The Manuscript of Straton's "Musa Puerilis" Clarke, W M Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1976; 17, 4; ProQuest pg. 371

The Manuscript of 
Straton's Musa Puerilis 

W. M. Clarke 

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION of AP 12 in the Greek Anthology has 
not been examined in much detail in English. This is certainly 
true of the epigrams of Straton in that book. The recent work 

of Gow and Page was confined to Hellenistic epigrams and to the 
Garland of Philip. 1 Paton's Loeb (1918) is little more than a translation. 
German and French scholars, while paying more attention to the 
Anthology than others have done, have-with one exception-hardly 
gone further in recent years than to observe that most of the poems 
in AP 12 are not Straton's and to attempt to bring order and identity 
out of the hodgepodge of epigrams other than his. 2 Only Robert 
Aubreton has examined the manuscript tradition itself in detail. This 
paper is an attempt to expand on and suggest corrections to Aubre­
ton's conclusions. Specifically, I hope to identify the contents of 
Straton's original book, as used by Cephalas in creating the source for 
AP 12, and to suggest the process by which Straton's poems became 
entangled in the heterogeneous anthology which forms our AP 12. 

The manuscript tradition of the Greek Anthology, in which Straton's 
poems are found, is well enough known in its outlines.3 The Anthology 
derives in the main from the Anthologia Palatina, which in turn 
depends for the most part on an anthology made between A.D. 895 

and 900 by Constantinus Cephalas, archpriest of the palace at Con-
I Cow and Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge 1965) 2 vols. 

[hereafter, COW AND PAGE, HE]; The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams 
(Cambridge 1968) 2 vols. [hereafter, COW AND PAGE, Philip]. 

2 Bibliography in Cow and Page, HE II 681-84; Philip II 470f; H. Beckby, Anthologia 

Graeca I (Munich 1957) 90-99; and infra n.3. 
3 The fullest account of P is still contained in C. Preisendanz's preface to his Anthologia 

Palatina [a facsimile of the MS.] 2 vols. (Leyden 1911). There are many others; among them, 
P. Waltz, Anthologie Grecque I (Paris 1928) xxxviii-xlviii, and Gow and Page, HE I xxxiii­
xxxviii. Of many accounts of PI, there is an authoritative one by D. C. C. Young in ParPass 
10 (1955) 197ff, and another in Cow and Page, HE I xxxviii-xli. The syl/ogae minores are 
described by H. Stadtmliller, Anthologia Graeca I (Leipzig 1894) vi-x, xiiif. and by Waltz, 
op.cit. I lii-lviii. For a detailed discussion of virtually the entire manuscript tradition, see 
R. Aubreton, "La tradition manuscrite des epigrammes de l'Anthologie palatine," REA 70 

(1968) 32-82 [hereafter, AUBRETON, REA]. 

371 



372 THE MANUSCRIPT OF STRATON'S MUSA PUERILIS 

stantinople in 917.' The Palatine Anthology is preserved in one manu­
script, P.5 P has generally been thought to have been written in the 
tenth century; but some scholars have assigned it to the eleventh, 
and Aubreton argues powerfully for the second half of that century 
on palaeographical grounds.6 The part of P comprising AP 1.1-9.563 
was written by two hands, A and J. The remainder of the manuscript 
was written by additional hands, Band B2. J seems to have supervised 
the creation ofP, since he supplements and corrects A, Band B2, and 
he evidently put their collections together. A may have used two 
exemplars; J himself apparently used a third; and Band B2 seem not 
to have used the exemplars of A. Two more contributors can be 
identified: a lemmatist, L (who may be J), and the corrector, C. C 
made many additions and alterations, and says himself that he is 
collating from a copy made by Michael the Archivist; since C worked 
only on AP 5.1-9.563, however, this copy has contributed nothing to 

AP 12. The so-called Apographa of P are collections of epigrams 
excerpted from P by various scholars, usually because those epigrams 
do not appear in the Planudean Anthology. 

The anthology of Maxim us Planudes is preserved in the manuscript 
PI, dated complete in September, 1301.7 Like P, PI is a collection of 
epigrams based on Cephal as, though Pia nudes probably did not use 
P itself.s PI consists, first, of seven chapters titled according to the 
subject of the epigrams each contains; this collection is PIA. It is fol­
lowed by miscellaneous material: selections from Theognis and 
Menander, part of a Thermis attributed to Paul the Silentiary, and 
epigrams of Euclid, Theon and Hermes Trismegistus. Then four 
additional chapters of epigrams follow, evidently supplementary to 

the first seven, arranged according to the previous plan but deriving 
from another source; this is Ph. The manuscript ends with the 

'See Aubreton, REA 45. The AP is in debt to other anthologies as well as to Cephalas', 
but these are not relevant to the subject of this paper. Cephalas' own sources include the 
Garlands of Meleager (2nd cent. B.C.) and Philip (I cent.), the Ring of Agathias (VI cent.)­
for all of which, see AP 4-and of course the Musa Puerilis of Straton (II cent.). For the 
identification of Cephalas, see P. Wolters, De Epigrammatum Graecorum Anthologiis Libellus 
(Halle 1882) II. 

