ISSN	0258-0802.	LITERATŪRA	2015	57	(3) CAN δίκαιον BE ὅσιον? A NOTE ON SCHOLL. PLAT. RESP. I 344A8 AND LEG. IX 857B5 Domenico Cufalo Liceo Scientifico "F. Buonarroti", Pisa University of Pisa "FiLeLi" Abstract. In this paper I will focus on a crux in two Platonic scholia, where manuscripts have the impossible διονύσιον, but Greene suggests δίκαιον. This amendment was made on the basis of a gloss of Photius' Lexicon, although the corresponding gloss of Suidas confirms the text of Platonic scholia. However the agreement with Photius is not so important, not only because it is impossible to prove that he reproduces the text of the glossary composed by the Atticist Aelius Dionysius without any modification (it is also the source of Suidas and other Byzantine lexica, and especially of the so called Erweiterte Synagoge, which the Platonic scholia derive from as well), but also because our scholia reveal elsewhere a major affinity with Suidas than with Patriarch's Lexicon. In the light of a careful review of the loci paralleli I therefore suggest the reading δημόσιον. Keywords: Plato, Scholia, Photius, Suidas, Lexicography, Synagoge. In this paper I will reconsider a famous crux in two similar scholia to Plato, one to Resp. I	344a8	(A,	f.	10r;	T,	f.	203r)	and	the other to Leg. IX	857b5 (A, f.	243-244v1; O, f. 92r): Resp. 1.344a8 ὅσια τὰ βέβηλα, εἰς ἃ ἔστιν εἰσιέναι, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης Λυσιστράτῃ· "ὦ πότνι' Εἰλήθυα (εἰληθυῖ|α T), ἐπίσχες τοῦ τόκου, ἕως ἂν εἰς ὅσιον ἀπέλθω χωρίον" (Ar. Lys.	742-743)·καὶ	ὅσια	χρήματα	τὰ μὴ	ἱερά.	λέγεται	δὲ	καὶ	τὸ	†διονύσιον† ὅσιον.	AT Leg. 9.857b5 ὅσιόν ἐστι χωρίον τὸ βέβηλον καὶ μὴ ἱερόν, εἰς ὃ ἔξεστιν εἰσιέναι. Ἀριστοφάνης Λυσιστράτῃ· "ὦ πότνι' Εἰλήθυια (εἰλείθυια O), 1 The	folium	would	be	numbered	as	243,	but,	since the	next	folium	was	given	the	number	245,	a	later	hand added	to	our	folium	the	number	"-244". ἐπίσχες τοῦ τόκου ἕως ἂν εἰς ὅσιον ἀπέλθω χωρίον" (Ar. Lys. 742-743). καὶ	ὅσια	χρήματα	τὰ	μὴ ἱερά.	λέγεται δὲ	καὶ	τὸ	†διονύσιον†.	AO Ruhnken and Hermann,2 who knew only the scholium to Respublica, printed the text which they found in the manuscripts.	Greene	was the	first to doubt the word διονύσιον and to suggest δίκαιον in apparatus, as in Photius's gloss ὅσιον χωρίον (ο 553	Theodoridis), despite Suidas'	reading	λέγεται	δὲ	καὶ	τὸ	διονύσιον	(ο 688, vol. III, p. 568.11-14	Adler), which apparently	confirms	the	text	of	scholia	and especially the one to Leges.3 2 Cf.	Ruhnken	1800,	147;	Hermann	1858,	334. 3 Cf.	Greene	1938,	196	e	343.	I	don't	know	whether the amendment was proposed by Greene himself or by one of his forerunners, because, as he claims in the 17 My purpose is to demonstrate the inconsistency of this very popular reading and to suggest δημόσιον instead of διονύσιον. This	and	other	similar	glosses	are	considered to come from the so called Erweiterte Synagoge	(Σ′′),	a	lost	and	hypothetically reconstructed lexicon, which is the main source for Photius, Suidas, Lexicon Αἱμωδεῖν, Etymologicum Genuinum and scholia to Plato and Lucian, and represents an increased version of Synagoge,	a	glossary	known	in	its	relatively	original	form through	Coislin.	gr.	347	(A,	ca.	900),	and in	another	enlarged	form	through	Coislin. gr.	345	(B,	saec.	X).4 The main source of additions	for	Σ′′	is	identified	with	the	lexica of Atticists Aelius Dionysius and Pausanias.	