pyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) gove g of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are aut ish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified condit e photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other > study, scholarship, or research.” Ifa user makes a request for, or lat dcopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user n for copyright infringement. stitution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in it ent, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of Copyright Lav¥ZANTION Revus InTernaTionaue ves ETuves ByzanTings fondée en 1924 par Paul GRAINDOR et Henri GREGOIRE Organe de la Société belge d’Etudes byzantines TOME XXXVIIL (1968) ilié avec le concours du Ministére de I’ Education nationale et de la Culture et de la Fondation Universitaire de Belgique BRUXELLES FONDATION BYZANTINE RUE DU MUSE, 5 1968st (Owned by home campus) 20... DL Article Request (Owned by home campus) 20071112152751247 . Request Service ov 2007 15:27:55 -0800 rion.oac.uciedu PORTER, JAMES IVAN Classics Dept., 120 HOB2, UCI james. porter@uci.edu \ 9: ~21970005031801 classics Faculty No time limit ) need copy of J. Glucker, "Notes on the Byz. Treatise" v. 38, 1968, Y= 72 Mery Catalog ae Ke 7 Notes on the Byzantine Treatise yon 99 — 5 Byzantion :. v38, (1968):267-72 0378-2506 Is: ers: UCR Rivera PA5000 .B9 v.1(1924)-14(1939), 51(1981)-57(1987), 58:2(1988) FILLED VIE Circ Status: Circulation information is unavailable for serials SRLF PAS000 .B9 v.15(1940)-50(1980) Circ Status: Inquire at Circulation or Loan Desk; generally available at southern UC campuses u within 48 hours JCSB Main Lib D1 .B95 v.1 (1929)-v.73 (2003) Circ Status: Circulation information is unavailable for serials JCSB Main Lib D1 .B95 v.19 (1949)-v.20 (1950) Circ Status: Circulation information is unavailable for serials JCI|_Langson PA 5000 B9 Bound Periodicals t. 1- (1924)- Circ Status: Circulation information is unavailable for serials JCD Shields PAS5OOO .BS96 v.1-36(1924-66).v.39(1969)-NOTES ET INFORMATIONS NOTES ON THE BYZANTINE TREATISE ON TRAGEDY ~ In what follows, I propose to discuss some passages in the Byzan- tine treatise on tragedy published by Professor R. Browning in 1963 (). Professor Browning says, with his usual modesty : ‘Others will no doubt be able to correct and supplement the suggestions which I make’, A reconsideration of some points of detail in the treatise and its terminology may, perhaps, help us get nearer to an assessment of its origins and value. Section 1. line 2. For émota 14 éxdtega a phrase which Browning finds rather difficult to explain — read : & aoujtod Exdtega, i.e. mountod Egyor — see Aristotle, Poetics 1451 a 37. Section 1, line 5 ff. Read: todray dé rd pév 6 oxnvonotds, ta 68 6 yoonyss “te That is: of the elements of tragedy here listed, the objects @ uysirar, Snonelweva) and the means (ofc) of imitation, from p0o¢ to wéhoc, are the poet’s own concern. Apart from. these, there are four elements external to the poet's art, each. supplied by a particular person : Spic is supplied by the oxevomoréc (as Aristotle has it, 1450 b 20) ; oxnval are natu- rally supplied by the oxnvonoids ; the témou — We shall re- turn to them presently — are supplied by the choregus, and the xuvijcerg — most probably the movements and gestures on the stage — by the actors themselves. By supplying the cxevozouds, which was, I believe, omitted as a homoeoteleuton, we keep closer to the Aristotelian phrase, which (A) A Byzantine Treatise on Tragedy, in DEPAZ, Studtes prosented to George ‘Tromson..., Prague 1963, pp. 67-81.268 J. GLUCKER was obviously known to our author (and solve the difficulty indica- ted by Browning, who reads only oxnvomotdc). We also restore to the whole sentence the balance of four artisans, each of them supply- ing one of the four ‘external’ elements. For this kind of parallel sentence structure in our treatise, see, for example, Section 9, with Browning’s second note on p. 80. What, then, of rdzoz? If we accept the parallelism in this sen- tence, they are supplied by the choregus, and cannot easily refer to “geolaxtoe and other visible signes of locality, as opposed to stage buildings” (Browning’s note) — unless we take ‘choregus” to mean ‘stage director’. The choregia in its original form was abolished in Athens at the time of Demetrius of Phalerum, and other cities pro- bably followed suit sooner or later (). In Delphi, we have evidence for the existence of yogodiddexador, who were probably the produ- cers (*), Aristotle himself