5 The greater part ofP is Cod. Gr. 23 in Heidelberg. A smaller part, left in Paris when the 
greater was returned to Germany in 1816, is Cod.Gr. suppl. 384. 

8 Aubreton, REA 46f, 56-63. 
7 PI is Cod. Ven.Marc. 481, the author's autograph. 
8 Aubreton, "L'archetype de I'Anthologie planudeenne," Scriptorium 23 (1969) 69-87, 

believes the origin of the entire Planudean tradition can be found in Cod.Paris.Gr. 2744, 
which is incomplete; see, however, Aubreton's stemma in REA pl.1. 



W. M. CLARKE 373 

Paraphrasis of Nonnus. Both PIA and PIB contain some poems not in 
P and omit some others that P contains. 

Smaller collections (the syllogae minores) are related to the an­
thology of Cephalas by various lines.9 Among these are: syll. S, with 
114 epigrams :10 syll. ];11, a collection of 58 epigrams,u closely related 
to syll. E; syll. E, with 82 epigrams, collected in Constantinople 
between 886 and 911 ;12 and syll. E, with 121 epigrams, probably 
collected in the ninth century.13 The syllogae minores contain some 
epigrams which are not in P and in some cases not in PI. 

Marginal notes in P identify Cephalas as the editor of a source 
anthology containing amorous (but not specifically paederastic), 
votive, funerary and descriptive epigrams. The introductions to AP 

5-12 are apparently his.1 4 AP 12 (in J's index at the beginning of P, 
e' ~ 'TWV E'Tpa'Twvoc 'ToiJ EapouxvoiJ) is confined almost exclusively to 

paederastic epigrams.15 The book is introduced as follows: 

8 See Aubreton, REA pl.!. 
10 Cod.Paris.Gr.suppl. 352 (XIII cent.), and an abridgement, Cod.Paris.Gr. 1630 (XIV cent.). 

The date of the collection is uncertain. 
11 These poems are written in a XII or XIII-cent. hand on six blank pages at the beginning 

of P, three at the end, and in various spaces throughout the manuscript. 
12 Cod.Paris.Gr. 1773 (XV cent.), 2720 (XVI cent.), and Cod.Laur.Gr. 57.29 (XVI cent.). 
13 Likewise found in Paris. 1773 and Laur. 57.29. 
14 See Aubreton, REA 63-67, who prints them all. Cf P. Wolters, "De Constantini 

Cephalae Anthologia," RhM 38 (1883) 107. 
15 The vast majority of these poems appears only in P. PI has 19,28,47, 50f, 60, 82,89, 

103['113,136,172 (none of which is ascribed to Straton in AP), and 234f, 239 (ascribed to 
Straton in AP; PIa nudes ascribes the first two to Meleager, gives no ascription for the third). 
These appear in Planudes' ch.7, which he titles "love epigrams," and which he frankly 
admits to having censored. It is thus not surprising that, of these poems Planudes preserves, 
most belong to the group (identified infra) that are either not clearly paederastic or are 
explicitly heterosexual. Only one (136) alludes even obliquely to a physical relationship; 
characteristically, in that poem Planudes has altered the word 'boy' to 'girl' (AP 12.136.2, 
API 7.196.2). Cow and Page, HE I xlf, think Planudes may have had everything in Cephalas 
at his disposal; Aubreton, REA 36, 61, thinks he had only a very reduced tradition. Syll. S 
(see supra) has 18f 29,50,58,118 (none ascribed to Straton in AP), and 21,181,185,196,209, 
214,224,235,237,241 (ascribed to Straton in AP; syll. S has no ascriptions, omits 237.1 and 
attaches 235 to 237). The syll. Barberino- Vaticana (Cod.Barb.Gr. 1.123 and Cod. Vat-Gr. 240, 

both XVI cent.) contains 54 epigrams, 33 of which are found in AP 5, and 17 in AP 12: 17, 20, 
59f, 65, 69, 75-77, 79, 86,173 (none ascribed to Straton in AP), and If, 4,196, 237.3f(ascribed 
to Straton in AP; syll. Barb.-Vat. ascribes 1 to Straton, attaches 2 to I, gives no ascription for 
4, ascribes 196 to Straton and 237.3fto Numenius). Syll.Barb.- Vat. was made in the XVI cent. 
by Lascaris, apparently to supplement chapter seven of PI, and is independent of P; it 
appears to derive from Planudes' second source, PIB. Syll. F (Cod.Laur.Gr. 32-50 and 91-8, 
both XVI cent.) contains 50 epigrams, including AP 12.144, in AP not ascribed to Straton. 



