Varia Procliana Whittaker, John Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1973; 14, 4; ProQuest pg. 425 Varia Procliana John Whittaker I I N 1939 A. Delatte published in the second volume of his Anecdota Atheniensia1 the editio princeps of the EVVOIptc TWV cPVCtlCWV of the eleventh-century Byzantine Symeon Seth (pp.1ff). The A6yoc 17EfL17TOC of this treatise (pp.81ff), entitled II€p~ TijC 17PWTT}C alTtac TWV OVTWV Kai TijC &17' aVTijc OL'1]KOlJC'1]C EVTafJ8a 17povotac, is in the main a patchwork of quotations from Neoplatonic sources, not all of which are readily identifiable. Thus, at p.83.20ff D., Symeon writes: T~V OOV TOtaVr1}v 17p6votav Kat 'TLC TWV 'TTap' "EAAT]CL CO~WV &VVfLVWV ~.1 " ... \«1, "" "f'T]CL' 'TTaV'TWV 'TTap€KTtKOV €KELVO TO €V, 'TTaVTWV CooCTtKOV, 'TTac1}c OVctac .. 1:" '\ ll' '" " V'TTapsLV €XoV al\T]rJ€CT€paV KaL 'TTac1}c yvooCEooC TpaVECTEpav, OV /LEpL- r ' ... ..., ~ ,.I \ " , 'c ./, \ "'0/LEVOV TOLC YVooCTOLC OvoE KtvOV/L€VOV 'TTEpL aura. TOurWV yap T} "f'VXLKTJ \ \ .... J/ "~ I ".... ~ \ \ -' .I , , R Kat VOEpa YVWCtC EXEL Tac LOLOTT]Tac, EKEtvO O€ TO EV /LEVEL a/L€Ta,..aTOV a/La Kat, &SLalpETOV KaL ytVWCKEL 'TTeXvra TOV am-ov Tp6'TTOV KaL OUK avOpw'TTOV /L6vov Kat. iiALOV Kal. 7TCXV OTLOVV TOLOVrOV, &Ma Kat, £KaCTOV ~ (J' ., ,~'" ,I,. I '''' ~ " ,.,. \ I TooV Ka €KaCTa. OVO€V yap €K"f'€VYEt TO €V EKELVO, Kav TO ELVaL I\€YT/C KaV TO YWWCK€c(JaL' OVTooC '" rfjc 'TTpovotac EVtata YVWCLC €V rrfJ aVTcp I "' .... '-' ..... \ ..... , , tl P.€pEL 7Tavroov €CTt TooV P.€P'I;,0P.€VooV YVooCLC KaL TooV aT0p.OOTaTOOV €KaC- TOV KaL TWV OALKWTeXTWV. The 'TLC TWV 'TTap' "E>J..T}CL cOcPwv to whom Symeon refers and whom Delatte has not succeeded in identifying is in fact Proclus, from whose De decem dubitationibus circa providentiam the sentences quoted by Symeon have been drawn. When in 1939 Delatte published the text of Symeon this work of Proclus was still known, with the exception of a few quotations in the original Greek, only from the Latin version which William of Moerbeke completed at Corinth on the 4th of February, 1280.2 In the meantime, however, the major portion of the Greek text has been recovered from the similarly entitled treatise (II €P~ 'TWV 8EKa 17POC 'T~V 17p6voux,v a'TTOp'1]fLa'TWV) of Symeon' s approximate 1 Anecdota Atheniensia et alia, Tome II: Textes r;recs relatifs Ii l'histoire des sdences (Liege! Paris 1939). I Cf Procli Diadochi Tria Opuscu/a, ed. H. Boese (Berlin 1960) 108. 425 426 VARIA PROCLIANA contemporary Isaac Sebastocrator and has been published alongside William of Moerbeke's Latin versioninH. Boese's magisterial edition.3 Symeon's quotation is not a connected passage of Proclus, but consists of (with a few small corruptions) De decem dub. 5.15-18 fol­ lowed by 5.20-23 and 5.30-32 Boese. It is highly remarkable that the very same sentences of Proclus are quoted by Philoponus in his De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum on a number of occasions. Thus, at De aetern. pp.37.22-38.20 Rabe, Philoponus quotes De decem dub. 5.1-8 followed by 5.14-23 and 5.30-33 B.; at De aetern. p.91.10-23 R. he quotes De decem dub. 5.14-16 followed by 5.20-23 and 5.30-33 B.; at De aetern. p.570.1-18 R. he quotes De decem dub. 5.14-23 followed by 5.30-33 B.; and at De aetern. p.6.17-21 R. he quotes De decem dub. 5.30-33 B. So remarkable indeed is this coincidence that one cannot but conclude that Symeon derived his quotation neither directly from Proclus, nor from Isaac Sebastocrator's plagiary (the text of which varies considerably from that of Symeon and Philoponus), but neces­ sarily from Philoponus' defence of the Christian position against the dead but dangerous Proclus.4 But this is not the full extent of Symeon's indebtedness to Proclus, De decem dub. At p.87.9ff D. Symeon writes: WCTrEP yap EV T0 KlVTPCP Trac 0 KVKAOC KEVTptKwC, EiTrEP alTLa TO Klv­ TpOV aVTof}, Kat EV Tfj /Lova8L Trac aptO/Loc /LOVa8LKwc, oih-wc EV Tep 7fjc TrpOVOLac EVt, EVLatWC Ta TraVTa. Kat El elXE YVWCLV TO KlVTpOV TOf} KV- '\ '''' l' I "~"Y" ""'-K/\OV, KEVTptK7JV av HXE TaVT7]V KaL OVK av E/LEPL~EV aVT7]v TOLC TOV KVKAOV /LlPECL. In the light of the above finds it is not difficult to recognize in these lines a corrupted version of Proclus, De decem dub. 5.24-30 B., i.e. precisely the words which intervene between two of the passages which Symeon, following Philoponus, has previously combined into a 8 op.cit. 3ff. The Greek text of Isaac's treatise has been edited by J. Domseiff. Isaak Sebastokrator, Zehn Aporien fiber die Vorsehung (Beitriige zur klassischen Philologie 19 [Meisenheim am Glan 1966]). 'It may well be more than a coincidence that in quoting De decem dub. 5.22 B. both Symeon (l:wol/J£c p.84.9 D.) and Philoponus at De aetern. p.38.13 R. read not 0-7"£ but onovv. Philoponus has ~'T£ at De aetern. p.91.16 and 570.11 R., whilst Isaac Sebastocrator omits (unless the scribe of Vaticanus gr. 1773 is at fault) the relevant portion of the text; if. p.14.13 Domseiff. On the circumstances surrounding the publication of Philoponus, De aetern. cf. H. D. Saffrey, "Le chretien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l'ecole d'Alexandrie," REG 67 (1954) 396ff; more generally on the background of the conflict cf M. Wacht, Aeneas von Gaza als Apologet: seine Kosnwlogie im Verhiiltnis zum Platonismus (Bonn 1969). JOHN WHITTAKER 427 single quotation. Since it can hardly be doubted that this previous quotation from Proclus has been transmitted to Symeon through the medium of Philoponus, it would seem more than probable that Symeon has borrowed also this latter quotation from the same source, in spite of the fact that the pertinent passage does not occur in Rabe's edition of Philoponus, De aeternitate. It must be recalled that the text of the De aeternitate has been preserved only in the ninth-century Marcianus gr. 236, which in the course of its history has suffered the loss of its first two quaternions and of an undetermined number of folios at its close.s We can therefore conclude with fair probability that somewhere in these missing leaves Philoponus had quoted Proclus, De decem dub. 5.24-30 B. A further Neoplatonic quotation of Symeon's which Delatte has failed to identify is at EVVOlP'C p.88.2-13 D. Apart from variations so slight that it is frequently difficult to know whether they are Symeon's adaptation or genuine variant readings, this passage coincides with Plotinus, Enn. 5.5.3, 8-21 Henry-Schwyzer. II Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale II.x.145 (Magliabechianus 32)6 contains a series of extracts of Proclus, In Rempublicam, made, probably about the beginning of the seventeenth century, from Vaticanus gr. 2197.7 Since the Vaticanus is in a much damaged state and has deteriorated considerably during the past 300 years, the Florentine extracts are not without value for the reconstitution of the text of Proclus.8 It was 6 Cf Rabe's Praefatio p. iii. We owe the survival ofthe Greek text ofProc1us" E7TLX€Lp~l'aTa 7T€P~ aL;;lL6T1]ToC TOj) KOCI'OV solely to the fact that Philoponus quotes in toto the text of each £7TLx€lp'l'Jl'a before he attempts to refute it. Since the opening of the De aetern. is missing, so also is the Greek text ofProc1us' first £7TLx"lp'l'Jl'a. The text ofProc1us has, however, now been recovered in Arabic translation; cf. J. van Ess, "Jungere orientalistische Literatur zur neu­ platonischen Oberlieferung," in Parusia: Festgabe fur J. Hirschberger, ed. K. Flasch (Frankfurt 1965) 346f. 6 Cf A. Olivieri, "Indicis codicum graecorum Magliabechianorum supplementum," StItal 5 (1897) 403f. 7 The Vaticanus and Laurentianus 80.9, which together once formed a single volume, are (apart from apographs) our sole witness to the text ofProc1. In Remp. In marked contrast to the Vatican us , the Laurentian portion of the original codex is in an excellent state of preser­ vation. It was brought to Florence, probably from Crete, by Janus Lascaris in the spring of 1492; cf. my "Parisinus gr. 1962 and the writings of Albinus" (forthcoming in Phoenix). 