor 18 (1962) 42–68; I. Cazzaniga, “Luigi Castiglioni,” Gnomon 38 (1966) 106–108, and “Luigi Castiglioni,” Maia 18 (1966); A. Grilli, “Luigi Castiglioni (1882–1965),” Eikasmos 4 (1993) 147–149. A complete bibliography is compiled by G. Faranda, in Studi in onore di Luigi Castiglioni I (Florence 1960) xv–xxxvi. 2 La Penna, Belfagor 18 (1962) 46. I ANTONIO TIBILETTI 995 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 tween 1925 and 1955:3 “for Plutarch, his reviews are essential,” observed his philological ‘nephew’ Antonio La Penna, Pas- quali’s most talented pupil.4 The last review (1957) marked his “departure from the reading of Plutarch.”5 Castiglioni had an in-depth knowledge and experience of Plutarch’s style and language. Alberto Grilli offers a vivid pic- ture of his teacher:6 Una volta, durante la discussione di una tesi di laurea, disse dell’Orazio del Bentley, ridendo: “Se Orazio tornasse a questo mondo, direbbe del Bentley: ‘Però, l’ha pensata meglio di me!’.” Forse più d’una volta si può dire lo stesso, io credo, di lui. Indeed, Castiglioni’s critical remarks, even in their preliminary stage, are worthy of attention: in fact, although he partially reconsidered his positions on the Plutarchean passages he ana- lyzed, this draft still offers some good philological observations on the text of the pamphlet Aquane an ignis utilior (Πότερον ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ χρησιµώτερον). One must admit that his suggestions do not always result in the best textual solution; nevertheless:7 La critica congetturale dei filologi acuti è utile anche quando non riesce a restituire il testo con sicurezza o con forte pro- babilità, persino (nessuno si scandalizzi!) quando impugna una lezione giusta: congetture anche inadeguate possono essere frutto di uno sforzo d’interpretazione che indica problemi in- teressanti, impensati, aiutano, cioè, ad interpretare bene. […] Se c’è qualcosa che suscita un po’ di diffidenza nella critica con- getturale del Castiglioni, è una certa raffinatezza umanistica, per 3 StIt 2 (1913) 112–144, BollFilClass 33 (1926) 81–87, 36 (1930) 202–211, RendIstLomb 64 (1931) 879–909, Athenaeum 11 (1933) 281–285, 14 (1936) 89– 91, RivFil 64 (1936) 82–85, Gnomon 13 (1937) 136–142, Athenaeum 15 (1937) 115–116, Gnomon 14 (1938) 154–162, Athenaeum 17 (1939) 312–313, Gnomon 16 (1940) 92–94, 17 (1941) 251–257, 24 (1952) 16–20, 26 (1954) 80–85, 29 (1957) 332–337. 4 La Penna, Belfagor 18 (1962) 51. 5 Castiglioni, Gnomon 29 (1957) 337. 6 Grilli, Eikasmos 4 (1993) 148. 7 La Penna, Belfagor 18 (1962) 55, 58–59. 996 LUIGI CASTIGLIONI ΠΛΟΥΤΑΡΧΙΖΩΝ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 cui a volte la ricerca dell’eleganza sembra superare la ricerca della probabilità. [… C]apita d’incontrare sue congetture che a prima vista sembrano un giuoco umanistico, ma, se vai avanti ed esamini i paralleli citati, gli argomenti stilistici apportati, si ri- velano necessarie o fortemente probabili. It is precisely here that the value of publishing such obser- vations lies. Although they were, in Castiglioni’s view, a mere draft, nevertheless “they help us interpret well.” In fact—Grilli observes—“it would be unreasonable to say that his conjectures are all, if not obvious, at least valid; by contrast, it is meaning- ful to say that none of them is absurd and that they all have a sound methodological basis.”8 The documents9 The essay sent to Max Pohlenz is dated in Milan on the 17th of May 1952. The Teubner volume of the Moralia containing the pseudo-Plutarchean pamphlet Aquane an ignis utilior had yet to be published.10 While reading the documents and the follow- ing commentary, one should keep in mind that Castiglioni read Plutarch’s text in Bernardakis’ edition and did not know Wege- haupt’s more recent critical work.11 Benefiting from Pohlenz’s remarks and Wegehaupt’s edition, Castiglioni reelaborated this note and included it, along with further statements, in Decisa Forficibus (Milan 1954, hereafter DF ) 281–286. This editio princeps of the first draft provides an occasion to reconsider five critical notes by Castiglioni on one of Plutarch’s opuscula moralia starting from their birth, to offer further justi- fications on their behalf, and to make some new textual sugges- tions. I indicate my supplements with <> and Castigli- 8 Grilli, Eikasmos 4 (1993) 149. 