374 THE MANUSCRIPT OF STRATON'S MUSA PUERILIS 

And what kind of man would I be if, after acquainting you with 
everything I have recorded, I were to conceal the Muse of Boy-love 
by Straton of Sardis? Which he published for the fun of it, for his 
friends, taking personal pleasure in the style of the epigrams, not in 
their point of view. So take the following poems; as the tragedian 
says, "In dances the decent woman will not be corrupted."16 

It is quite clear that the editor means this book to consist of epi­
grams by Straton. But in fact, only 94 of the total 258 poems in AP 12 
are ascribed to him: 1-11, 13, 15f, 21, 175-229, 231, 234-55 and 258.I7 
The rest are ascribed to various authors, known or unknown, or are 
headed "uncertain."18 Some of these epigrams are not paederastic (83, 
114, 147, 153, 173; in 53, 82, 113, 131, 161 the neuter diminutive of a 
girl's name seems to have been mistaken for a boy's); other epigrams 
are not clearly paederastic or heterosexual (e.g., 32, 98, 100, 103f, 115, 
117, 172). These 164 poems not ascribed to Straton are generally 
agreed by scholars to derive in most cases from the other sources used 
by Cephalas in creating his anthology; probably in the main (some 145 
epigrams) from Meleager's Garland.19 The problem of the anonymous 
epigrams has been dealt with by GoW.20 Since there are long sequences 
evidently deriving from one or the other of Cephalas' source collec­
tions, anonymous epigrams found within such sequences are tenta­
tively assigned to the source for the sequence in question. Thus, of 36 
anonymous epigrams in AP 12 (including the headless 62 and 152), 
Gow believes with Wifstrand that 31 were incorporated by Meleager 

18 Cf. Eur. Bacch. 317f. 
1712.1 has no heading in P; syll. Barb.- Vat. ascribes it to Straton. 12.184, 201f, 222, 228, 238, 

240 have no heading in P; they are ascribed by all scholars to Straton because each appears 
well within long sequences of his poems. 

18 Alcaeus 29f, 64; Alpheus of Mytilene IS; Antipater 97; Aratus 129; Asdepiades 46, 50, 
75, 105, 135, 153, 161-63; Asclepiades of Adramyttium 36; Asclepiades or Posidippus 77; 
Automedon 34; Callimachus 43, 51, 71, 73, 102, 118, 134, 139, 148-50, 230; Diodes 35; 
Dionysius lOS; Dioscorides 14, 37, 42, 169-71; Evenus 172; Flaccus 12; Fronto 174, 233; 
Glaucus 44; Julius Leonides 20; Meleager 23,33,41,47-49,52-54, 56f, 59f, 63, 65, 6S, 70, 72, 
74,76,78,S0-86,92,94~ 101, 106, lo9f, 113f, 117, 125-2S, 132f,137, 141, 144, 147, 154, 157-59, 
164f, 167, 256f; Mnasalcas 13S; Numenius of Tarsus 28; Phanias 31; Philodemus 173; 
Polystratus 91; Posidippus 45, 9S, 120, 131, 16S; Rhianus 3S, 58, 93, 121, 142,146; Scythinus 
22,232.; Statyllius Flaccus 25-27; Thymocles 32; Tullius Laureas 24; "uncertain" 17, 19, 39f, 
61, 66f, 69, 79, 88-90, 96, 99f, 103f, 107, I11f, 115f, 119, 122f, 130, 136, 140, 143, 145, 151, 155f, 
160. 62 and 152 have no heading in P but are joined to the epigrams that precede them. 

18 Meleager did not separate paederastic from heterosexual poems. See A. Wifstrand, 
Studien z. griech. Anthologie (Lunds Univ. Arsskr. 23,3 [1926]) S. 

10 A. S. F. Gow, The Greek Anthology: Sources and Ascriptions (Soc.Prom.Hell.Stud. suppl. 
9, London 1955) 13ff. 



W. M. CLARKE 375 

into his Garland from a largely (or entirely) paederastic anthology 
which did not name authors.2l Aubreton thinks all but three of the 
"uncertain" epigrams come from Meleager; only 12.15, 17, 19 do 
not.22 Aubreton is mistaken in thinking 15 is "uncertain" (P ascribes it 
to Straton): and the syll. Barberino-Vaticana (supra n.15) ascribes 17 to 
"Asclepiades or Posidippus," an ascription accepted by GOW.23 In 
short, we may assume with relative confidence that all the "uncertain" 
epigrams but one, 12.19, are the work of authors other than Straton.24. 

