Skip to main content

Full text of "A Collation of the Old Armenian Version of Plato's Laws, Book IV"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


In the remaining books (IV-XII) of the Laws it will not be 
necessary to point out in detail the many points of identity 
between the text of the great Paris MS and that of the Armenian 
translator. In our examination of books I-III we have shown 
that the Armenian adheres to the text of the Paris Codex 1807 in 
almost all cases where other MSS, really apographs of it, show 
deviations. When the Armenian really departs from the Paris 
text, it is often but to agree with other genuinely independent 
and old sources, such as Ficino's Latin rendering or the citations 
of Eusebius and Stobaeus. 

In book IV of the Laws the following passages may be noticed. 
Where the Armenian seems to yield a sound reading I have 
prefixed an asterisk. The collation is with the text of Schanz all 

St. 7°4 B> Sch. 98. 8 7roXir, rjs irepi to vvvbr) Xe^devra fjptv. The 
Arm. implies ra vvv SiaXex&Vra. Cp. Theat. 158 C a re yap vvvi 

Sieikeypcda. But the received text is satisfactory, and all that can 
be here said of the Armenian reading is that it is equally 

*St. 704 B, Sch. 98. 10. Schanz reads ; W 8«/ Xi/neW ap' elo-h 

Kara ravra abrrjs, r) to napdjrav dXipevos ; This is the reading of the 

Paris MS. Eusebius, in citing the passage, has elah kot aCrijs, f/ 
k. t. X., which is also implied by the Arm. Ficino renders : 
"Portus uero suntne prope? An mare illud penitus importu- 
osum " ; which agrees better with the reading of Eusebius than 
with that of the Paris MS. 

*St. 704 B, Sch. 98. 12. Sch. reads with the Paris MS: EiXi- 
pievos pen oZv TavTjj ye o>s dwarov, and does not notice the variant olv 
avTtj given in Eusebius and, furthermore, implied by the Armenian. 
The agreement throughout this passage of the Armenian with 
Eusebius' citation is important, for it proves (1) that these variants 
are not due to citation, but were in the text itself which Eusebius 
had, and (2) that a genuinely old ttxt underlies the Armenian. 

x See A. J. P. XII 193-210. 


St. 704 C, Sch. 98. 15, 16. Perhaps the translator read eVtSeijo-et 
for emSerjs in both sentences. 

*St. 704 C, Sch. 98. 21. The Version adds ira^t, so as to read : 

Ti 8«/ iredlav re Kat opa)i> (tai vAi;s jrdoT/s jraij pepos endoTtov rjpiv efXij^ei// 

The sense would be "wood of all sorts." As introductory to the 
exception he means to make of ship-building wood, Plato may 
well have written n-do-ip here ; and the fact of n&s following after it 
may explain its absence from the Paris MS. 

St. 704 D, Sch. 98. 25 ■nam yiv olv\. The Version adds Udjepa, 
which seems the addition of one who missed the sense of the 

*St. 704 "> Sch. 98. 29 ptydXov twos ?8« craTtjpos re airy. The 

Arm. has aunj, which Ficino also implies: "maximo sibi salutis 
fundatore opus esset." 

St. 704 D, Sch. 99. 3. The Arm. translator renders as if o-^eSoi/ 
came after beovTos. Perhaps, however, he merely read the comma 
after, instead of before, <tx(86v. 

St. 705 "1 Sch. 99- 4> 5 7rp6<rotKos yap BaKarra x^Pf ™ P* v na p' 

Uao-TTjv fipe'pav r)8i. This is the reading of the Paris MS. Stobaeus, 
in citing the passage, reads Bokor-rn x<*>pa, which is also involved by 
the Armenian. Schanz omits to notice this variant, which has at 
least as much authority as that of the Paris MS. 

*St. 705 A, Sch. 99. 7 iprnpiikdva airri)V. The Version has avT/jv, 

which is also read in early editions of Stobaeus, and must be 
accepted, if just before BaXdrrn x<*>P a be read. 

