The Scribal Habits of Demetrius Moschus Speake, Graham Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1974; 15, 1; ProQuest pg. 113 The Scribal Habits of Demetrius Moschus Graham Speake I N A PREVIOUS articlel Francis Vian and I established the existence and importance of a group of late XV- and early XVI-century MSS of Apollonius Rhodius. This group (known collectively as the d group) sufJered much contamination from the rest of the transmission but can be considered to be principally the work of one man, namely Demetrius Moschus, who copied four of the five MSS of the group. His editorial technique has already been discussed.2 This article is con­ cerned with the alterations Moschus made in the text of the A rgonautica. "The unconscious habits of scribes are as important for an editor to understand as their deliberate actions," Dawe rightly tells us.3 For this reason I find his use of the general term 'emendation' to cover "anything in which the mind has a part" unsatisfactory, since the mindless is surely as important an indication of the scribe's worth qua scribe as the mindful. I have therefore chosen to employ the term 'degenerative change', coined by Mrs Easterling,' in assessing the effect of Moschus' pen on the transmission of Apollonius. Mrs Easterling begins her discussion of the text of Sophocles' .~jax offered by the 'Roman' family as follows: Most of the characteristic 'Roman' readings are just the sort one would expect to find in a text that went on being copied so far into the Middle Ages, symptoms, in fact, of the natural process of de­ generation. These 'degenerative changes' can be divided into two categories: mechanical errors (which abound in p) and deliberate alterations (in a charitable mood one might call them emendations). These deliberate emendations, though no doubt usually intended as improvements, are essentially corruptions; they are part of the pro­ cess of Simplification and 'normalization' that affects every text in its successive re-copyings. 1 "The So-called O-Manuscripts of Apollonius," GRBS 14 (1973) 301-18. 2 Ibid. pp.315-17. 3 R. D. Dawe, The Col/ation and Investigation of Manuscripts of Aeschylus (Cambridge 1%4)47. , CQ N.S. 17 (1967) 58. 113 114 THE SCRIBAL HABITS OF DEMETRIUS MOSCHUS This seems to me the most realistic approach to adopt. Selected instances of degeneration in the Moschan manuscripts will be dis­ cussed under the following heads: (a) alteration on metrical grounds; (b) Homericism; (c) echo other than Homericism; (d) trivial sub­ stitution or substitution of a common or late word for a rare or early one; (e) easier syntax preferred; (f) change due to misunderstanding; (g) intrusion of a gloss; (h) other embellishments (which mayor may not be mechanical). There will inevitably be some degree of overlap between categories. Whether or not the reader agrees with my classification of the alterations, it will become obvious that we are dealing with a scribe who was well versed in early epic and not inhibited by over-cautiousness. If on occasion he is described as foolish or rash this may be taken as either indirect criticism of his predecessor(s) or a reflection of the fact that even the best of scribes is liable to carelessness. The manuscripts discussed are: M Milan, Ambros. 