Yet we are left with the more fundamental question: what are these 
poems, by extraneous authors named and unnamed, doing in 
Straton's book? Scholars often casually suppose that Cephal as put 
them there.25 But, as we have seen, both the index and the introduc­
tion to AP 12 in P ascribe the contents to Straton alone. Cephalas 
acknowledges none of the extraneous poems. The culprit is likelier 
to have been a later copyist: perhaps even B, who wrote AP 9.564-
11.66.3 and 11.118-13.31.26 As Aubreton observes, "Le scribe A devait 
connaitre les editions des Couronnes et du Cycle dont il a donne les 
preambules dans de livre IV, et c'est probablement parmi ces 
epigrammes que son successeur trouva la matiere de ce livre, tout en y 
ajoutant les epigrammes de Straton, certainement connues de 
Cephalas."27 

In his important article on AP 12 Aubreton proposed a process by 
which this book might have acquired its peculiar contents.28 He made 
a significant discovery at the outset: epigrams 1-11 comprise a total of 

21 Cow, op.cit. (supra n.20) 25. 
22 R. Aubrewn, "Le livre XII de l'Anthologie palatine: La Muse de Strawn," By~antion 

39 (1969) [hereafter, AUBRETON, By~antion] 37 n.2. 
23 Cow, op.cit. (supra n.20) 32. 
24 19 cannot be ascribed to any author with complete confidence, especially not on the 

basis of style: see Cow's forceful caveat, op.cit. (supra n.20) 43f. 
25 "Bk. xii was constructed by somebody, possibly Cephalas, who took from Meleager's 

amatory section the epigrams which he thought matched the Mousa Paidik€ of Straw, and 
added about a dozen from other post-Meleagrian sources." So Cow, op.cit. (supra n.20) 24f. 
Cf R. Weisshaupl, "Die Crabgedichte d. griech. Anthologie." Abh. d. Arch.-Epigr. Seminares 
d. Univ. Wien 7 (1889) 41; and M. Boas, "Die Sylloge Rufiniana," Philologus 73 (1914--16) 7f. 
Strawn himself can hardly be considered responsible: "Imaginer que cene insertion est 
l'oeuvre de Straton semble peu rationnel; Ie poete aurait ainsi donne la part essentielle it 
ses predecesseurs pour ne prendre lui-meme que la portion congrue. Ce n'est guere l'habi­
tude des auteurs." So Aubreton, By~antion 45. Cf Wolters, op.cit. (supra n.14) 108 n.1. 

26 B is almost solely responsible for what we read in AP 12. Lemmata in P after 9.563 are 
very rare; C contributed nothing, and J's contributions are minimal. 

17 Aubreton, By~antion 61. 
28 Aubreton, By~antion 35-52. 



376 THE MANUSCRIPT OF STRATON'S MUSA PUERILIS 

54 vv.; the heterogeneous group of epigrams 12-35 comprise a total of 
108 vv. ;29 and the group of epigrams 230-33, plus Straton's epigrams 
234-55, again comprise a total of 108 vv. Since these verse-totals are 
each divisible by the number 27, Aubreton surmised that an arche­
type with 27 vv. to the page must have existed. 

He therefore suggests that a scribe, sometime during the 150 years 
that separated Cephalas from the creation ofP, found two collections 
of epigrams: 

1. A binion offour folios, containing epigrams 12-35 and 230-55, for 
a total of 216 vv. with 27 vv. per page. 

2. A ternion of six folios, containing epigrams 1-11 and 175-229, for 
a total of 318 vv. with 27 vv. per page (the last page containing 21 vv.). 

Aubreton believes that the binion would have been a collection 
from miscellaneous sources (including editions ofStraton) made by an 
unknown editor. The ternion would have represented the only poems 
of Straton which Cephalas had included in his anthology. 

Aubreton's scribe copied the binion first and then the ternion. 
Subsequently another ternion with perhaps 30 vv. per page, contain­
ing the Meleagrian epigrams (36--171) and the heterogeneous epi­
grams 172-74, found its way into the newly copied binion between 
fols. 2 and 3, thus forming a quinternion. This quinternion, together 
with the ternion copied by Aubreton's scribe, would have contained 
the epigrams we know, but in this order: 

12-35 36 - 174 230-55 

~ 
1 - 11 175-229 

~ 
The diagrams represent the sheets of the two quires. The quinternion 
on the left would have consisted of 5 sheets/l0 folios/20 pages; it would 
have contained epigrams 12-35, 36--174, 230-55, in that order. The 
ternion on the right would have consisted of 3 sheets/6 folios/12 pages; 
it would have contained epigrams 1-11, 175-229, in that order. Note 
once more that this ternion, in Aubreton's opinion, would have 
represented the only poems of Straton which Cephalas had included 
in his anthology. 