*St. 7°5 "1 Sch. 99- * 2 Tpa\tia 8c ovaa brjkov i>s ovk av iro\v(popos 

ap.a. Schanz notes that ndpqjopos is read in the Paris MS, but that 
the letters dp. are written over an erasure of iro\i<popos, while a 
manus recentior adds before irdp<j>opos and outside the line the 

Words iro\v<popos re tit] Kai. Eusebius has iro\i<popds t til] Kai 

ndfupopos, which Stobaeus also gives, only reading rw for r'. The 
Armenian, like Eusebius, adds koi nap<p., but omits tit] and favors 
•ye instead of t. Ficino also had the reading of Eusebius, and 
well brings out its meaning : "Cumque silvosa sit et aspera, licet 
omnia ferat, non tamen abunde omnia." The reading of Schanz 
comes to the same thing, but the weight of the evidence is in 
favor of adding the words koX ndpcpopos. 

St. 705 B> Sch. 99- * 9 <rvyx«>povpev Tore \tyeii> fjpas opBas Ka\ rd vvv. 

The Arm. involves vpds, which Ficino perhaps read, for he 
renders : "et ilia tunc, et nunc ista recte dicta concedimus." 

*St. 705 D, Sch. 100. 5. Schanz reads : to hi on npbs pepos dXX' 
ov npds irdo'av o~xth6v t ov irdw ^wtx^>pow. The Arm. places the 


comma before, not after, cr^So'i/, with a gain to the sense. Ficino 
renders : " quoniam vero non ad universam, sed ad virtutis partem 
ferme equidem non valde laudabam," which perhaps points to 
similar punctuation in his Greek. Stephanus takes it in the same 

*St. 706 A, Sch. 100. 8-1 1. Schanz reads : tovtov yap 817 rideo-Oai 

tov vopov op8S>s \morl8epai. povov, of av SiKtjv to£6tov emuTore oro^afijTai 
tovtov oto) av obk^Ss T&v del na\S>v Tt £vv€nt)Tai povov, Ta Se aXKa i-vpivavra 

n-apaXftVp. In this passage the Paris MS reads toO tS>v after awex&s 
and fiovai (sic), povov being written in margin in late hand. The 
Armenian confirms Schanz in omitting tov after rayis, and also 
omits u.6vov, which Ficino also omits: "qui veluti Sagittarius illuc 
animum semper intendit, unde continuo aliquid semperque sequa- 
tur eorum quae bona sunt." 

St. 706 A, Sch. 100. 1 2 iav re &pa rt to>v aXkav. Here the Version 
has aXXo instead of Spa. 

St. 706 C, Sch. 100. 25. The Version unaccountably omits 
povijiav after 6ttKitS>v in 1. 25, and ptvovras just below after cmodvrio-Kw. 
The double omission has a purposive air. But povipav has not 
only the authority of the Paris Codex and of Ficino, but of 
Plutarch as well (vit. Philopoem., p. 363 F). It is to be remarked 
that Stephanus read vop.lp.av from some bad MS. 

St. 707 A, Sch. IOI. 19. Schanz reads : jrpor fie rovrotr al 8m to 
vavnKa iroKeav 8vvdpets apa crarripias Tipas oil ra koXXioto) toiv iroikepiiecbv 
aVoStfioao-tc. fita KvftepvrjriK'js yap /cat TrcvrrjKovrapxias (cat epeniefjs [_*ai] 
■n-avrodanav (cat oi ndvv o-novbaiav dvOpaimv ytyvope vrjs, Tas ripds eKaarotr 
ovk av duvaiTO opBats aVofiifidVat rt?. 