9 I wish to express my thanks to the Niedersächsische Staats- und Uni- versitätsbibliothek in Göttingen for kind permission to publish these texts. 10 C. Hubert, Plutarchus. Moralia VI.1 (Leipzig 1954). 11 G. N. Bernardakis, Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia VI (Leipzig 1895); H. Wegehaupt, “Plutarch πότερον ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ χρησιµώτερον,” in ΧΑΡΙΤΕΣ. Friedrich Leo zum sechzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht (Berlin 1911) 146–169. ANTONIO TIBILETTI 997 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 oni’s conjectures with <αβγ>; references to the apparatus are given with a sublinear number; Castiglioni writes σ in fine verbi and uses the symbols [αβγ] instead of {αβγ} for deletions. Coniectanea ad Plutarchi Moralia Quamquam doctorum hominum Pohlenzii in primis, cuius studio cum veteris Graeciae scriptores fere omnes, tum Plutarchi opuscula, si emendatiora prodierunt atque, ut speremus, sunt proditura, plurimum debent, auctoritate ac nomine propter levitatem ingenii desidiamque plura inquirendi me nihil dignum contulisse videbam, veteris tamen observantiae erga virum illustrem ex tempore con- fectum documentum legentis oculis subicere malui, quam officio et debito et mihi quoque gratissimo omnino deesse. Plutarchi commentarium quo non ita gravis quaestio et adumbrata magis quam penitus explorata proponitur, sitne aqua utilior an ignis, cum legerem, multa mihi occurrerunt, sed quae ab homine in re- cessu domus suae paene segregato raptimque oculis paginas illas per- currente non possent facile expediri; sola igitur Bernardakisii editione auxilioque adiutus, ut omnes sciunt, non satis valido, pauca com- posui litterisque mandavi non cum aliis viris doctis, sed cum illo solo comunicanda, cui, ut est erga me homo summae humanitatis ac non semel expertae indulgentiae, hoc fortasse temere susceptum certe non, ut decuit, perfectum consilium facile possem excusare: leviora enim attigi, graviora seposui meliore in posterum spe, si quis mihi deus aut longiorem aut minus incommodum vitae cursum permiserit. Humoris expertes esse omnis mortuos communem semper fuisse hominum opinionem Plutarchus credidit idemque eos ἀλιβάντασ1 appellatos esse ὡς ἐνδεεῖσ λιβάδοσ τουτέστιν ὑγρότητοσ καὶ παρὰ τοῦτο [τοὺσ] στερουµένουσ τοῦ ζῆν (956A). Articulum delevi qui veram huius verborum circumscriptionis sententiam ita mihi con- turbare videtur ut paene nulla sit; eo enim quod humore privati sint, homines etiam vita privantur, neque differentiam ullam nobis sta- tuere licet inter ea verba quae sunt τοὺσ ἀποθανόντασ et ista mox adposita vel si mavis adiuncta τοὺσ στερουµένουσ τοῦ ζῆν. Sublato autem articulo Plutarchi verba omnino cum Aristotelis congruunt (hist. anim. 1,4;489 a,20): ἔχει δὲ καὶ ὑγρότητα πᾶν ζῶιον, ἧσ στε- ρισκόµενον ἢ φύσει ἢ βίαι φθείρεται. Pereundi certe causam, non appellationis his verbis ostendere Plutarchi maxime interfuit; quae si tam aperta res huius libelli editores aestimatoresque adhuc latuit ad 998 LUIGI CASTIGLIONI ΠΛΟΥΤΑΡΧΙΖΩΝ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 graviora intentos, cum multa illi expedierint satis perplexa aliaque restent eaque graviora expedienda, minime mirum est. Expectanda alibi (956C) fuit editio, quae vel de codicum lectione nos certiores faceret, quam verba tam male habita temptanda, ut iure verear ne corrigendi periculum temere fecisse videar, medici instar qui, prius quam morbi naturam quae sit certa ratione intellegat, medicinam audeat adferre: οὗ µηδεµία ζωὴ (ita libri aliquot, alii vero et Ber- nardakis ζωῆς)2 φύσισ ἄνευ ἵσταται καὶ διαµένει. Hiatu in opere inchoato magis quam perfecto absolutoque non multum moveor, verborum ordine cuius ratio non satis aperta est, adverbium ἄνευ vel loco sibi debito alio delapsum