Let us consider for a moment the order of the epigrams in these two 
hypothetical quires imagined by Aubreton. Virtual confirmation of 

.836-171 have long been recognized as a block taken from Meleager. See Weisshaupl, 
loc.dt. (supra n.25), and Cow and Page, HE I xxivf. 



W. M. CLARKE 377 

that order can be found in syll. S. The epigrams known to P which 
appear in syll. S occur in the sylloga in this order: 18f, 21, 118, 29, 58, 
235, 237, 241, 181, 185, 209, 214, 224, 196, 50. Only three (29, 58, 50) do 
not appear in the sylloga in the order ventured by Aubreton for his 
suggested stage in the tradition.30 

Observe once more that the quinternion consists of 5 sheets and the 
ternion of three sheets. Aubreton suggests that certain of the sheets 
forming the quinternion and the ternion were torn down their 
creases, as often happened particularly to outside sheets. The result of 
every torn sheet is two loose folios. If fols. 9 and 10 of the quinternion 
and fo1. 1 of the ternion were torn loose in this way, a simple displace­
ment of those three folios out of their original order would produce 
the actual order of the epigrams known to us in AP 12. 

This is an ingenious hypothesis, but it has some weaknesses. It does 
not, for example, account for 12.258 (the last epigram in the book, and 
ascribed to Straton). It is also used by Aubreton to support his thesis 
(or perhaps he means it to be supported by his thesis) that Cephal as 
included in his anthology only a few of Straton's poems from the Musa 
Puerilis.31 Aubreton tries to buttress this thesis with some of Cephalas' 
remarks in the introductions to his funerary, satirical and convivial 
epigrams: "I am sure the character of votive epigrams has been made 
sufficiently clear"; and "Men love to make fun of one another, or to 
listen to someone else teasing his friends: how this was done among 
the ancients, I will show by means of the following"; and "So that you 
will not be deprived of these, I have taken from them, too, those that 
come to hand." Clearly Cephal as means the recipient of his anthology 
to learn from it the character of types of epigrams; he is not compiling 
a comprehensive anthology. But this does not in itself restrict him in 
the number of poems he will provide as examples. There is nothing 
here to force the conclusion that he did not copy all the poems in 
Straton's book, provided only that Straton's collection was not enor­
mous (as, e.g., any comprehensive collection of satirical epigrams 
would certainly be). It is also noteworthy that Cephalas' introduction 

30 Aubreton offers no explanation for the placement of 29,58,50 in syll. S; they may 
simply have been displaced by a copyist at some later stage in the transmission. Cf the 
order of poems common to AP 12 which appear in PI: 113, 234f come first; the rest appear 
in the same order found in P. It should also be observed that 29, 58, 50 are not poems of 
Straton; they are the work of Alcaeus, Rhianus and Asclepiades, respectively. The order of 
Straton's epigrams, as reconstructed by Aubreton in his theoretical quinternion and ternion, 
is confirmed exactly by the order of Straton's poems in syll. S. 

31 Aubreton, Byzantion 36. 



378 THE MANUSCRIPT OF STRATON'S MUSA PUERILIS 

to AP 12 is the only one in which he mentions his source by name. 
Elsewhere, we must assume he was working from heterogeneous 
anthologies, or perhaps from several collections by individual authors. 
Only here is it plain that he has the poems of one author in hand. Too, 
he says nothing here about the character of a genre or about selections. 
The plain meaning of his introductory statement is that he will set 
down Strawn's Musa Puerilis, nothing more and nothing less. 

How many of Straton's poems in AP 12 did Cephal as know and in­
clude in his anthology? Do we have the whole contents of the Musa 
Puerilis? Aubreton thinks Cephal as knew only 1-11 and 175-229. But I 
think there is reason to believe he knew more than those. 

Aubreton observed the intriguing fact that certain distinct groups 
of epigrams in AP 12 comprise verse-totals which are divisible by the 
number 27; but he failed to pursue his discovery to an even more 
intriguing one: the total of all Straton's verses in AP 12 is itself divisible 
by 27: 

epigrams verses 
1-11 54 
13f, 15f, 21 16 
175-229 264 
231 4 
234-55 90 
258 4 

432 

An archetype containing these epigrams, with 27 vv. per page, 
would fill 4 sheets/8 folios/16 pages exactly-a perfect quaternion, 
commonest of all quires. 