does not make things easy (1453 b 7-8): 6 58 bid tig Spews tobto magacxsvdtew areyrdregov xal yoon- plas deduerdy éotw (*). But perhaps the reference is musical, to témot or tgdmor in the musical sense. Both are attested as musical terms in Greek musical writers+seethe references in Aristides Quin- tilianus and in Janus, Musici Scriplores Graeci. But rémog is usually té%06 Bis povijs (Janus p. 302, 14; Arisr. Quint. ed. Winnington- Ingram p. 10, 11 ff.), whereas todmoc is a more harmonic term (Janus p. 338, 16; Arisr. Quint. p. 30, 1 ff.) (4). It is possible that in late Hellenistic and Imperial times, when tragedy developped more and more into $0} ie ern Greek ——— word teayouds, the musical side of the je to be con- sidered_as a more and more essential part of the director's tasks. Thus we and mixed with later elements which originated on the Hellenistic-Ro- man stage. The kaleidoscopic nature of this passage emerges even more clear- (2) See G. M. Straxis, Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama, London 1967, pp. 37 f. (2) Straxts, p. 90. (8) This may imply that the choregus merely supplies the external means for the Visual side of the production — as suggested by Rostagni ad loc. But perhaps by Arlstotle’s time the choregus may have become the general producer — especially in cases of revivals of fitth-century tragedies. (4) But seo the discussion in Straits, pp. 77 £.NOTES ON THE BYZANTINE TREATISE ON TRAGEDY 269 jy from an observation of the way in which the Aristotelian concepts themselves are treated in it, Aristotle’s division of the elements of tragedy, given in the first sections of the Poetics, into 4, ofc and dg (uietcar) is taken over only partially by our author : only the @and of are preserved. Even here, the real Aristotelian elements are partly given up in favour of some minor Aristotelian terms, and partly misplaced. For Aristotle (1450 a 9-12), the objects of imita- tion (a) are three : 1680¢, 70, dudvova; the means (oic) ave two: Adguc and pedonorles BUt Aristotle mever says this in so many words, and our author puts 660g and didvo.a among the means, counting ndOn xat medéerg asthetwo (rather than the Aristotelian three) ob- jects of imitation. In this he probably follows the statement in 1447 a 28, and this is probably why, in Section 2, 11. 9-10, he adds as an afterthought 7}00¢ to the objects of tragic imitation. The only Aristotelian element pertaining to the manner of imitation (do), Spis, is here lumped, together with the elements external to the poet's task, and the word d¢ is thus never mentioned at all. Aristotelian termi- nology isthus behind most of the concepts used here (except rémovand xwhoers). But Aristotle’s real division of tragedy into its six quali- tative constituents (Poel ss cated Tor oUF BUTHON.—Theresuitis,as-far-as tire Aristotelian source is converned, a confusion, in which Aristotle is still discernible through the use of his terminology. Section 1, lines 6-7. J cannot understand Browning’s remark that “the present five- fold division seems to be a result of a careless confusion of two separate divisions, that into xgdioyos, Emevoddtor, BEodos; and that into yooudy and dad oxqviis.” What our author is doing here is merely simplifying and running together the two lists found in the same sentence in 1542 b 16-18. Aristotle has xgddoyoc, éneuaddsov, Bfodos, yogundy as HOWds dndyzooy (“common to all tragedies”), and adds two elements as iia (to some, butnotall, tragedies) : ra dad tis oxnvas and zoppol. Of these, dd oxnvijc is generally taken to mean actors ‘monodies’ and not, as Browning implies, the opposite of gogundy (this simply will not do in the Aristotelian context, although it is a division used later by our author in Section 4 and, as I hope to show, Section 9, There, 2 -270 Js GLUCKER his source, if it is Aristotelian, is not the present passage of the Poe- tics). By combining the two lists of ‘quantitative’ parts of tragedies, those common to all and those peculiar to some, our author rightly adds the dad oxnvijg to the four main parts (since it is not strictly an episode or part of it), and xoppdc to the two other types of chorus parts given by Aristotle, Here, for a change, the Aristotelian text is straightforward, and our author understood it correctly. The only element he has added to Aristotle’s original listis éuuédeca — again, I think, a concept given more prominence in post-Aristotelian theory. Browning thinks that, “though rare, the usage is ancient” — but his references are all late. Tzetzes defines it as @dfjc tu uédoc, and also as teay@dlas dgynatc, and Pollux lists it beside zdgodog and otdotyov — obviously as a choral part different from either. Could this be another term for the éuBéAiwa (), the Hellenistic choral intermezzi designated in the papyri of late comedy by the word XOPOY? If so, this would explain the intrusion of a non-Aristote- lian word into what is otherwise an Aristotelian list. Section 9, Browning is right in pointing out the parallelism in the structure of this section, making the sentence in ]. 