esse vel casu quodam aut scribarum errore inlatum esse admonemur; illud vero, postquam aut χωρίς aut simili potestate aliud quid praeditum evanuerit, ad temptandam huius loci emendationem aliquam supra versum additum composi- tam aliquam verbi formam corrupisse, Plutarchum autem sua ita composuisse, non inanis, ut arbitror, suscipio est: οὗ <χωρὶσ> µηδε- µία ζωιὴ φύσισ ἀνίσταται καὶ διαµένει, sc. “nulla omnino animalis natura exoritur et manet.” At alibi (957C) omnia quae igne careant arida ac sterilia esse ignis laudator adfirmat: οὐδεµίαν γὰρ αἰτίαν εὕροι τισ ἄν, δι᾽ ἣν ἄγονοι πέτραι καὶ τὰ κατεσκληκότα τῶν ὀρῶν πᾶσιν ἢ ὅτι πυρὸσ οὐδ᾽ ὅλωσ ἢ ὀλίγον3 µετέσχηκε.4 Haec neque explicari neque ulla ratione, ut sunt tradita, retineri posse iure Bernardakis existimavit, sed quae ille proposuit pro πᾶσιν legendum esse πάρεισιν vel πάρεστιν non magis probari possunt quam articulus ante πέτραι suppletus; <παντά>πασιν si quis coniciat significatione minime absurdum videatur, sed ut est facili coniectura repertum, ita ipsa verborum collocatione excluditur. <πεφύ>κασιν, sive sententiam spectas sive vocabuli formam et potestatem, nisi fallor, optimum est, ut ab ipso scriptore venisse credam: “natura steriles petrae sunt et asperrima montium.” Dissident verborum formae ac displicet fortasse modo singularis, modo pluralis ad eadem relatorum verborum numerus; sed haec, nisi potius, quo mihi inclinat animus, credis ab auctore rebus magis quam verbis intento profecta, facili negotio expediri pos- sunt, ut eiusdem Bernardakisii coniectura ostendit, quae in apparatu ab illo confecto legitur: µετεσχήκασι. Sequitur verborum conclusio multis de causis intricatior et quam certa et indubitata ratione expedire non possum (957D) ἀµέλει τὰ λιµναῖα καὶ ὅσα στάσιµα5 τῶν ὑδάτων καί τινα ἐν ἀδιεξόδοισ ANTONIO TIBILETTI 999 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 ἐγκαθήµενα κοιλότησι µοχθερὰ καὶ … τηρεῖ περὶ τὰ µάλιστα φερόµενα … ζῆν λέγοντεσ. Duas hic circumscriptionum verborum partes aliquot deperditis vocabulis errore in unum coaluisse vetus est Xylandri opinio, cui nemo refragari possit, at quas novi emen- dationes loci sententiam parum adiuvant. Displice⟦n⟧t etiam post ὅσα illud τινα, quod vix possumus ita interpretari ut pronominis, quod ἅτινα est, illud simile habeamus (cf. adnotationem ad Papyros Mediol. 20, p. 183);12 sed ut illo omnino carere optimum esset, ita levi sane negotio molestum pronomen cum articulo permutabimus: καὶ τὰ ἐν … ἐγκαθήµενα. At περὶ ab aliis aliter emendatum dupli- cem esse verbi huic adpositi, τηρεῖ, scripturam ob eamque rem amovendum mihi concedi velim, neque enim sententiae video satis commodae περὶ τὰ µάλιστα tamquam adverbium adiungi posse. Immo vero novum hinc verborum ambitum initium in hunc fere modum cepisse existimo: ἣ τὸ θερµὸν … τηρεῖ [περὶ] τὰ µάλιστα. <τὰ δὲ> φερόµενα καὶ ῥέοντα … οὕτω καὶ προσαγορεύοµεν, ζῆν λέγοντεσ, quae prioris partis sententiae recte et opportune respondet, τὰ λιµναῖα … τῶν ὑδάτων. Minus commode fortasse extrema ad- nectitur concluditurque enuntiatio non satis meo iudicio explicata et perfecta, sed ζῆν λέγοντεσ recte traditum esse non Graeca quidem, cuius nullum exemplum novi, sed Latina certe consuetudo demon- strat; aquam enim quae e fonte viva profluit cur non potuerint Graeci illam vivere dicere non video; certe ῥεῖν, quod Bernardakisio in mentem venit, plane absurdum est omnemque eorum quae pre- cedunt significationem corrumpit; οὕτω enim καὶ προσαγορεύοµεν, addito ζῆν λέγοντεσ idem est atque οὕτω καὶ ζῶντα προσαγο- ρεύοµεν. Pulchra omnia esse quae nobis a dis tribuantur egregia sententia est, in qua desinere et fausti ominis est aequum (non posse suav. vivi 1103B); sed vocabulum abundat ex eius quod praecedit exitu natum: καλὰ µὲν οὖν εἰκὸσ εἶναι [καὶ] τὰ … παρὰ τῶν θεῶν. Legendum denique (1090A) ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἐν θαλάσσηι κατ᾽ Αἰσχύλον “ὠδῖνα τίκτει νὺξ κυβερνήτηι σοφῶι” καὶ γαλήνη<ι>. Coniunge mare et maris tranquillitatem, ut recta sententia evadat; Aeschyli versus interpositus Plutarcho haud sane invito ea diiunxit, quae structura ipsa essent coniuncta. 