426 (H.22 sup.) (Books 1 and 2), early XVI century R Vatican, gr. 1358, ca. 1505, Demetrius Moschus Q Vatican, gr. 37, ca. 1491-1514, Demetrius Moschus C Rome, Casan. 408 (G.III.5), 1490-1510, Demetrius Moschus n Paris, gr. 2729, 1490-1510, Demetrius Moschus d Collective siglum for the group MRQCD The lemmata are taken from Frankel's Oxford Classical Text (Oxford 1961). Other editions cited are those of Brunck (Strasburg 1780), Wellauer (Leipzig 1828), Mooney (Dublin 1912; repro Amster­ dam 1964), Gillies (Book 3, Cambridge 1928), and Vian (Book 3, Paris 1961). (a) ALTERATION ON METRICAL GROUNDS 1.19 Ka,.dHv] yE KaJLEiv R. yE, "the universal panacea,"5 comes to R's rescue, but it is a distinct improvement on KaJLEiv. 334 7'0io] 7'0i6 y' D. To avoid the hiatus. We may note another hiatus earlier in the same line, 'correction' of which is not attempted. This illustrates the sporadic and unsystematic nature of these altera­ tions. 665 • I "'." " "]' I "'." "D All VJLEWV () H nc apEWV E7TOC VJLELWV () EL KEV nc E7TOC. our MSS 6 Dawe. op.cit. (supra n.3) 44. GRAH.'\l\I SPEAKE 115 read U/.L€twv \-vith LAPE. D restores the metre and retains the syntax,6 but at the expense of a vital adjective. Presumably the idea came from the end of 663, €i K€ 8a€t€v. 976 KA€t'T'I']] KA€t'T'I'] T' RQ. To avoid the hiatus. 1313 €7TOpega'To] j1-ey' opega'To M C. An attempt to remove the superfluous syllable in the text of k CJ.tiy· €7Topiga'To). See Frankel's apparatus. 2.1 Ev(}a 8' E'cav J EV(}' exp' EcaV RQ C. EV(}' Ecav is the reading of B P MD which, as the copyist realizes, does not scan. 143 hafLov'To] €Aacx.CKOJ) M RQ. A correction of €AaVVOVTO which D reads here,7 no doubt influenced by 8'1']LaacKov above in 142. 160 aYXLaAov cPVAAOLC 'TV mop] ciYXLaAw T-ry yap Kat 'Tfj MRQC. Faced with aYXLaAw 'Tfj Kat 'Tij (k) the scribe employs yap as a stopgap. 256 v6cr EVL] €VI. cPP€cI. MRCD, j1-€'Tcl cPP€cI. Q. This is the only reading which Frankel mentions anywhere as proof of D's descent from B.8 But in fact k read 'TaV'Ta €VL{3aAA€O (sic EKB); P and a corrected independently: 'Tav'T' €VL{3aAA€O (}Vj1-w P, TaV'Ta €VI. cPP€cI. {3aAA€O d. All one can say then is that here d rests on the text of k.9 To avoid the hiatus Q emended €VI. to j1-€Tcl. 271 7TOV'TOLO] 7TOVTOV R. Faced with 7TOV'TOLO cPope(p )OVTO (MQCD), the scribe makes the obvious correction. 329 €cPL€j1-at] acPdj1-€v MRQ. An attempt to correct Uj1-€V in D. 397 ExonaL] EacLv MRQC. An intelligent suggestion to replace EXOVTat, which is omitted by BH.10 513 (}€cav -rypavov] (Uccav €7111pavov M. The scribe may have mis­ counted the number of syllables, or found (Uccav in his model and corrected the wrong word. Alternatively it could simply be faulty introduction of a compound form. 725 7TVOLV oe] 7TVOLVCL RQ. k could not tolerate the postponement of 8e and, followed by CD, wrote U7TO De. RQ were driven to correct 7TVOtfj to 7TVOLfjCL to give the line a metrical ending. 