66-7 explain the term rdnarotor Legv6 or. This means that the dvdxavotov éeguOuor is the same as the émloxnvov. It should be different from the spoken anapaests of Section 4 above — and, indeed, the term Eggu0uov may point towards this answer : gv@ud¢ is connected by Aristotle with dancing (1147 a 26-7) and music (1448b 20-1), though in both places it is distinct from either of them. And our secfion deals, with éreod twit owrrartepera Tos Teapinois wheal re mat pérgoug — with the verbal part of tragedy, the Aééuc, we have done in Section 4. Could thedrdzatotov £g9v0s107 refer to the lyric anapaests of tragedy, as distinct from the ‘stichic’ ones? If so, one can read in 1. 67: xat yooind dnd oxnvijc. That is: these lyric anapaests are given at various places both to chorus and actors. That they are also called éxloxqva is somewhat puzzling, but this may, perhaps, mean that they are anapaests which form part of the main action on the stage, as distinct from anapaests in messengers’ speeches (see (1) See Smranis, pp. 113 ff.NOTES ON THE BYZANTINE TREATISE ON TRAGEDY 271 Browning's note), which are more of an dcaryyeAla, or those in the parodus and exodus, which, again, are not part of the action itself. Even from the few passages we have touched, some idea may emer- ge of the nature of this treatise. Where the more philosophical or grammatical sides of tragedy are concerned — where, in fact, the discussion touches on subjects similar to those treated in our extant Poetics——most of the terminology is thatof Aristotle, though at times greatly misunderstood, dislocated and distorted, and containing so- sne Hellenistic additions. The amount of the distortion depends in each case on the clarity or otherwise of therelevent Aristotelian pas- sage. Where Aristotle is fairly clear, as in the case of the ‘quantita- tive’ division of tragedy or his concepts of déaug and Avorc, his ideas are faithfully reproduced, though in a modified and simplified man- ner. Where his discussion is more abstruse, as jn the case of the «qualitative’ parts of tragedy, confusion results. To all this one adds non-Aristotelian terms, some of which are clearly later, like rénot, nuvpoerc, éupédera and others, and Aristotelian terms used sometimes in the appropriate sense and sometimes otherwise (as yoginey and dd oxnriis jn Section 1 and Sections 4 and 9). It is significant that the parts of this treatise which have least to do wih Ars we now Mae tee ron 3) discuss the musical and metrical aspects ol 5 Stage produc- tion and acting Wise subjects not treated in Ene-extant part af the Poetics. Im other words, where an Aristotelian discussion is extant, our author's treatment of the e topic, with all its distortions, confusions and later additions| is still derived from it. Browning source’. Possibly but one mig) fan expect, in Section 4, a Giscus- the treatise is based on some late Peripatetic source seems to me more than likely. Tf we ha ices find that the treatment of metre, music and action in the second half of our treatise is also ultimately based on Aristotelian ideas and concepts. Perhaps the source is some lost writing of Themistius, who (Photius Codex 74) wrote Inoumfuaraant pevaygaaets on The whole — or most — of the Corpus Aristotelicum. Tt may have been an earlier Peripatetic author: we now know that the practice of Theophrastus, of writing one’s own new series of Jectures on ‘me- thods’ treated by the founder of the school, was not an uncommon272 J. GLUCKER practice among later heads of the Peripatus (), If our author — and Browning has suggested itasa possibility — was Michael Psel- lus, the act of pars ic treatise would not he alien to his practice (*), The University of Exeter, J. GLUCKER. (1) Seelists of works by the various Peripatetics in the various volumes of Wexn- 11's Die Schule des Aristoteles, and A.H. Cumoust’s article, The Myth of the Disap- pearance and Rediscovery of the Corpus Aristolelicum, in Classica et Medievalia 1963. @) See R. WastrHat, Arislozenus von Tarent, Melik und Rhythmik, Leipzig 1883, p. 190,