12 A. Vogliano, Papiri della Università di Milano (Milan 1937) 183. 1000 LUIGI CASTIGLIONI ΠΛΟΥΤΑΡΧΙΖΩΝ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 Scripsi Mediolani, XV Kal. Iun. MCMLII L. Castiglioni —— 1 ἀλιβαντας 2 ζῶης 3 ὀλιγον 4 µετεσχηκε 5 στασιµα —— The surviving draft of Pohlenz’s reply (Göttingen, 19th of August 1952) is the outline of the letter sent to Castiglioni: spaces were left for Greek words and phrases to be hand- written. On the back of the letter is a typewritten page of a German essay (on Plato?), with corrections in pen. Castiglioni took advantage of Pohlenz’s opinions in reworking his draft for Decisa Forficibus. Maximilianus Pohlenz Ludovico Castiglioni S.P. Gratias tibi ago ex animi sententia quod etiam tu volumini in honorem meum composito “Coniectanea ad Plutarchi Moralia” inserere voluisti. quid enim gratius fieri poterat Plutarchi editori ab homine docto, sagaci, vere Plutarcheo? nec minus gratum donum tuum ob eam rem mihi1 est quod libellus qui inscribitur2 “Utrum aqua an ignis utilior?” olim ab amico meo Ioanne Wegehaupt iam a. 1914 lugubri fato abrepto quasi3 specimen nostrae editionis editus est.13 quam editionem te fugisse mi- nime mirum est, cum in volumine vix noto apparuerit (<<ΧΑΡΙΤΕΣ>>. Friedrich Leo zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht, Berlin 1911). qui p. 957c praeclare mihi sanasse videtur <<πλὴν ὅτι>> pro <<πᾶσιν>> scribens. consentit tecum in p. 956a articulum <τοὺς> delens, quod sine dubio necessarium est. Plutarchi ingenio digna est coniectura quam tu profers <<οὗ <χωρὶς> µηδεµία ζωιὴ φύσις ἀνίσταται καὶ διαµένει>>, sed ipse mones in hoc libello non perpoito summa cautione agendum est.14 957d recte tu pro <<τινα>> scribis <<τὰ>>, quod ego quoque ap. Wegehauptium proposui. reliqua difficillima, sed plane tibi adstipulor <<ζῆν λέγοντες>> tenenti, ac tantum4 dubito utrum <<ζῆν>> ut in LXX Num. 5.175 (<<ὕδωρ … ζῶν>>) explicandum sit an sec. p. 8776 13 The edition mentioned is that of Wegehaupt (1911). 14 This impression is confirmed by Castiglioni, Gnomon 29 (1957) 334. ANTONIO TIBILETTI 1001 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 <<ζῷα>>15 scribere oporteat. 1090a Reiskii emendationem <<γαληνή>> veri simillimam iudico. vides igitur me nonnu<>q<>am a iudicio tuo discedere; sed etiam talibus locis tu deliberanti viam optime monstras. credo bibliopolam tibi exemplar fascicul<> VI 2 a me editi mi- sisse;16 de quo si forte in his vel illis annalibus iudicium ferre volueris, pergratum mihi facies; sunt autem multi loci de quibus dubitare7 possis.17 vale gratissimoque me animo esse scito. scr. Gottingae a.d. XIII Kal. Sept. MCMLII —— 1 mihe 2 inscribiaur 3 abreptoquasi 4 actantum 5 517 6 677 7 dubirae —— Commentary The passages of the pamphlet Aquane an ignis utilior on which Castiglioni and Pohlenz comment are difficult. Let us now ana- lyze these.18 956A {τοὺς} στερουµένους: ἀµέλει τοὺς ἀποθανόντας ἀλιβάντας καλοῦσιν ὡς ἐνδεεῖς λιβά- δος, τουτέστιν ὑγρότητος, καὶ παρὰ τοῦτο στερουµένους τοῦ ζῆν. That, of course, is the reason why the dead are called alibantes, meaning that they are without libas, “moisture,” and for lack of that deprived of life. Bernardakis accepted the reading of some manuscripts τοῦτο τοὺς στερουµένους. Castiglioni noticed a syntactical incon- sistency in τοὺς—he had already observed that “the com- plement παρὰ τοῦτο leaves no doubt about the relationship of 15 Plut. Mor. 877B reads λέγουσι ζῷον λογικὸν ἢ ζῷον χρεµετιστικόν. 16 M. Pohlenz, Plutarchi Moralia VI.2 (Leipzig 1952). 17 See Castiglioni, Gnomon 26 (1954) 80–85. 18 Text and translation according to H. Cherniss and W. C. Helmbold, Plutarch’s Moralia XII (Cambridge [Mass.]/London 1957). The pamphlet is now published by G. D’Ippolito and G. Nuzzo, Plutarco. L’origine del freddo. Se sia più utile l’acqua o il fuoco (Naples 2012), in the series Corpus Plutarchi Moralium. 