887 'TO 7TapodJE] 7Tpo7Tapodh MRQ. CDB omit TO; MRQ use the prefix 7TpO- as a stopgap. 6 For at ~'£ with the future indicative see Iliad 15.213. 7 See below, p.128, and H. Frankel, Einieitlmg zur kritischen Ausgabe der A.rgonautika des Apo/lonios (Goningen 1964) 90. s Frankel, op.cit. (supra n.7) 91 n. But see now Speake and Vian, op.cit. (silpra n.l) 307-09. 9 lowe this note to Francis Viano 10 See Speake and Vian, op.cit. (mpra n.l) 307. 116 THE SCRIBAL HABITS OF DEMETRIUS MOSCHUS 1103 ovpavov] v.poO£v D. MRQC retain k's unmetrical ovpavoO£v: D's suggestion is not without merit. 1114 KV/La7'a] KV/La 7'£ MRC, KV/La Se D. k reads KV/La, which D and MRC attempt to correct. 1165 Kat om. M. RQCDB read £lcav7'tc. M sees it is wrong but cannot find the right correction. 1200 Oc:ov] /xx R. C omits ocov; R seizes upon a suitable replacement. 1240 ?J,\B' iva 8~] EvOa S' iva M. C omits 8~; M attempts to restore the correct number of syllables. Frankel suggests, quite plausibly, that EVO' results from a gloss on iva. 3.223 ava,B'\v£cK£] ava,B'\v'£cK£ RQ. The uncompounded ,B'\v,w is much commoner than ,B'\vw so, pace Vian, normalization is more likely than assurance of a long v. 254 8/Lwat, Se 1To8wv 1TP07TCXpOLB£] S/Lwat, Se 7TCxpot.B£ C. All MSS omit 1To8oov. C is one degree more corrupt but offers a scannable line of five feet. 305 l:. I • I • , I ] l:. - • , I • ~£tVWV 7}/L£7'£pot.CtV £vt. /L£yapoLcLV ~£t.vov £vt. /L£yapot"v £v ~/L£7"poLCtV Q. Q inherits the reading g£ivov from k and successfully restores the metre, though the duplicated preposition is rather clumsy. The transposition of /L£yapotctv and ~/L£7"potCLV is harder to explain unless one or other had been omitted in the exemplar and inserted above the line. 437 av7'cf) K£V] 7'00 Kat /Lot D. Restoration of the metre but not of the sense. D still has a /LOL after /L£'\o£7'o. 445 B7}£i7'o om. C, pt1T7'fXCKE R, KpV1T7'£CK£ Q. RQ seem to be follow­ ing C here and make intelligent, if mutually contradictory, guesses to fill the gap. 529 1T£pla'\'\a] 1T£P' ti'\'\wv y£ C (1T£p' ti'\'\wv cett.). Unsuccessful re­ appearance of the 'universal panacea', employed no doubt to im­ prove the scansion of the second half of the line, if not of the first. 571 a7'£ 1T7'~CCOV7'ac] £1TL1T7'VCCOV7'ac RQ. 1T7'VCCOV7'ac in CD is the result of iotacism, which also afflicts RQ, but the addition of the prefix £1TL- is a great improvement metrically. a7'£ of course has no MS authority and is merely Frankel's suggestion. 673 8aKpvcLv occ£] SaKpvoLc£ R. The omission of OCC£ is inherited from k. R attempts correction but is apparently unaware that the second syllable of 8aKpvov is short, in spite of its appearance in the next line. But perhaps the scribe is ascribing to Apollonius an arbitrary lengthening of the v metri causa. GRAHAM SPEAKE 117 771 eytiJ vvv €vOa KaKwv 7} evOa] eywy KaKwv (7}) evO' 7} €vOa RQ. The root of the trouble is omission of vvv (lytiJv for €ytiJ vvv by haplography in D) for which RQ are attempting to cover up. 990 '<:"" ", , '0' -] \ <:"" , \ COL 0 av E'yw TE£CaLILL xapLV ILET01TLC EV apwYTJc COL u av EyW ILET01TtCOE TtcaLILL xapLV €1Tapwyfic D. The scribe is mistaken about the quantity of the first syllable of T{caLILL. 