Based	on	this	assumption,	Hartmut Erbse referred our gloss to Aelius Dionysius	(ο	30).	The	German	scholar,	however,	accepted	Photius'	reading	δίκαιον	in his edition of	Aelius, because, according to him, the patriarch gathered Atticistic glosses	from	two	sources,	Σ′′	and	Σb (scil. the source of B-version of Synagoge), and therefore he can preserve a better text compared with the text of Suidas.5 Indeed, I have some concerns about the fact that Aelius Dionysius really had δίκαιον, but surely the comparison with Photius does not allow to accept his δίκαιον into our scholia: we have to remember, in fact, that the patriarch could preface, he has only put the materials collected by J. Burnet,	F.	D.	Allen	and	C.	P.	Parker	in	order:	cf.	Greene 1938,	XII-XIV	and	Cufalo	2007,	XVII-XIX. 4 On the Erweiterte Synagoge, see	Erbse	1950,	23 and	34	(with	stemma codicum);	Cunningham	2003,	13-14. For	the	sake	of	simplicity,	I	don't	take	into	account	the other two recent manuscripts, C (Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellonska, inv. nr. 2626, saec. XIV) and D (Paris. Suppl.	gr.	1243	I,	saec.	XIV),	on	which	see	Cunningham 2003. 5 Cf.	Erbse	1950,	28. have	had	access to	another	version	of	Σ′′ or that this reading	can	be the	result	of	a conjecture	made	by	a	scribe	at	any	level	of the	manuscript	tradition	of	Aelius'	or	Photius'	Lexica.6 On the contrary, the agreement between scholium and Suidas, not new in our corpus, would need closer attention, especially because it is known that Platonic scholia are much closer to Suidas than to Photius.7 Now it is not possible to examine the entire corpus, but let me consider a similar case in another scholium, near to ours (sch. Resp.	1.343a7;	A,	f.	9v; T, f.	203r),	which	shares	with	Σb (κ	419) and	Suidas	(κ	2119-2120)	an	addition	from Timaeus	(κ	22	Valente),8	missing	in	Photius'	corresponding	gloss (κ	986).	Surely, this	is	not	an	Atticistic	gloss,	but	this	case demonstrates	that	the	agreement	with	Suidas	against	Photius	can	take	place	also	in glosses	penetrated	into	Synagoge at a very early	level,	probably	already	in	Σ′,	but	perhaps omitted by Patriarch due to a mere omission.9 Further, there is no reason to refer the whole scholium to Atticists and therefore we cannot exclude the fact that at least its final sequence	has	other sources.	To	support this opinion, we can perhaps adduce the strict connection between our scholia and the text of Plato: both in Resp.	1.344a-b	and 6 Photios, as we know, had direct access to the text of	Atticists:	cf.,	for	example,	Theodoridis	1982,	LXXIII. 7 Cf.	the	stemma	printed	by	Cunningham	2003,	14. 8 Cf.	Valente	2012,	159. 9 We could suppose that this omission was encouraged	by	the	fact	that	in	Σ′	there	were	two	glosses, as	now	in	Suidas,	although	joined	into	one	by	Σb. If this opinion	is	correct,	the	fact	that	our	scholium	also	joined these	glosses	becomes	noteworthy.	Cunningham	2003, 306,	refers	the	second	part	of	Σ κ	419,	the	one	attested only	in	B,	to	«Σ′	vel	Σb»	and	in	apparatus	writes	«fort. recta e Tim. sumpsit Su.», but probably he was led to this	conclusion	by	the	status	of	the	gloss	in	Suidas. 18 in Leges	9.857b,	the	word	ὅσια	is	opposed to ἱερά, and in both passages, although with a slight difference, it is a	matter of stealing; only in Republic, besides the ὅσια–ἱερά pair, we read the second pair, καὶ	ἴδια	καὶ	δημόσια.	