8 Of similar significance for the recovery of the text of Proc1us is the XVII-century Bar­ berinianus gr. 65, which is in fact a copy of Vatican us gr. 2197 made by L. Holstenius; cf V. 428 VARIA PROCLIANA suggested by A. Olivieri,9 and the suggestion was repeated as estab­ lished fact by W. Kroll,lo that the extracts in the Magliabechianus might have been written by Alexander More (1616-1670), the learned but hot-blooded antagonist of John Milton, presumably during More's visit to Italy in 1655.11 In fact More not only visited Florence during his stay in Italy but whilst there actually examined the Vaticanus in the Salviati library, of which at that time it formed a part.l2 The impor­ tance of the MS impressed itself upon More's attention, and he did indeed copy from it a number of extracts, some of which at least he published in his Ad quaedam loca Novi Foederis notae13 together with , some adverse comments on the dismal state of the Salviati library, in which he describes the MS as "male conservatus."14 He has published these extracts, he tells us (p.102E), "cum in una tantum reperiantur Bibliotheca, in qua cum blattis luctantur & tineis." Capocd, Codices Barberiniani graed, Tomus I Codices 1-163 (Vatican 1958) 67ff. It was from the Barberinianus and not from Vatieanus gr. 2197 (since the latter's whereabouts could not at the time be traced) that the editio princeps of this portion of Prod. In Remp. was made by R. SchoeH (Aneedota varia Graeea et Latina II [Berlin 1886]). Short extracts from the Vaticanus had been previously published by Alexander More (as we shaH see) and A. Mai (ef. SchoeH, op.dt. 8 n.2). On the edition published from Vatieanus gr. 2197 by J. B. Pitra (Analeeta sacra et classica spicilegio Solesmensi parara V [Paris/Rome 1888]) ef. R. Reitzenstein, Supplementa ad Procli eommentarios in Platonis De Republica libros nuper vulgatos, Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen IV.3 (Breslau 1889) Iff. Pitra, op.dt. pt. II p. xv, describes how he rediscovered Vaticanus gr. 2197, which had been kept hidden by Cardinal Mai. The text of two missing leaves of the Vaticanus survives in Parisinus gr. 1838, Chigianus gr. R.vm.58, and Scorialensis T.m.2, and was first edited by E. Diehl in his "Subsidia Prodiana," RhM 54 (1899) 196ff. Capocd (loe.cit.) argues that a part of Barberinianus gr. 65 was not (as Pitra and others follow­ ing him have supposed) copied by Leo AHatius. 8 loe.cit. (supra n.6). 10 ProcH In Rempublieam II (Leipzig 1901) p. viii. 11 For a brief account of More cf. Dictionary of National Biography 13, p.858. 11 The MS passed subsequently into the possession of the Colonna family in Rome, and was among the 93 Greek MSS of the Bibliotheca Columnensis which were acquired by the Vatican in July 1821 (Vaticani gr. 2161-2253); ef. G. Mercati, Opere Minori IV (Studi e Testi 79, Vatican 1937) 20l. 13 I have used the edition of this work published in Paris in 1668. An earlier edition, in­ accessible to me, was published in London in 1661 (ef. BM Catalogue 164, col. 3). The extracts from Prod. In Remp. are on pp.99--103, 130f and 142 of the Paris edition. 