1136 >t.t1TOVC' t.t1Tovca yE RQ Cpc. Also the reading of Sand Paris.gr. 2844, but the obvious change may well have occurred independently to an intelligent scribe. 1200 ?]VELKE] €1TlvELKE C. k. followed by RQD, has removed the augment: reasonably enough, C makes up the lost syllable with a prepositional prefix. 1210 {mlvEp8EV] €cPV1TEpOEV RQ. k, followed by CD, has V1TEp8EV by haplography. The scribe's remedy is the same as at 1200, but the result is less successful with regard to sense. The corruption was no doubt influenced by KaOv1TEpOe at 1209. 4.277 VVV ILlvEL] lLilLVEL RD. Omission of vvv is inherited from k. RD make up for the lost syllable at the expense of the caesura. 435 ;, 0' OTE];' S' OTE S~ C. Perhaps an inherited conjecture to deal with the omission of a syllable. The form K~PECCLV survives in H, and B retains a reminiscence of it with KTJPV~·CCLV. 673 ovo' t.oLo] V1TEPcPLa>t.ov RQ. k's reading of SELVOV for fJapw precludes the genitive in -0£0. 1147 oc/JOaAlLoic yAVKEpoV 1TOOOV] ocPOaAlLoicL yAVKtk 1TOOOC Q. yAVKVC is commoner than the form yAVKEpoC (though not in Apollo­ nius), so we are surprised not to see it in Re, which, with Q, read OcP8aAILOicL. 1470 01T?] At1TE] OOL AEi1TETO RQ. The scribe finds At1TETO in his model (sic CD); his alteration restores neither sense nor metre (except that the second half of the line now scans). In assessing these metrical alterations, it is important to remember that Demetrius Moschus was himself the author of a poem in some 460 Homeric hexameters on the Rape of Helen, otherwise known as the 118 THE SCRIBAL HABITS OF DEMETRIUS MOSCHUS Circa Helenam et Alexandrum.l1 This poem is highly derivative. Echoes of Homer and Apollonius are particularly abundant, and clearly the poet was familiar with all the relevant source material. Errors in prosody occur-occasional false quantity, absence of caesura, hiatus, others obviously resulting from the contemporary pronunciation of Greek. But they are not numerous nor (on the whole) of a serious nature. We must credit Moschus with a clear understanding of the basic principles of the Homeric metre. By and large this conclusion is supported by the metrical alterations discussed above; there are occasional lapses, but more than once we have noticed the scribe giving closer attention to metre than to sense. (b) HOMBRICISM 1.39 l6vT€C] UVT€C MRQCD. Perhaps influenced by the passive CVf.LCPopEovTaL, but '7Jf.LL is the usual Homeric word for the movement of rivers, and there is similar confusion in the MSS at Iliad 12.33. 753 nvaccwv] nratvwv D. ~vta T€tvac is the Homeric phrase, cf Iliad 5.262, which the scribe seems to be adapting here. 811 xfjpat T' E7T£ Tfin] xfjpat TE yvvaiK€C MR. Thoughtless intrusion of a Homeric reminiscence: cf Iliad 2.289. 971 f.LEA€COat] f.LESuOrU MRD. Apollonius does not use this word but cf Iliad 2.384 1TOAEfl-OLO fl-€8ECOW. On the other hand it could be a misreading of fl-EA€COaL. 1062 ol/"yovoLnv l8EcOaL] 0tPLYOVOLCL 7iVOECOaL D. Mooney draws our attention to Iliad 22.305 Kat ECCOfl-EVOLCL 7TvOEcOaL, which clearly the scribe also has in mind. MRQD make the same change at 2.842. 