1002 LUIGI CASTIGLIONI ΠΛΟΥΤΑΡΧΙΖΩΝ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 this sentence to the previous one or about what the writer really means to say”19—and here explains his decision to delete the article: “I deleted the article, which seems to me to disturb the real meaning of this sentence, rendering it meaningless; in fact men, just because they have been deprived of water, are also deprived of life, and we are not allowed to link τοὺς ἀπο- θανόντας to those placed—or, if you prefer, added—immedi- ately after: τοὺς στερουµένους τοῦ ζῆν. Once the article is deleted, however, Plutarch’s words are perfectly coherent with Aristot. Hist. Anim. 1.4.489a20 ἔχει δὲ καὶ ὑγρότητα πᾶν ζῶιον, ἧς στερισκόµενον ἢ φύσει ἢ βίαι φθείρεται.” His view is con- firmed by the greater part of the manuscripts, where the article is absent. In DF 282 he admits that he has to abandon this conjecture since the text without the article had already been adopted by Wegehaupt. 956C οὗ <χωρὶς> … ἀνίσταται: τοῦτ’ οὖν χρησιµώτερον, οὗ µηδεµία ζωῆς φύσις ἄνευ ἵσταται καὶ διαµένει. That element, therefore, without which no living nature can subsist or endure is the more useful. Castiglioni read “ which no living creature arises and survives” and repeats his conjecture in DF 282–283. He thought that the ordo verborum of the manuscripts was not clear because of the isolated ἄνευ; he thus believed that the adverb ἄνευ had been “dragged to this position from its original place or introduced by the scribe either by chance or by mistake” (in DF 282 he says “quasi peregrinando”). Pohlenz applauded Castiglioni’s idea as “befitting Plutarch’s genius.” Hubert had access to Castiglioni’s note (probably through Pohlenz) and quoted the conjecture in his apparatus; I would suggest that the correction provides the most plausible text. Castiglioni’s ἀνίσταται offers a better sense and provides a simple correction to ἄνευ ἵσταται: for ἀνίσταµαι = Lat. surgo see Plut. Pomp. 34.3 ποταµόν … ἐκ τῶν Ἰβηρικῶν ὀρῶν ἀνιστά- 19 RendIstLomb 64 (1931) 882–883. ANTONIO TIBILETTI 1003 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 µενος and Pind. Pyth. 4.155 µή τι νεώτερον ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀναστάῃ κακόν. The double conjecture is even more convincing in the light of what precedes: in Mor. 956A–C several sentences with the prepositions ἄνευ and χωρίς come in succession, always accompanying a genitive.20 If one wishes to accept the trans- mitted reading, this would be the only instance of an isolated ἄνευ. 957C <πεφύ>κασιν instead of πᾶσιν:21 οὐδεµίαν γὰρ αἰτίαν εὕροι τις ἄν, δι᾽ ἣν ἄγονοι πέτραι καὶ τὰ κατεσκληκότα τῶν ὀρῶν πλὴν ὅτι πυρὸς οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἢ ὀλίγον µετέσχηκε. It is impossible to find any other reason why rocks and the bare bones of mountains are barren except that they have either no part at all, or very little share, in fire. Castiglioni discussed his conjecture in these terms: “one would not be able to explain why ‘the stones and the slopes of the mountains are sterile by nature’ but for the fact that they are totally or in part devoid of fire.” Wegehaupt emended the text with the phrase πλὴν ὅτι πυρὸς: this solution makes perfect sense and the scribal error may be conjectured on palaeo- graphical grounds.22 20 ἄνευ µὲν πυρὸς ἦν πολλά, ὕδατος οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνθρωπος … βίος πυρὸς ἄνευ, οὐκ ἄνευ δ᾽ ὕδατος ἦν … ἔστι γὰρ ἀνθρώπων γένη τινα χωρὶς πυρὸς ποιούµενα τὴν δίαιταν … χωρὶς δ᾽ ὕδατος οὔτε καλόν τις ἐνόµισε ζῆν οὔτε δυνατόν … καὶ βίος αὐτοῖς … ἐκ ῥιζῶν καὶ καρπῶν καὶ σαρκῶν ἄνευ πυρός· ὕδατος δὲ χωρὶς οὐκ ἔναλον οὐδὲ χερσαῖον οὐδὲ αἰθέριον. 21 Castiglioni read the following in Bernardakis: οὐδεµίαν γὰρ αἰτίαν εὕροι τις ἄν, δι᾽ ἣν ἄγονοι πέτραι καὶ τὰ κατεσκληκότα τῶν ὀρῶν πᾶσιν ἢ ὅτι πυρὸς οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἢ ὀλίγον µετέσκηκε. The apparatus given by D’Ippolito and Nuzzo reads as follows: πλήν Naber, Wegehaupt: πᾶσιν CYJNΓhM1 (in W lac. 5 litt.), ἤ codd. rell. (Reiske, Wyttenbach, Dübner), πᾶσιν ἤ Bernar- dakis. 