I submit that this is, in fact, the Musa Puerilis, complete, as read by 
Cephal as. Aubreton acknowledges that the total of Straton's poems 
in AP might comprise the whole work: "Cet ensemble pouvait 
constituer un rouleau de papyrus de longeur moyenne, suffisant pour 
une oeuvre de ce genre."32 But he sees no reason to believe that this is 
the case and does not in fact believe it. Yet Straton himself in AP 
12.208 addresses his <little book' in terms that clearly describe a single 
papyrus roll of moderate size. I suggest that someone, perhaps 
Cephalas himself, realized that the corpus would fit exactly into a 

31 Aubreton. By~antion 39 n.1. 



W. M. CLARKE 379 

quaternion, provided the pages were lined for 27 vv. This is the reason 
for the recurring number 27 which was noticed by Aubreton in the 
first place and which appears to have controlled much of the copying 
in the manuscript tradition between the tenth and eleventh centuries. 

But how did the epigrams of this quaternion become confused with 
extraneous material to produce AP 12? Aubreton's hypothesis is com­
pelling-especially since the order of the epigrams in syll. S virtually 
confirms it. I shall suggest a stage in the manuscript tradition earlier 
than the one suggested by Aubreton, a stage which led to the stage he 
describes. I will also make one change in his hypothetical order of the 
epigrams as given above, a change neither denied nor confirmed by 
the order of epigrams in syll. S. 

Let us suppose that Straton's book, as used by Cephalas, was pre­
served in a quaternion of 27 vv. per page, the epigrams appearing in 
this order: 

FOL. 1 

FOLS.2-3 
FOLS.4-8 

epp. 1-11 

epp. 13, 15f, 21, 231, 234-54, 258 
epp. 175-229, 255 

(54 vv.) 
(108 vv.) 
(270 vv.) 

Recall that each page is lined for 27 vv., and assume that every page 
from beginning to end is completely filled. Note also that fols. 1,2 and 
4 begin in each case with a new epigram; and that fo1s. 1, 3 and 8 end 
in each case with the concluding verse of an epigram. 

Let us suppose now that the three outer sheets were torn down 
their creases. Fols. 1 and 8, 2 and 7, 3 and 6 were thus separated from 
each other. Only the inner sheet comprising fo1s. 4 and 5 remained 
intact: 

FOLS. 1 2 3 4~ 6 7 8 

~"S~ 
Let us suppose further that fol. 1 remained with fols. 4-8; but that 
fols. 2 and 3 together were separated from the rest: 

FOLS. 2 3~ FOLS. 1 4 5 6 7 8 

~---- ~~~ 
Now let us suppose that a scribe got possession of fols. 2 and 3 and set 
about to make an anthology which would include these poems of 
Straton, as well as others (from Philip, Meleager, et al.) at his disposal 
in other sources. In fols. 2 and 3 of the original quaternion he possesses 



380 THE MANUSCRIPT OF STRATON'S MUSA PUERILIS 

epp. 13, 15f, 21, 231, 234-54, 258. Since the two folios of Straton are 
lined for 27 vv. per page, he lines his own pages accordingly. He begins 
his anthology with a "bearded youth" couplet of Flaccus (AP 12.12) to 
which his opening poem ofStraton (the "beardless doctors," AP 12.13) 
will make a nice contrast. After mixing authors for awhile (AP 12.12-
35, 230-33), our scribe tires of collating and simply copies off the rest 
of Straton's epigrams from the two folios he possesses (AP 12.234-54, 
258). It is plausible that Straton's poems on these two folios were his 
major, or most interesting, source-as his imitation of the 27 vv. per 
page in his exemplar would suggest. 

Our scribe has thus produced, in substance, the binion which 
Aubreton imagined. except that the last poem is not 255 but 258: 

epp. 12~8 

If, as I have surmised. this binion was lined for 27 vv. per page, then 
the last page was only two lines short of being completely filled. 

Aubreton's scribe subsequently gets possession of this binion-and, 
in addition, the epigrams from fols. 1, 4-8 of the original quaternion. 
If the epigrams from those folios had been recopied, it is plausible to 
assume that they, too, had been copied on pages lined for 27 vv. as in 
the exemplar. The result would in substance form Aubreton's ternion 
except that the last poem would be not 229 but 255: 

epp. 1-11, 175-229, 255 

~ 
If this ternion was lined for 27 vv .. then of course, exactly like foIs. 1, 
4-8 of the original quaternion which were its exemplar, the ternion 
would be completely filled with verse down to the last line on the last 
page. (Note that the existence of this ternion as such need not be 
postulated. Fols. 1, 4-8 of the original quaternion, for the most part 
loose but still kept together, could have come straight into the hands 
of Aubreton's scribe without having been recopied; the scribe will 
have had the same epigrams in the same order, in either case.) 