1226 CK07iLaC OPEWV Aaxov] CK07iLaC €XoV D. Cf Odyssey 8.302 CK01TL~V €X€v. In his zeal to imitate the Homeric passage, the scribe omits 0pEWV. But perhaps Aaxov had €XoV as a superscript gloss, and that distracted the eye from the intervening 0pEWV. 1336 E7iLcppaSEwc] E7iLCPPOVEWV D. Only once in Homer, Odyssey 19.385, which reads E7iLCPPOVEOVC' ayop€V€LC. Perhaps we see here a variant from the exemplar. 2.116 Tax'] T' up D. This shows some grasp of the use of particles, cf Odyssey 24.28 ~ r' apa Kat cot 7TPW"i 7TapaCr~C€COaL €fl-€AA€ fl-0ip' oAo~. But it could be just another Homericism. 11 The only editions known to me are Reggio (Em.) 1499; Alcala 1519; Rome 1823, ed. I. Bekker; Vienna 1833, ed. A. G. Leukias. It is my intention in time to publish a new critical edition together with a study of the poet. . GRAHAM SPEAKE 119 470 €OV JLopov] EJLOV voov D. Cf Odyssey 4.493 ot3De oaijV(XL EJLOV voov. 673 {3aLvov ;pa~E] 7Tl7TTOV [sic] ;pa~E D. Substitution of the regular Homeric expression, cf Iliad 12.156. 678 {3'DV aJL~L oE VWTO'C] {3tOV 7joE ~aphpTJv D. Slavish following of the Homeric formula, cf Iliad 10.260. 786 7TaTp~] oovp~ Q (ita LVI). A reminiscence of Iliad 5.653, in view of which the agreement with LvI may be fortuitous. 833 tfivxoppaY€OVTa] {3ap€a cTf:vaxovTa Q. Cf 1.388 where MRQCD read {3apv cTEvaxovTo. In both cases this is substitution of the regular Homeric phrase. 842 See above on 1.1062. 1062 aC7Ttnv apaTE] aC7Ttn ~pagaTE D. Cf Iliad 13.130 and 15.566: the result of an unfamiliar form and reminiscence of the Homeric passages. 1] 76 KOJL€OVCat] yavowcaL Q. Thoughtless imitation of Odyssey 7.128. 3.20 o6'\ovJ voov C. For VO€W voov cf Iliad 9.104; but this may be mechanical assimilation. 119 tJ7TO JLa~cfJJ E7TL JLa~cfJ D. The more regular expression, cf. Odyssey 11.448, but E7Tt for V7TO is a coromon change. 301 BVJLov apEccavJ BVJLDV ETEP7TOV D. The Homeric formula, cf Odyssey 1.107. 615 aJL~aoa Epya 7T€AoLTO] aJL~aoa Epya Y€VOLTO RQ. Cf Odyssey 19.391. But it could be a gloss. 664 KLVVPETO T~V O€ nc a4>vw] T€PEV KaTa f)(XKPVOV El{3EV R. Another Homeric formula, cf Iliad 16.11 Tfi LKEAoc, IIaTpoKAE, T€PEV KaTa oaKpvov e't{3€tc. Presumably Tfi lK€ATJ reminded the scribe of the pas­ sage in the Iliad which he felt compelled to introduce here. In the next sentence, finding himself in difficulties without T~V S€ nc a~vw, he resorts to omission of a whole line (666). This is a good example of the lengths to which Moschus was prepared to go for the sake of Homeri­ cism, although it may be that he was simply tired and inattentive. 692 KfjOOC ;'\ow] KfjOOC apoLO RQC. Cf Iliad 4.95 and 9.303, KVOOC apoLO, suggesting iotacist pronunciation by Moschus. 866 a'\vwv] axevwv D. It is unlikely that the copyist would have been bothered by the lengthening of the v (for which there is a Homeric precedent at ad. 9.398); he simply prefers the traditional Homericism, if. Iliad 5.869 and 18.461. 919 E7TL 7TPOT€PWVJ €1TLXfJovtwv C. Apollonius is imitating Iliad 5.637, the scribe 9.558. 