11 op.cit. (supra n.13) 99. Also Lucas Holstenius in his Iudicium de libris optimis ae maximam partem ineditis bibliotheeae Medieeae (1640) laments at length the wretched fate of the MS in the Salviati library. Hoistenius writes inter alia (I quote from SchoeH, op.cit. [supra n.8] 6f.): "Sed ut simiae prolem prae nimio affectu suffocant, ita invidi illi et maligni librorum custodes, dum thesaurum nimium abscondunt, eundem et sibi et publico perdiderunt. Nam quatemiones illi ita carie, marcore et putredine corrupti sunt, ut membranae diveHi JOHN WHITTAKER 429 Olivieri's suggestion that the Magliabechianus might be from More's hand seems intrinsically improbable, since More is hardly likely to have left behind in Florence the extracts which he had been at pains to make from the Salviati manuscript. However, the only way of proving or disproving the contention of Olivieri and Kroll would be to put the Magliabechianus alongside a Greek text known with certainty to have been written by More. We are fortunate in that just such a document is still in existence. Amongst the friends whom More made during his stay in Florence was Francesco Redi da Arezzo (1626-1698),15 More's subsequent correspondence with whom is preserved in Florence amongst the Rediani at the Laurenziana.16 This correspondence includes an un­ dated letter in Greek (Redianus 203, fo1.253)17 headed 'A>"E~avS~p 6 Mwpoc WpaYKLcKltJ TCfJ 'PEOLltJ. That this is the original letter in More's own hand may be seen from a comparison of the Greek script with that of quotations in Greek in letters signed by More.1S But the writing is strikingly different from that of the Magliabechianus, so different in­ deed that it is inconceivable that the two documents could have been written by the same hand. The Magliabechianus is written in a graceful professional script, comparable to (but not identical with) that of L. Holstenius. The letter, on the other hand, may have been written by a scholar, but Greek did not flow with absolute ease and fluidity from his pen. Though thoroughly legible, the script is frequently non­ cursive to such a degree that not only are letters unconnected but also the individual components of the letters are written in separate strokes. A far cry indeed from the studied calligraphy of the Maglia­ bechianus! nequeant, in quibus vix detritaliterarum vestigia apparent." However, without denying the philistine carelessness of those responsible for the library, one is inclined to conclude that More and Holstenius have, out of concern for the precious manuscript, exaggerated the responsibility of the Salviati for the deterioration of Vaticanus gr. 2197, which is in fact in a noticeably worse state than other Sal viati MSS. The history of Vaticanus gr. 2197 awaits clari­ fication. 15 On Redi see M. E. Cosenza, Biographical and Bibliographical Dictionary of the Italian Humanists and of the World of Classical Scholarship in Italy 1300-1800 IV (Boston 1962) 3012ff. 1& Laur. Redianus 203, fo1. 233 recto-260 verso. 17 There are in fact 4 leaves numbered 253, of which the first and third contain the Greek text whilst the second and fourth are blank. The letter is mentioned briefly as item no.67 in E. Rostagno, "Indicis codicum graecorum Bybliothecae Laurentianae supplementum," StItal 6 (1898) 158. 18 Cf, e.g., Redianus 203, fo1.255 recto. 430 VARIA PROCLIANA We must conclude that the useful Magliabechianus is not from the hand of Alexander More, and that the identity of its scribe remains to be decided. III W. Kroll published at the close of the second volume of his edition of Proclus, In Rempublicam 19 the scholia written in the first hand (or a hand indistinguishable therefrom) in Laurentianus 80.9 and Vaticanus ,gr. 2197. However, on fo1. 14 verso of the latter MS Kroll has missed an important scholion dealing with the subject of 'astral bodies',20 which although it appears in Pitra's obsolete edition of the In Rempublicam,21 it may be of value to repeat here. The scholion (ad In Remp. 2.166.23- 167.2 Kroll, concerning the manner in which souls communicate) reads as follows: , ... \ \ ., ~ I 0 - \ \ \ • I " Kat J-La/V\ov €tKoe'lv ytv€e at TalJ'Ta KaTa Ta 7rV€VJ-LaTtKa 0XTJJ-LaTa TJ7T€P KaTa Ta aryo€tSij' Taiha yap aT€ y€V'1}Ta OVTa Kat €V7TAaCTa Kat J-LOp- ./.. - 0 (.' ./..' , - 0 ,\./.. ' - .1, - (.' 