Aubreton's scribe now copies the binion nearly to the end of the 
last page, where he stops before copying the last poem (258). Resuming 
his work later, he makes the mistake of copying the last poem from 
the ternion (255) instead of the last poem from the bini on (258) on 
which he had been working. The mistake would be a natural one: 



\V. M. CLARKE 381 

both collections have 27 vv. per page; one is written completely down, 
one nearly down, to the end of the last page; both end with poems by 
Straton. 

Realizing his mistake, Aubreton's scribe begins his own ternion by 
copying 258 from the end of his exemplar-binion. He then proceeds 
to copy the poems in his exemplar-ternion (1-11, 175-229), of course 
omitting 255 at the very end because he has already put that poem at 
the end of his own binion. The order of epigrams in his binion and 
ternion thus looks like this: 

epp. epp. 

An extraneous ternion containing epigrams hy \lcle'lgn ct al. (36-174) 

is now inserted between fols. 2 and 3 of the binion, as Aubreton 
suggested, producing the general order of all the poems as apparently 
known to syll. S. 

Aubreton's hypothecated accidental tearing of some sheets and dis­
placement of loose folios then takes place. But since in that displace­
ment it is fo1. 1 of the ternion that finds its way to the front, 258 is the 
first poem in the collection. When Meleager's two poems (AP 
12.256f) are added at the end, an editor who thinks (like Aubreton33 ) 

that 258 is also an appropriate conclusion copies it into the final posi­
tion at the end of the anthology. 

But 258 is not, of course, necessarily a conclusion poem at all. Un­
like Meleager's 257, it makes no reference to being a final piece 
(neither does Meleager's 256). Straton's 258 is instead a type of the 
standard excusatio familiar in the works of Latin lyric poets who write 
this kind of verse; cf Catullus 16, Martial 1.4 and 11.15, none at the 
end of a book. It is strange that Aubreton will not grant that Cephalas 
knew this poem, since the introduction to AP 12 (see supra)-itself an 
excusatio on Straton's behalf-sounds suspiciously as if it were based 
on 258; cf Cephalas' 7Tat~wv with Straton's 7TatYVta (258.1), and 
Cephalas' 7TpOC TOllC 7TA1]ctov cmdudKvvTO with Straton's aAAoLcLV &d 
rpLAo7TaLcL xapaccw I ypu/L/LaT' (258.3f). On the other hand, as Aubreton 
is at pains to point out, AP 12.1 is certainly the first poem in Straton's 
collection CEK LlLOC &pxw/LECOa, etc.); and so I have assumed in my 
reconstruction of the order of epigrams in what I believe to have been 
the original quaternion (see supra). 

33 Aubreton, By{antion 39. 



382 THE MANUSCRIPT OF STRA TON'S MUSA PUERILIS 

It will be observed that in the main I accept the plausibility of 
Aubreton's reconstruction of a stage in the manuscript tradition just 
prior to the creation ofP. My own reconstruction represents the stage 
prior to Aubreton's: it is an attempt to account for the fact that all 94 
of Straton's poems in AP 12 can form a perfect quaternion with 27 vv. 
per page; and an attempt to link that hypothetical quaternion, 
through Aubreton's reconstruction, to the condition of Book 12 in P. 
I believe this can be done, and I therefore believe we have no reason 
not to postulate such a quaternion. And the simplest way to account 
for its existence, if it did exist, seems to me to accept it as the Musa 
Puerilis, known to Cephal as and incorporated by him entire into his 
anthology. 

We are left, however, with the other poems by Straton known to us 
outside AP 12. These are found in AP 11 (the convivial and satiric 
epigrams). There are five of them: 11.19, 21f, 117,225. Are these poems 
to be considered an additional part of the Musa Puerilis? 

Three are certainly not additional poems. 11.21 is no more than a 
variant reading of 12.242. Respectively: 

n ' \ , 'A '() '''' "" \ ~ PCPTJV TY)V cavpav ya wv pooooaKTVIlOV ELXEV' 
Vvv S' aVT~v Tf8TJ Kat POS61TTJXVV EXEL. (I 1.21] 

llpcflTJv rTJV cavpav poSoSaKTvAov, "AAKtll:, ESELgac 
vvv aVT~v TfSTJ Kat POS61TTJXVV EXELC. [12.242] 

It will be observed that the difference in readings really depends on 
the choice between the nominative' Aya()wv and the vocative" AAKLIl:' 
This is not the place to consider variant readings in detail, but we may 
note that the vocative of 12.242 is more consistent with Straton's other 
poems in AP 12. In that book the poems in which Straton addresses a 
boy by name outnumber by nearly three to one the poems in which 
he names him in some other case.34 11.117 can hardly be part of the 
Musa Puerilis; it does not deal with love, paederastic or otherwise, but 
is a type of the standard satire aimed at doctors: Chryses could see 
very well until the physician Capito put salve on his eyes; now he 
can't see an elephant standing nearby, etc. Also, with 10 vv., 11.117 is 
longer than any other poem known to be by Straton.35 11.19 is cer-