120 THE SCRIBAL HABITS OF DEMETRIUS MOSCHUS 1262 yvlwv] xopwv D. Another Homeridsm which also occurs at 2.334 and 3.507.12 1357 tK€TO] t€TO D. Just a mechanical error? Cf on 1.39 above. 1373 0002] OapcaMo, D. No doubt influenced mainly by OapcaA/wc in 1370, but also perhaps by Odyssey 19.91 OapcaMTJ' K'OOV cXS€/c. 4.12 flaO€lTJc] KaO' VATJV RQ. Cf Iliad 10.184, and Ap. Rhod. 3.1351 where R has dv vATJv for JS6VTac (see below, p.123). 38 SovALa lpya] O/cK€Aa lpya RQ. A Homeric phrase also occurring at 3.229. 260 O~flTJc] O~flTJc ;Soc R. Cf Iliad 4.406. 262 y'voc] JL'VOC C. For the corruption ~f 1.548 and Frankel, op.cit. (supra n.7) 134-37; for the phrase if. Odyssey 8.2. 425 cXJLq,UlAcp] cXJLq,LPPVTW Q. Cf Odyssey 11.325 LJ lV EV cXJLq,LPVTV and Ap. Rhod. 1.1305 T~vcp EV cXJLq,LpV'T'lJ. Brunck prints it without comment, "ex ingenio, ut videtur" (Wellauer), but I am sure Moschus is the source of the conjecture. 446 cTovaxal T€ y60L T€] 1T6A€JLol T€ WX.XaL TE C. A reminiscence of Iliad 1.177 and 5.891. 458 v~cov] 8lq,pov D. Thoughtless substitution to fit a Homeric phrase, cf Iliad 13.26. 462 T€xv*aLTo] T€KT~VaLTo D. Imitation of Iliad 10.19. 467 TV1T'VTOC] 1T€C6VTOC RQD. Imitation of Iliad 11.250. 497 E1TaOp~cavTac] EcaOp~cavTac R, EcaOp~CavT€c QD. EcaOp'w is Homeric, E1TaOplw is not. 591 TJ€AloLO] {J1T€plovoc D. It does not scan here, but this word is common in Homer as an epithet of the sun; only once without the addition of TJ'ALOC, at Odyssey 1.24. 654 alOaAlTJv] olXaAlTJv D. Aethalia (the modern Elba) does not appear in Homer, but Oechalia does. 701 I \ '] I \ I D I I b JLEya JLEV KOTHL JL€ya JLEV KpaTHL . JL€ya KpaTHL, ut not JL'ya KOT/E', is a Homeric phrase. 777 alOaMoL] cnkTaA/oL D. This is a Homeric word fitting the metre and giving some sort of sense, so Moschus employs it. 860 at T€ 1TAaYKTat KaMovTcu] ac TE 1TAaYKTac KaA/OVCL D. No doubt influenced by Odyssey 12.61 nAaYKTac ()~ TOL Tac y€ 0€01. p.aKap€C KaA'OVCL. 1067 €lA€tTO] TjAOLCL RQ. Thoughtless imitation of Iliad 1.246. 11 Cf. similar confusion in the MSS at Aesch. PeTS. 913. GRAHAM SPEAKE 121 1198 a€/,Sov JA,cc6fL€vaL] a€£8ov eXfLELf36fLEvaL D. Imported from Iliad 1.604. 1244 TTCX:UpOV i'\€t1TTO] 1TCXUP' i,\l'\€tTTTO RQCD. As Brunck pointed out, lM'\€tTTTO is the Homeric form (II. 2.700); the scribe had no Homeric lexicon,13 but he knew that €/1€t7TTO did not occur in early epic. 1397 /)15£TO fLijAa] fLij,\' Ecpv'\acc£ R, f-tij'\a cpv'\accT} Q, f-tfJ'\a cpv'\acc€ C. Reminiscence of Odyssey 12.136 or a gloss. 1674 fLouvovJ '\vypoc RQCD. Even if the copyist does understand the sense of fLoVVOV he prefers to substitute a traditional Homeric epithet. Simple cases of alteration to suit standard Homeric diction are commonplace in MSS of Apollonius and would cause us no surprise in d. Furthermore, the scholiast often quotes passages from Homer to explain and illuminate the text of the Argonautica; so a scribe's eye could easily be caught by an attractive phrase in the marginal com­ mentary of his exemplar. But of the readings discussed above, very few can be