Therefore,	after	had given	the	definition	of	the	concept	ὅσιον	in implicit	contrast	with ἱερόν, the	scholiastes	takes	care	to	define	ὅσια	χρήματα	as	μὴ ἱερά	in	consistency	with	platonic	passages. This	topic	leads	us	to	the	final	consideration,	the	one	devoted	to	the	general	quality	of	Photius'	δίκαιον. The	ὅσιον=δίκαιον	equivalence	is	well attested in the erudite literature and appears, for example, in Hesych. ο 1404 ὅσιος· καθαρός, δίκαιος, εὐσεβής, εἰρηνικός, ἁγνός, in the Cyrillian gloss Hesych. ο 1407	ὁσίως·	πρεπόντως,	δικαίως,	and,	inside the scholiastic tradition, in scholia to Thuc. 3.56.2 (p. 199.13 Hude),	Aeschyl. Sept. 1010f ὅσιος· δίκαιος, in Tryclinian scholium to Aeschyl. Ag.	779a,	and	in	the so called Scholia Anonyma Recentiora to Ar. Nub.	1439c.10 Elsewhere, on the contrary,	the	two	words	are	definitely	distinct, as	in	EGud.	437.48-52	Sturz	ὅσιος·	ἁγνός, ὁ	τὰ	θεμιτὰ	πρὸς	θεὸν	πράσσων·	τὸ	ὅσιον λέγουσί τινες ἐπίτασίς ἐστι τοῦ δικαίου· κρεῖττον δὲ εἰπεῖν, ὅτι διαφέρει ὅσιον δικαίου·	καὶ	γὰρ	δίκαιος	μὲν	λέγεται	ὁ	τὴν ἰσότητα τοῖς ὁμοειδέσι φυλάττων· ὅσιος δὲ	ὁ	περὶ	τὰ	θεῖα	ἐσπουδακώς,	in	Tzetzes' scholium to Eur. Hipp. 656	Ἀριστοτέλης φησὶν δίκαιον καὶ ὅσιον διαφέρειν, δίκαιον	λέγων	τὸ	εἰς	ἀνθρώπους,	ὅσιον	δὲ τὸ	εἰς	θεούς.	Τζέτζης	δέ	φησιν	διαφέρειν ὅσιον	δίκαιον	εὐσεβές,	δίκαιον	εἰς	ζῶντας 10 Suid.	α	4639	(vol.	I	p.	433.13-14	Adler)	ὅσια	δὲ λέγεται ἄλφιτα, δεδευμένα ἐλαίῳ καὶ οἴνῳ· καὶ κύρια καὶ δίκαια is very doubtful, because here δίκαια (and κύρια) seems a gloss to the type of ἄλφιτα described shortly before. ἀνθρώπους, εὐσεβὲς εἰς θεούς, ὅσιον εἰς νεκρούς,	and	in	the	so	called	Fragmentum Lexici Graeci nr. 191 τὸ τὰ προσήκοντα πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ποιεῖν λέγεται δίκαιον· ὅσιον δὲ τὸ τὰ προσήκοντα πρὸς τὸν θεόν.11 The vagueness of the word δίκαιον, both per se and if considered in relation with the lemma that the above cited loci refers	to,	is	evident.	The	reading	δημόσιον, on	the	contrary,	as	we	have	seen,	fits	very well with Platonic context and can easily	explain the	corruption to	διονύσιον	οn paleographical grounds, if we consider the homoeoteleuton -οσιον and the well known tendency of the scribes of lexica to abbreviate the words. Even in support of the ὅσιον=δημόσιον equivalence a very strong parallel is	Harp. ο 38 ὅσιον· Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ἀριστογείτονά φησι "καὶ τὰ χρήματα τά τε ἱερὰ καὶ τὰ ὅσια".	ὅ	τε	Ἰσοκράτης	Ἀρεοπαγιτικῷ	"καὶ τοῖς	ἱεροῖς	καὶ	τοῖς	ὁσίοις".	ὅτι	δὲ	τὰ	ὅσια τὰ	δημόσια	δηλοῖ	Δημοσθένης	ἐν	τῷ	κατὰ Τιμοκράτους	σαφῶς	διδάσκει	περὶ	τούτων· "καὶ τὰ μὲν ἱερὰ, τὰς δεκάτας τῆς θεοῦ καὶ τὰς πεντηκοστὰς τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν, σεσυληκότες"	καὶ	μετ'	ὀλίγα	"τὰ	δὲ	ὅσια ἃ ἐγίνετο ἡμέτερα κεκλοφότες".	Δίδυμος (cf. fr.	16	p.	40	et fr.	25	p.	316	Schmidt) δὲ	"διχῶς"	φησὶν	"ἔλεγον	τὸ	ὅσιον,	τό	τε ἱερὸν	καὶ	τὸ	ἰδιωτικόν",	which	presumably derives from Didymus and which cites Hyperides	(fr.	32	Jensen),	Isocrates	(7.66) and	Demosthenes	(24.120),12 but we could mention	also	sch.	(aVxLSf)	Aeschin.	1.23 (55 Dilts) ὅσια καλεῖ τὰ δημόσια, sch. 11 Cf.	Hermann	1801,	351. 12 This	is	the	text	printed	by	both	Dindorf	1853,	vol. I,	226-227	and	Keaney	1991,	195,	but	the	sequence	ὅτι δὲ τὰ	ὅσια τὰ	δημόσια	δηλοῖ	Δημοσθένης	ἐν τῷ	κατὰ Τιμοκράτους	σαφῶς	διδάσκει	περὶ τούτων is not	very perspicuous,	at	least	for	me.	