34 Vocative of address: 12.9, 16, 21, 176,181-83,186,193, 196f, 202, 209, 213, 215, 218, 224, 
228, 237, 241f, 247, 251; nominative subject, etc.: 12.11, 15, 184,201, 204,207, 226,231. 
Neither Agathon nor Alkimos is named elsewhere in Strawn's poems. 

35 12.4,8, 175, 195,208, 211f, 222, 238 have 8 vv. each. The remaining 85 poems in AP 12 

and the rest in AP 11 have 6 vv. or fewer. 



W. M. CLARKE 383 

tainly paederastic in sentiment, but it is explicitly sympotic in ex­
pression.36 Cephalas regarded such poems as constituting a virtual 
genre: TO eVjL7rOTtKOV ErOOe, as he calls it in the separate introduction 
he wrote for his collection of them.37 Further, 11.19 mentions no specific 
boy and is evidently addressed to a peer.3S Though this epigraITl suits 
the spirit of the Musa Puerilis, it is reasonable to believe that (like 
11.117) it was written for another kind of collection, perhaps one of 
toasts and satires, equivalent to AP 11. 

11.22 and 11.225 are not so easy to dismiss. There is no denying that 
they are both perfectly consistent with the spirit and the letter of AP 
12. Indeed, what they are doing in a collection of convivial and satiric 
epigrams I cannot tell, unless the unsubtle pun of the one and the 
labored arithmetic of the other were thought by the compiler to make 
them more funny than erotic. The circumstances of 11.225, in fact, are 
treated again in 12.210: the poem is different, but precisely the same 
tale is told. But this is worth noticing, because nowhere else in 
Straton's known poems can such a pair be found. Of course he can 
treat a theme again and again, in other pairs, even in other groups of 
poems. But in AP 12, though he may repeat themes, he never repeats 
exactly the same circumstances-as 11.225 and 12.210 do. Compare, 
for example, the two poems (12.15, 213) on what might be called the 
theme "Inanimate objects touch what I may not"; or the three poems 
(12.14, 205, 251) on what might be called the theme "When this little 
boy grows older, there will be serious business." In the Musa Puerilis 
Straton writes variations on themes; he does not duplicate. Since 
11.225 is duplicated by 12.210, I believe we have some grounds for 
supposing that it derives from an entirely different book of paederas­
tic poems, now lost, in which duplication of an epigram found else­
where would not be as obvious as it would in the same book.39 As for 
11.22, though Straton in AP 12 likes puns well enough (cf 12.8.4, 
12.11.4), I think it is fair to say that none in that book are as heavy­
handedly obvious as the play on 'serpent' in this poem. I am aware 

36 17' ,- .,., 'I ' 0' I ' .f.. ' .f.. \' , 0 ' nal 1n~ vvv ••• ov yap €C au::t 1TWfL€ ••• Kat CT€'I'avotc K€'I'al\ac 1TVKaCWfL€ a, Kat 

fLvplcWUfiV I auTOUC ••• I vvv .!V '!JLOL mt-rw JLIOu 'TO 7TAlOV oCTIa TaJLcX' I Vf:Kpa a€ A~uKa'\lwv 
aU'Ta KaTaK'\uccXTW. The epigram is more concerned with drinking than with love. There are 
no sympotic poems by Straton in AP 12. 

37 See Aubreton, REA 64. 
38 As are only 3, 175, 185, 187, 195,206,255 in AP 12. 
39 There are examples passim in Martial. 



384 THE MANUSCRIPT OF STRA TON'S MUSA PUERILIS 

that this is no more than a personal judgement and cannot be proved; 
but I do not believe the poem is even his. 

A full discussion of Strawn's style must be reserved w another time. 
In the last analysis, the best argument for limiting the Musa Puerilis 
to the full contents of Strawn in AP 12 remains the fact that those 
poems will make a perfect quaternion with 27 vv. per page; and 
significant traces of groups of 27 vv. can be found in P. If he knew 
more poems in this collection, why does Cephal as in his introduction 
say (or even imply) nothing about excerpts or selections that come w 
hand, as he does in other introductions? Of Strawn's five poems in AP 
11, three obviously have little or no excuse for inclusion, and the 
remaining two are suspicious. In his epigrams included in AP 12 we 
have, I believe, the manuscript of Strawn's Musa Puerilis. 

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 

October, 1976