ignored as normalization to early epic, or for that matter as subtle allusion: most are instances of direct quotation from the Iliad and the Odyssey, often regardless of metre and syntax, and in no single case is the quotation to be found in the scholia. Here is something truly remarkable in a Renaissance scribe: thorough familiarity with the Homeric poems and a persistent desire to introduce Homeric formulas and phraseology into the text of Apollonius. We know that Moschus made at least two copies of the Odyssey.14 The evidence accumulated above shows that his knowledge 13 Perhaps a rash assumption. We must examine the possibility of Moschus having access to a Homeric lexicon. That by Apollonius Sophistes exists in only one MS (eoislin. 345, X century) and the chances of its being in the right place at the right time are remote. There are other possibilities: the scholia minora to Homer would provide a kind of lexico­ graphical aid, though of course it is not alphabetical; and R. Reitzenstein (Gesdtichte der griechisc/ten Etymologika [Leipzig 1897] 335f) tells us "Ein drittes Werk des Oros, welches schon Fabricius nach einer Pariser Hs. erwahnt, trug den Titel 1T£pt 1ToAVCfll..LaJlTWJI Mg€wJI. Ritschl suchte es vergeblich; die Spateren haben es offen bar vergessen. Das Werk, \velches in byzantinischer Zeit viel benutzt wurde, ist uns in Wahrheit nicht fremd." This work is found in at least three Parisini-27Z0 (end of the XV century), 2830 (XVI century) and 2558 (end of the XIV century)-and contains many quotations from the Psalms and Homer. It is possible that Moschus had some such work of reference, but even so it is unlikely to have provided him with the comprehensive knowledge of Homeric poetry which he obviously possessed and which can only be obtained from thorough familiarity with the original texts. 14 Oxford, Canon.gr. 79, and Paris, gr. 2688: see Speake and Vian, op.cit. (supra 11.1) 316-17. 122 THE SCRIBAL HABITS OF DEMETRIUS MOSCHUS of Homer was at least as great as of Apollonius, his fondness for the earlier poet perhaps greater,15 and lends support to the theory that he may have employed the same technique in copying Homer as we have suggested for Apollonius.16 (c) ECHO OTHER THAN HOMERICISM 1.125 AVPKT}lov] 7ToAvA~£Ov MRQ. No doubt lifted from 51, but it is a forgivable attempt to correct a still not understood epithet.17 129 a7T€cElcaTo] a1ToKch()€TO MRQ. Not without merit: the double compound adds extra flavour and the word occurs again at 3.817 and 1287. 202 7TETJLaC R. Cf 1.279, 2.615. 1333 ep1J/Lovo/LOL] eAEwvo/LOL RQCD. An unfortunate choice for the desert, but these marsh nymphs have already made their appearance twice in the poem and so are more acceptable to the scribe. 1393 KVell'] cvnv CD. It may be just a slip, but probably the scribe is thinking of the simile at 3.1351. 