22 Wegehaupt attributed the emendation to himself [πλὴν We], but it had already been proposed by S. A. Naber, “Observationes miscellaneae ad Plutarchi Moralia,” Mnemosyne 28 (1900) 353: “mihi lenior placet coniectura πλὴν ἢ ὅτι. Corruptela orta ex usu uncialium literarum,” that is ΠΛΗΝ / ΠΛΕΙΝ (iotacism) / ΠΑCΙΝ: see D’Ippolito and Nuzzo 241 n.34. On this 1004 LUIGI CASTIGLIONI ΠΛΟΥΤΑΡΧΙΖΩΝ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 By contrast, Castiglioni’s <πεφύ>κασιν (“they are by nature”) causes the syntax to vacillate: as he admits, “the verbs disagree in number, and it is probably disturbing that now a singular, now a plural refers to the same subject” (whence Bernardakis’ µετεσχήκασι). Later (DF 283–284) Castiglioni left the problem open: “conieceram πεφύκασιν ἤ, nimirum credens ἢ veram codicum lectionem esse; quod contra esse ex Wege- hauptii editione nunc didici. Qua re […] integrum de tota hac quaestione iudicium aliis relinquo.” In defense of Castiglioni’s syntax: πλήν (see Isoc. Phil. 63.1 ἀφορµὴν οὐδεµίαν ἄλλην ἔχων πλὴν τὸ σῶµα and Lys. 1.4 οὔτε ἔχθρα ἐµοὶ καὶ ἐκείνῳ οὐδεµία ἦν πλὴν ταύτης) is in theory not indispensable, given that οὐδεµίαν αἰτίαν εὕροι τις ἄν … ἢ ὅτι = ἄλλην/ἑτέραν αἰτίαν οὐκ εὕροι τις ἄν … ἢ ὅτι (LSJ s.v. ἤ “comparative as antecedent”): see Xen. Cyr. 7.5.41 µηδένα παριέναι ἢ τοὺς φίλους. Nonetheless, ἤ is a variant of πᾶσιν in the paradosis and the two words are never simul- taneously present in the manuscripts (see n.21). If one wishes to accept Castiglioni’s emendation, one should posit that the read- ing in a hypothesized archetype πᾶσιν (for πεφύκασιν) ἢ later resulted in two separate traditions—one giving the false πᾶσιν and the other the correct ἢ—and restore Plutarch’s text as Castiglioni had suggested (<πεφύ>κασιν ἢ ὅτι): admittedly, the conjecture is more complicated, being obtained by emendation + supplement, not simply by emendation (πλὴν ὅτι); however, one should acknowledge that his emendation was and remains worthy of consideration, given the information available to him. 957D τὰ instead of τινα:23 ἀµέλει τὰ λιµναῖα καὶ ὅσα στάσιµα τῶν ὑδάτων καί τιν’ ἐν ἀδιεξόδοις ἐγκαθήµενα κοιλότησι µοχθερὰ καὶ τελευτῶντα σήπεται τῷ κινήσεως ἥκιστα µετέχειν. ___ kind of corruption see J. Irigoin, Plutarque. Oeuvres Morales (Paris 1987) ccxxvii–cccx. 23 Castiglioni wrote τὰ ἐν ἀδιεξόδοις here and τὰ ἀδιεξόδοις in DF 284: it is not possible to say with certainty whether this is oversight or intentional. ANTONIO TIBILETTI 1005 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 It is, of course, marsh waters and such as are stagnant, some too that have drained into depressions with no outlet, that are bad and finally putrefy because they have very little motion. Pohlenz had suggested the same emendation in Wegehaupt’s edition. Although τινα can replace ἅτινα,24 in Castiglioni’s view τά would go better with τὰ λιµναῖα and eliminate “the bothersome pronoun with an easy device”; in DF 284 he writes: “vix enim ferri post ὅσα illud τινα.” Hubert and D’Ippoluto and Nuzzo25 accept the τιν᾽ ἀδιεξ- of Ambr. 881, which can be defended only by understanding τις as a ‘vague plurality’ or ‘indefiniteness’ (see Plut. Dem. 19.35 πραοτέρους γενέσθαι τινός, 21.66 κἂν ἄµεινον ἀγωνίσωµαί τινος). The result is a trikolon-structure, whose elements become increasingly lengthy and semantically broad: “for example, (1) swamps and (2) stagnant waters and (3) any other kind (of water) gathering in dead-end holes rot once they become bad and spoiled.” Castiglioni’s solution (τὰ ἐν ἀδιεξόδοις ἐγκαθήµενα)26 is compelling: for ἐγκάθηµαι + ἐν + dat. see Pl. Tht. 184D εἰ πολλαί τινες ἐν ἡµῖν ὥσπερ ἐν δουρείοις ἵπποις αἰσθήσεις ἐγκάθηνται, Aeschin. 3.206 ἐγκαθήµενοι καὶ ἐνεδρεύοντες ἐν τῇ ἀκροάσει, Polyb. 18.11.6 ἐν Κορίνθῳ βασιλικῆς φρουρᾶς ἐγκαθηµένης. 24 Pohlenz refers to the observation of Paul Maas in Vogliano, Papiri 183: “io [i.e. Vogliano] avevo pensato ad ὅστις ἀναλέξεται – κλαύσεται, ma il Maas mi ha dimostrato che τίς ha qui precisamente il valore di ὅστις.” Maas quotes only poetic passages. 25 D’Ippolito and Nuzzo quote the wrong source for this conjecture, viz. Castiglioni, Gnomon 29 (1957). There, Castiglioni deals with the pamphlet Aqua an ignis utilior, but not with this passage in particular: he comments on it in DF and this draft. 