In the above the Paris Codex has ipeTpiKtjs and Spa o-mrripia. 
Badham conjectured a-coTrjpias. Ast would remove fita before 
Kvf2epvt]TiKi)s. Schanz brackets na\ before 7ravro8airwv, and the apo- 
grapha omit it. Ast conjectured fita navToban&v. The Armenian 
does little to remove the difficulties of the passage. It gives the 
following sense : " Praeterea et civitatum quae per navalia et vires 
simul salutis, et honores non optimae parti rerum bellicarum 
retribuerunt. Et enim per artem gubernatoriam, L virorum 
principatu, et principatu variorum quae (or ?qui) est hominum 
et non specialiter optimorum, honores singulis non possit quispiam 
retribuere recte." From which it appears that the Armenian 
read *dpxucrjs or riyepoviierjs instead of iperiKtis, and, with the 
apographa, omitted koi before n-ajrofianw. It is also almost certain 
that the Armenian translator read koi after o-arijpias. He seems to 


have understood the whole passage as follows: "Moreover, of 
cities, those which depend on fleets apportion the forces of safety, 
as well as the honors, not to the best of the warlike elements," etc. 

St. 708 D, Sch. I02. 7 ov to o-<o£eo-8aL re km oxik elvai novov dvdpmnois 

TifiiaiTarov ijyoii^ei'ot. The Arm. renders in the sense 1-0 ovra o-a(eadai 
km ov to elvai iwvov k. t. X. It is more probable that this is an 
ingenious misreading of the text we have, than that the Armenian 
actually found the above reading in his MS. ovtw, of course, 
meant 'by means of political virtue.' 

*St. 709 C, Sch. 103. 4. The Version adds the words tc km 
vonoderelo-dat, which in the Paris MS are added in the margin by a 
second hand, with the remark iv aXXo> evpov. Ficino translates 
these words, and all the editions add them. Just below St. 709 C, 
Sch. 103. 8 the Armenian suggests ivbe'x^at instead of dvex^rM. 
Ficino also renders 'suscipit.' In the next line the Arm. omits 

81a <rvvr]3eiav. 

St. 709 D, Sch. 103. 14 omits /xaWov. The words which follow 

to Se o-vpnvevo-ai km Kadanep ittttwv £ebyos Ka6 ev els rairov, to \eyopevov, 

<rvix<t>vo-rjo-at have given rise to some discussion. For the Paris MS 
reads ko.6' eva. Whether the Armenian translator read K ad' ha or 
Ka6' iv cannot be decided ; but he removes km after o-v/«r«0o-ai and 
sets it after ku6' iv. Immediately below the Version retains oVT<»r 
and TeXea>TaT<»>', which are read in the text of the Paris MS. 

*St. 708 E, Sch. IO3. 21 'Qyade, eoiKa nepl vopoderSav iiravicav Kal 

o-KoirS>v ap.a ipeiv n km <f>av\ov' Ficino renders: " Dum et conside- 
rare legum latores et laudare vellem, ad vile quid dictu videor 
lapsus." Perhaps we may infer that he read e'nMv&v for e'navtwv. 
The Version omits km o-kok&v, but retains inaviav. Perhaps km 
o-Konav was added by one who read inMvav but was puzzled by the 

construction nep\ vopodermv inawmv. 

St. 709 A, Sch. 103. 30. The Version gives instead of dvirpajfe 
the bad reading aveo-rpe^e, also given in Stobaeus. 

*St. 709 A, Sch. 104. 1. For \01pav the Version has o-eio-pmv, 
after which it retains tc, but omitting km after ipirmTovTav and 
reading aKMpia. Assuming that aiauplai really stood in his text, 
the translator read as follows : o-eio-pav t« ipnunovrmv xpo"°" € ' wl toXvv 
ivtavrav noXKwv ttoXKokis anaipiai. This is a better reading than the 
other texts yield, for in them Xot^Si' is superfluous after voW, and 
t( after \oip&v. After o-eio-pwv, however, re is in place, and need not 
be any more bracketed, as it is by Schanz. The only word which 
the Arm. removes is km, which may have been inserted by one 


who rightly failed to see the connection between human disease 
(Xot/itos-) and bad harvests (axaipiat)- The latter might ensue as 
the result of earthquakes. 