1540 cfo0pEOVTO] 1TOV€Ol'TO R. Borrowed from 2.667. The fact that so many of the changes discussed in this section took place at the end of the line suggests a basic flaw in Moschus' method of transcription. The most likely explanation is that the scribe at­ tempted to take in a whole line at a time when looking at his exemplar and to write it in full without looking back. Inevitably his memory was less efficient towards the end of the line and the penultimate word may well have reminded him of another line perhaps recently copied with the same penultimate word at the same sedes or of a favourite passage elsewhere containing some verbal similarity. In this way many of the above superficially erudite importations may be dismissed as errors of psychological association. This at least provides an explanation for those changes that make nonsense of the line. (d) TRIVIAL SUBSTITUTION OR SUBSTITUTION OF A COMMON OR LATE WORD FOR A RARE OR EARLY ONE 1.187 l/L~pcxc{l]c] a/L~pocl1Jc D. 357 epvccxL/LEV] eAcfcwf'EV C. 376 1Tpw777cL] 1TPOTEPT/CL C. 576 f'7]A' €cpE7ToVTaL] f'7]Aa £7TOVTaL D. 617 €ppaLcav] ~AEc(c)av MRQD. 629 P1J{TEpOV] P1J{SLOV MR. 834 cp6vov] cpl'Aov C. 885 omfcccxL] EAEc(JaL C. 967 €f'EAoVTO] €f'VWOVTO C. 972 mrocTcxxvECKOV] eTTLXVOaECKov D. 1212 a1Tovpcxc] aE{pcxc MRQ. 1289 xoAoc] axoc MRQ. 1339 f'7]VLV] (JVf'0V MRQ. 2.2 aY17vopoc] a/Lv/LoVOC CD. 24 aVTLaac(JcxL] ST}pLacxc()cxL MR. GRAHAM SPEAKE 96 laXT]cav] 6fLaST]cav C (not D as stated in Frankel's apparatus). 159 pbw7T(x] Kap1Jva MRQ. 286 &.\TO] JJpTO MR. 298 €Svcav] €j3T]cav M. 467 EpETTJCLV] €TapOLCLv D. 576 Ka'TEVELK€V] Ka'TEpVK€ MRQD. 577 alvoTaTov S'oc] alvoTaToc X'\ooc MRQ. 610 ifPXETO fLvOWV] €Kf{>aTo fLvOOV MD. 812 EYKOV'OVT€c] ElJfLEV'OVT€C MRQ. 949 UASETO] ifLEtPETO Q. 1032 €,\,\L7TEV] if'\VOEV R. 1123 E1TOifJLov] tKEcLov M. 1215 voact] €vSoOt MRQ. 1248 CTVf{>EAO;;CL] cnj3apo;;CL C. 1274 apwyovc] €TaLpovc Q. 3.66 fL'ya] 1TOAv R, 1Tavv Q. 232 cnj3apou] CTVyEpOU CD. 339 Kwac] ya;;av D. 383 U,\SETO] la{vETo Q. 553 afLvv€tv] ap~y€tv D. 572 1TpOtaAA.E] 1TPO€1JKE C. 712 ' , , ] , , , R apac TE cTvyEpac ap1Jv TE CTVYEPYJV • 762 OLa] KaTa RQ. 797 c&xoc] aAyoc RQCD. 884 ca{VOVCLV] O'OVCLV D. 886 KOVPYJC] vVfLf{>YJc C. 900 S€ KE] S' tCtv] TO;;C D. 1025 KOVPYJ] vVfLf{>YJ C. 1098 KELvYJv] vVfLf{>YJv C.19 1113 1TOV'TOLD f{>€POLEV] 1TOVTOV f{>OP€OLEV C. 1147 if Tot] aUTap D. 1168 7TaV'T€CCL fLE,dvv€7TE] 7TaV'TECCLV Ewvfj C. 57 a'\vcKw] iKcfvw C. 148 E .. ov RC. If the scribe did not understand xijpov he might at least have found a substitute that scanned. But it could be a corruption via ifitAov. 755 Ulv£€v] aAvEv RQ. The copyist does not understand ;Ov(£)ev and looks for a word to mean 'bounded with joy': he finds it at 866. 1111 oeea] alea RC. Either the scribe did not understand occa and. 20 Cf Gillies, appendix p.139, and A. Platt,jP 33 (1914) 31. 21 See below, p.l33. 128 THE SCRIBAL HABITS OF DEMETRIUS MOSCHUS as at 306, resorted to a more familiar phrase; or it is another attempt to enforce Homeric-type formulas in Apollonius. (g) INTRUSION OF A GLOSS 1.40 i'KavEV] E{3aLvEV MRQ. 350 '}"7}Oocvvoc] '}"7}OOP.EVOC D. 512 avSfi] op.c/>fj MQ. 601 aVETELAE] avESpap.E MRQ. 625 8oaVTL] YEPOVTL MRQ. The truth? 803 EP.{3aAEV aT7}v] EP.{3aAE VdKOC C. 837 xaTEovcLV O7TI:f{ELC] xaTEovn 7TaptcXELC D. 1031 AEKTpOV] Sop.ov D. 1219 aAEYOVTEC] &toVTEC D. 1228 KaAALVaoLo] KaAALPOOW D. 1305 7TE