From	Harpocration'	gloss derive	Phot.	ο	554	and	Suid.	ο	687. 19 (f) Aeschin. 3.246 (534 Dilts) δημόσια κηρύγματα· δίκαια and Lex.Rhet. 288.35 Bekker ὅσιον: τὸ ἰδιωτικὸν καὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον,	οἷον	πρὸς	ὃ	ἐφίεται	βαδίζειν, οἷον	ἔσιον	καὶ	παρ'	ὃ	βέβηλον	καλεῖσθαι τὸ	βάσιμον.	ἄλλοι	δὲ	τὰ	δημόσια.13 13 A	later	scholiastes	of	Vindob.	Suppl.	gr.	7	(W),	a ms. of XI cent., but where the Republic was transcribed around	1200	(cf.	Hunger	&	Hannick	1994,	12-16),	to	the margin	of	our	passage	added	the	note	Δημοσθένης	ἐν	τῷ κατὰ	Τιμοκράτους τὰ	μὲν τῶν	θεῶν	χρήματα ἱερά, τὰ In conclusion, can δίκαιον be ὅσιον? Surely, yes and I hope no one would deny that holiness is right! But this is not the case for our scholia, where a more careful analysis	of	Plato's	words and	a	more accurate selection of loci paralleli induce to emend	the	corrupt	διονύσιον	to	δήμοσιον, whose holiness should probably be not less important. δὲ	κοινὰ	τῆς	πόλεως	ὅσια	ὀνομάζει,	evidently	derived from Harpocration. REFERENCES Cufalo,	Domenico.	2007.	Scholia Graeca in Platonem. Pleiadi 5.1. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Cunningham, Ian Campbell. 2003. Synagoge. Συναγωγὴ λέξεων χρησίμων.	S.G.L.G.	10.	Berlin	– New	York:	Walter	De	Gruyter. Dindorf,	Wilhelm. 1853.	Harpocrationis Lexicon in decem oratores atticos. 2 vol. Oxonii: e Typographeo	Academico. Erbse, Hartmut. 1950. Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexica.	«Abhandlungen	der	Deutschen Akademie	der	Wissenschaften	zu	Berlin,	Philos.-histor.	Klasse»	Jahrgang	1949	Nr.	2.	Berlin:	AkademieVerlag. Greene,	William	Chase. 1938. Scholia Platonica.	Haverfordiae:	Societas	Philologica	Americana Hermann, Johann Gottfried Jakob. 1801. De emendanda ratione Graecae grammaticae. Pars Prima.	Accedunt	Herodiani	aliorumque	libelli	nunc	primum editi. Lipsiae: apud Gerardhum Fleischerum. Hermann, Karl Friederich. 1858. Platonis Dialogi secundum Thrasylli tetralogias dispositi. VI.	Lipsiae:	B.	G.	Teubner. Hunger, Herbert & Christian Hannick. 1994. Katalog der griechischen Handscriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek.	Teil	4:	Supplementum Graecum.	Wien:	Verlag	Hollinek. Keaney, John Joseph. 1991. Harpocration Lexeis of the Ten Orators. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. Ruhnken,	David.	1800.	Scholia	in	Platonem	ex codicibus mss. multarum bibliothecarum primum collegit. Lugduni	Batavorum: apud Sam. et Joann. Luchtmans. Theodoridis,	Christos.	1982.	Photii Patriarchae Lexicon.	I.	Berlin	–	New	York:	Walter	De	Gruyter Valente, Stefano. 2012. I lessici a Platone di Timeo Sofista e Pseudo-Didimo.	S.G.L.G.	14.	Berlin	–	Boston:	Walter	De	Gruyter. Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas Platono Valstybės (Resp.	I	344a8)	ir	Įstatymų (Leg.	IX	857b5)	scholijų (A,	f.	10r;	T,	f.	203r	ir	A,	f.	243-244v;	O,	f.	92r)	crux AR GALI δίκαιον BŪTI ὅσιον? PLATONO VALSTYBĖS IR ĮSTATYMŲ SCHOLIJŲ KOMENTARAS (PLAT. RESP. I 344A8; LEG. IX 857B5) Domenico Cufalo S a n t r a u k a Gauta: 2015-10-05 Autoriaus adresas: Priimta publikuoti: 2015-11-05 Domenico	Cufalo Via	Contessa	Matilde	14,	56123	Pisa	(PI) El.	paštas:	cufalo@gmail.com ir vietoj rankraščiuose teikiamos glosos διονύσιον, kurią	W.	Ch.	Greenas	siūlė	keisti	į	δίκαιον,	siūlomas skaitymas	δημόσιον.