26 Hiatus are sporadic in Plutarch, but not impossibile in a rough (juvenile or non-authentic) work. It is common, for example, in the phrase τὰ ἐν κτλ.: see Arist. De an. 423a30–31 πρὸς τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ πρὸς τὰ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, Dem. 7.19 τὰ ἐν τῷ δήµῳ εἰρηµένα, Pl. Euthyd. 11C τὰ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἔργα, Thuc. 1.18.1 τὰ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσι, Xen. Mem. 2.3.14 τὰ ἐν ἀνθρώποις φίλτρα. 1006 LUIGI CASTIGLIONI ΠΛΟΥΤΑΡΧΙΖΩΝ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 957D τηρεῖ {περὶ} τὰ µάλιστα. <τὰ δὲ> φερόµενα:27 τὰ λιµναῖα καὶ ὅσα στάσιµα τῶν ὑδάτων καὶ τὰ ἐν ἀδιεξόδοις ἐγκαθήµενα κοιλότησι µοχθερὰ καὶ τελευτῶντα σήπεται τῷ κινήσεως ἥκιστα µετέχειν, ἣ τὸ θερµὸν ἐν ἑκάστοις ῥιπίζουσα τηρεῖ. διόπερ [sic Wyttenbach] τὰ µάλιστα φερόµενα καὶ ῥέοντα τῶν ὑδάτων, διὰ τὴν κίνησιν συνεχοµένης τῆς θερµότητος, οὕτω καὶ προσαγορεύοµεν, ζῆν λέγοντες. It is, of course, marsh waters and such as are stagnant, some too that have drained into depressions with no outlet, that are bad and finally putrefy because they have very little motion, which preserves everything by stirring up its heat. This is the reason why we commonly say that those waters are ‘living’ which have most motion and the strongest current; the heat is maintained by their motion. This passage is very hard to interpret. Castiglioni introduces an opposition by means of <τὰ δὲ>, but needs to delete the preposition περί. In his letter, Pohlenz unfortunately does not comment on this point, but later proposed a conjecture in Hubert’s edition: τηρεῖ µάλιστα περὶ τὰ φερόµενα καὶ ῥέοντα τῶν ὑδάτων, <ἃ> διὰ τὴν κίνησιν … οὕτω καὶ προσαγο- ρεύοµεν, ζῆν λέγοντες. Wegehaupt condemns the preposition (τηρεῖ †περὶ† τὰ µάλιστα φερόµενα). The best solution so far is probably that given by D’Ippolito and Nuzzo: τηρεῖ· περὶ τὰ µάλιστα φερόµενα καὶ ῥέοντα ... οὕτω καὶ προσαγορεύοµεν, ζῆν λέγοντες (see the comment at p.242 n.37): “the text […] is acceptable only if we punctuate after τηρεῖ […] and give περὶ a sense of relation,” that is “[stagnant waters rot] for they almost completely lack that movement which excites and supports the heat in everything. As for waters flowing with a very rapid movement, … we call them in this way (i.e. ‘flowing waters’), meaning that they are living.” Castiglioni proposes something similar to D’Ippolito and Nuzzo, except the treatment of τὰ µάλιστα (that is: µάλιστα 27 For a different interpretation of this passage see A. M. Milazzo, “Note critiche al testo di Plutarco. Aqua an ignis utilior,” Lexis 27 (2009) 480–481. ANTONIO TIBILETTI 1007 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 stresses τηρεῖ for Castiglioni and φερόµενα for the recent editors). His reading makes perfect sense: “[stagnant waters rot] for they lack any of the movement which in the highest degree28 excites and supports heat in everything. On the con- trary, we call moving and flowing waters, … in this way (i.e. ‘flowing waters’), meaning that they are living.” The conjecture <τὰ δὲ> is justified in DF 285: “certe, utcumque haec disposita malis, prioris partis sententiae, τὰ λιµναῖα τῶν ὑδάτων, eviden- tia ipsa verborum haec respondere fore qui neget non credo.” Castiglioni also discusses the final phrase: “the fact that ζῆν λέγοντες has been correctly transmitted is not proved by the Greek use (for which I do not know examples), but by the Latin certainly. I cannot understand why the Greeks could not say that water flowing from a spring is living;29 ῥεῖν, proposed by Bernardakis, is definitely absurd and does not make sense after the previous words; in fact, οὕτω καὶ προσαγορεύοµεν, with the addition of ζῆν λέγοντες, is the same as οὕτω καὶ ζῶντα προσ- αγορεύοµεν.” Castiglioni refers to expressions like Cic. Orat. 2.360 quem vivere hodie aiunt, Varr. LL 5.102 proxima animalia sunt ea quae vivere dicuntur, Sen. Q.Nat. 