Abstract
B, T et W, manuscrits de base des dialogues de Platon, ont longtemps fait l’objet d’un débat scientifique centré sur la question de savoir s’ils dérivent indépendamment de l’archétype ou si deux d’entre eux forment une sous-branche de la tradition contre le troisième. Dans cette étude, fondée sur de nouvelles collations et des investigations in situ, j’analyse les preuves des relations réciproques de B, T et W présentées par le texte du dialogue de Platon l’Euthydème, qui n’a jusqu’ici pas été étudié de manière approfondie sur ce point. Après avoir présenté les preuves du statut de manuscrits de base de B, T et W et de leur descendance commune de l’archétype, j’analyse en détail leurs relations réciproques en me concentrant sur les erreurs significatives, les indications suggérant l’existence d’une ou de plusieurs translittérations et sur les liens entre la tradition directe et la tradition indirecte. Je soutiens que dans la transmission de l’Euthydème, il n’y a pas de preuve certaine pour postuler un stemma bipartite, et que BTW dérivent très probablement indépendamment de leur ancêtre commun.
B, T and W, primary manuscripts of Plato’s dialogues, have long been the subject of scholarly debate centering on the question whether they derive from the archetype independently or whether two of them together form a sub-branch of the tradition against the third. In this article I investigate, on the basis of new collations and in situ investigation, the evidence for the reciprocal relations of BTW as presented by the text of Plato’s dialogue Euthydemus, which up until now has not been thoroughly investigated in this respect. After presenting the evidence for their primary status and their common descent from the archetype, I analyze BTW’s interrelations in detail by focusing on shared significant errors, indications pointing to a single or to multiple transliterations, and on links between the direct and the indirect tradition. I argue that in the transmission of the Euthydemus there is no real basis for postulating a bipartite stemma and that BTW most probably derive from their common source independently.
B, T and W, primary manuscripts of Plato’s dialogues, have long been the subject of scholarly debate centering on the question whether they derive from the archetype independently or whether two of them together form a sub-branch of the tradition against the third. In this article I investigate, on the basis of new collations and in situ investigation, the evidence for the reciprocal relations of BTW as presented by the text of Plato’s dialogue Euthydemus, which up until now has not been thoroughly investigated in this respect. After presenting the evidence for their primary status and their common descent from the archetype, I analyze BTW’s interrelations in detail by focusing on shared significant errors, indications pointing to a single or to multiple transliterations, and on links between the direct and the indirect tradition. I argue that in the transmission of the Euthydemus there is no real basis for postulating a bipartite stemma and that BTW most probably derive from their common source independently.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-34 |
| Number of pages | 34 |
| Journal | Revue d'histoire des textes |
| Volume | 17 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:I would like to thank Dr. G. J. Boter and Dr. R.J. Allan for their constructive remarks on a draft version of this paper. I would also like to thank Nina King for correcting my English. All remaining errors are, of course, my own.