'f'ove at ota'f'opwe Kat KtV€tC at KaTa Tae 'f'aVTanac TWV 'f'vXWV ovva- TOV wer€ Kat 'TOV &Epa 7TA~'T'TEW. Though inspired by Proclus,22 there is nothing in the content of the scholion to identify the author as necessarily pagan or Christian. In estimating its antiquity it is worth bearing in mind that nowhere in the scholia edited by Kroll is there any indication of specifically Chris­ tian influence. Moreover the scholia not only evince a consistently high level of scholarship, but also show familiarity with a wide range of writings no longer extant. Thus, when at In Remp. 1.37.23fK. Proclus writes Etp'T}'TCt.t f.L~v oov 8t(~ 7TAE"tDVWV EV aAAotc 7TE"pC. 'TOV'TWV (i.e., inter alia the nature of evil), the scholiast (Laurentianus 80.9, fo1.22 verso) is able to refer not only to Proclus' De malorum subsistentia but also to his lost commentaries on the Speech of Diotima, on the Theaetetus and on Plotinus (In Remp. 2.371.12if K.) :23 It Procli in Rempublicam IT (Leipzig 1901) 369ff. 20 On which see E. R. Dodds. Proc/us: The Elements of Theology (Oxford 1933; repro 1963) 313ff (App. n: "The Astral Body in Neoplatorusm"). 11 op.cit. (supra n.8) IT 35 n.l. II On the doctrine of the two 0X"7p.aTa. which can be traced back no further than to Syrianus. cf Dodds. op.cit. (supra n.20) 320f. 23 On these commentaries see R. Beutler. RE 23 (1957) 197-98 S.V. PROKLOS 4. JOHN WHITTAKER 431 'I \ , .... 'I........ .... ~, f3 'Q' 'TO I1-EII Ell 'TCP 7TEpL 'T?]C 'TWII KaKWII V7TOC'TaCEWC 11-0110 Lf.1l\cP· ii \ ~\, A , \ " A A I 7'0 OE EV 'TOLC etC 'TOV I\oyov TYJC i,HO'TLIUXC. \ ........ .... ~ , " ,....., £:\' 'A' \. 7TEpL 'T"lC 'TWII KaKWII V7TOC'TaCEWC ELp"l'TaL Ell 'TOLC etC I!!JEaL'T"l'TOII. 1\1\ OV'TE a7To>.icOaL 'TO: laXKO: Dvva'T611 (Theat. 176AS). \, .... , , I , I ~ 'f) \ I KaL Ell 'TOLC ELC 'T7]II 'TpL'T?]II EIIIIEaOa. 7T0 Ell 'Ta KaKa. P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer in their edition have assumed that the latter reference is to Enn. 1.8 [51] IIEp~ 'TOU 'Ttva Ka~ 7T60EV 7'0: KaKa.24 It may well be, however, as Beutler supposes,25 that the scholiast's ref­ erence elc -ri}v 7'pt7'7'JV Evveaoa is not mistaken. We know from another source that Proclus commented upon Plotinus' IIepL 7Tpovotac (Enn. 3.2-3 [47-48J),26 and the question 7To8ev 7'0: KcxKa; looms large in any discussion of 7TPOVOLCX including that of Plotinus. Moreover, like Simplicius, who is apparently able to quote from the work Ccf In Phys. p.611.lOff Diels), our scholiast is conversant with the views expressed by Proclus EV 7'o'ic 7Tep~ 'T07TOV27 (In Remp. 2.380.29ff K.= Vaticanus gr. 2197, fo1.136 recto), and like Proclus himself and Olympiodorus he finds it natural to refer, evidently at first hand, to the views expressed in the lost writings of the otherwise unknown Platonist Paterios28 (In Remp. 2.380.24fI K.= Vaticanus gr. 2197, fol.126 recto). It seems, however, that he did not have access to Proclus' Com­ mentary on the Phaedrus,29 since on fo1.169 verso of the Vaticanus we find the remark (In Remp. 2.382.21f K.): ~7J7'7J7'€OV COL 7'0: Elc 7'OV @a'iopov 'TOU II'Ad.'TWVOC IIpbK'Aov cxo'ALa. It was the view of Kroll that the scholia were not much younger than the text itself,30 and in the case of Pro­ dus, In Timaeum it seems more than likely that some of the scholia go 24 Plotini opera, edd. P. Henry and H-R. Schwyzer, I (Paris 1951) p.I21. 25 0 p.cit. (supra n.23) 198. 26 Cf Cat.Cod.Astr. V 1, p.189.28 (& fU ye (Jetoc /IpOKAoc v'1Top.V'TIp.a-rl,wJI -r1]Vt~€L is Proclus.32 MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND and UNlVERSITETET I BERGEN April, 1973 31 Cf. Proclus: Thfologie Platonicienne. edd. H. D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink. I (Paris 1968) pp. cHi f. 32 Festugiere. op.cit. (supra n.28) 224. manages to translate Kroll's version of the text by supposing that 7TPO