3.7.3 quod dici solet vivam aquam. The Greek language would normally use: a) a predicative participle (λέγω ὕδατα ζῶντα = λέγω ὕδατα ζῶα) for “to define/call water ‘living’ ” (see Pl. Phd. 276A τὸν τοῦ εἰδότος λόγον λέγεις ζῶντα καὶ ἔµψυχον); b) an infinitive (λέγω ὕδατα ζῆν = λέγω ὅτι ὕδατα ζῶσιν) for “to say/affirm that water lives/is living” (see Mor. 956B χωρὶς δ᾽ ὕδατος οὔτε καλόν τις ἐνόµισε ζῆν οὔτε δυνατόν and Lk 24:24 λέγουσιν αὐτὸν ζῆν). The difference between the two emerges from Arist. De an. 413b2–4 καὶ γὰρ τὰ µὴ κινοῦµενα µηδ᾽ ἀλλάττοντα τόπον, 28 See Kühner-Gerth I 595 and, for example, Hdt. 2.147 εἶναι φίλους τὰ µάλιστα, 5.63 ξείνους σφι ἐόντας τὰ µάλιστα. 29 Castiglioni adds in DF 285: “Plutarchus praesertim, qui in huius capitis initio καὶ θάνατος ὕδατι καὶ ὄλεθρος ἐπίλειψις θερµότητος. Necesse est vivat, qui mori potest ac νεκρὸν ὕδωρ vivas quoque esse aquas ut intel- legamus postulat.” 1008 LUIGI CASTIGLIONI ΠΛΟΥΤΑΡΧΙΖΩΝ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 ἔχοντα δ᾽ αἴσθησιν, ζῷα λέγοµεν καὶ οὐ ζῆν µόνον. Pohlenz agrees with Castiglioni, but is not sure whether to emend the passage to a participle by comparison with LXX Num 5:1730 or to the adjective ζῷα by analogy with Mor. 877B (see n.15 above): ζῷα normally pertains to a living being, an animal. All things considered, difficulties still persist (even taking into consideration Milazzo’s proposals: see n.27) and οὕτω is not given due weight. Mor. 957D plays on the juxtaposition of ‘movement = heat = life’ and ‘static nature = cold = death’ (something similar is likely to be read in Bacch. 3.86–87 ὕδωρ δὲ πόντου / οὐ σάπεται, “Seawater does not putrefy”). I suggest this reading: τὰ λιµναῖα καὶ ὅσα στάσιµα τῶν ὑδάτων καὶ τὰ ἐν ἀδιεξόδοις ἐγκαθήµενα κοιλότησι µοχθερὰ καὶ τελευτῶντα σήπεται τῷ κινήσεως ἥκιστα µετέχειν, ἣ τὸ θερµὸν ἐν ἑκάστοις ῥιπίζουσα τηρεῖ µάλιστα περὶ τὰ φερόµενα καὶ ῥέοντα τῶν ὑδάτων, διὰ τὴν κίνησιν συνεχοµένης τῆς θερµότητος· οὕτω καὶ προσαγο- ρεύοµεν, ζῆν λέγοντες. Once they became bad and spoiled, swamps and stagnant waters and those gathering in dead-end holes rot because they lack the movement which, exciting heat in everything, preserves it above all in moving and flowing waters, since heat is held (in them) thanks to the movement: this is exactly what we mean when we say ζῆν. Plutarch explains here that the relation ‘movement = heat = life’ is confirmed when one says ζῆν, above all when water is the subject. The concept of ‘living waters’ is not surprising, and Cas- tiglioni himself notices its relevance (see n.29). Nevertheless, something remains that is not immediately obvious. Plutarch pronounced ζῆν as /zin/,31 in the same way that he pro- nounced ζεῖν, “boil (over),” a verb denoting the movement of 30 Also Gen 21:19 φρέαρ ὕδατος ζῶντος, Lev 14:5, Zach 14:8, Jn 4:10. 31 See G. Horrocks, Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers2 (Chichester 2010) 160–165. ANTONIO TIBILETTI 1009 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 994–1009 water. What the reader should grasp is that Plutarch is here considering the two verbs simultaneously. His thought now turns out to be richer in sense: “this is exactly what we mean when we say zin” (whereby οὕτω takes an important place in the sentence, recalling the concepts related before: see Eur. Ion 225 οὕτω καὶ φάτις αὐδᾷ). In other words, whenever zin happens to be said, be it ζεῖν or ζῆν case by case, the cor- relation ‘movement = heat = life’ is implied. In conclusion: In the handful of examples discussed we have entered an officina philologica and seen an idea develop from its birth in the Coniectanea to its definitive publication in the Decisa Forficibus. As Pohlenz himself says to Castiglioni, “you can see that I sometimes disagree with your opinion, but even in such cases you point the way excellently.” This is because Casti- glioni’s conjectures “help us interpret well.” August, 2017 Institut für klassische Philologie University of Bern Länggassstrasse 49 CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland anto.tibiletti@gmail.com