St. 709 A, Sch. 103. 3. a£euv, the reading of the Paris MS, is 
given in the Version. Stob.: ap^eiev. Just below in 709 B the 
Arm. agrees with the Paris Codex and Stobaeus in reading Spas, 
against 6pola>s of the Apogr. Vatic. In the next line Stobaeus has 
ev \lyovra Myeiv, but the Version agrees with the Paris MS in giving 

Xe-y. eS Xe-y. 

*St. 709 C, Sch. 104. 14. The Version, literally rendered = nam 
in hiemali tempore comprendere gubernatoriam maxima efficit, 
necne et hoc magnum aliquid lucrum ponam artis ? We see that 
it at least retains after Kv^epvrfriK^v the words ij prj, given in the Paris 
Codex, but rejected by Schanz, in spite of similar uses, like Laws 

888 B pkyifjrov 8e, 6 vvv ovbev rjyei <rv, to nept tovs 0eovs 6p0a>s ftia- 
vor)9evra £qv K(i\5>s rj p.rj. 

*St. 709 C, Sch. 104. 15, 16. The Version gives the words 
fj nS>s to Klinias and omits ovtws. Badham felt 1) nas to be awkward 
at the end of the speech of the Athenians, and conjectured <™ be 
was. Stobaeus confirms the Armenian in rejecting ovras. 

St. 709 C, Sch. 104. 17. The Version implies * K al iv or <dv, 
which Ast conjectured. At the end of the speech it omits 8«v in 
1. 22. Just before, in line 20, the Arm. has peXKet, with Stobaeus, 
against /«XXoi of the Paris MS. 

St. 709 D, Sch. 104. 24-105. 2. Schanz in this difficult passage 
reads op6s>s n napbv and eVtSeov. His app. crit. summarizes the 
various conjectures of scholars. Adopting his reading, the sense 
is as follows: "Then will not one who has art in one of the 
directions mentioned (viz. as pilot or physician or legislator) be 
rightly able to pray for something given him by fortune and only 
requiring art in addition ? " That is, the artist's prayer will be for 
those conditions to be given by good fortune under which his art 
will be able to work and produce what is wanted. The paraphrase 
of the Armenian translator misses the sense : "Will not, then, one 
who has art in one of the directions mentioned also pray that he 
may be able to adjust rightly, by means of his art, that which 
comes by chance ? " 

*St. 709 D, 105. 5. For rr/v avrav eixnv the Armenian has 
Ttpi avrriv evxh v < which gives a better sense. Just below the Paris 
Codex has 81), for which Sch. substitutes hv. The Armenian 
implies 817. After that, in 1. 10, the Arm. has *<f>epe 8i?, Z> i/o^o&Va 


k. t. X. Here S> is absent from the Paris Codex, but is conjectured 
by Schanz, Ficino rendering "O legislator." 

*St. 709 E. In the next line the Paris text has 6 \a$a>v c£«r 2><tt 

(K ratv Xoiirav avros Tr)v ffdXip inavms SioiKrjtrai ; Here axrr gives offence, 

for, though examples are to hand of its redundant use with the 
infinitive after bvvanai, Uavbs, etc., none are adducible of such a use 
after %x a - The Armenian involves avy, which must be the true 

*St. 709 E, Sch. 105. 11-16. The passage which follows is also 
remedied by the Armenian. Schanz' reading departs from the 
Paris Codex more widely and gives a less satisfactory sense. He 

reads : AO. . . • ri p€Ta tovt elirelv op8a>s cotiv ; apa tov vopoBiTOv 
<j>pa£a>pev tovto; KA. Ti yap; A9. fNat] To8e' rvpavvovpevrjv pot Bore 

rr)v ttoKiv <prj<rei. Here the Paris Codex has i) yap, not «' yap, and 
also val, which "delevit Stallbaum." The Arm. testifies to the 
following reading of the passage : A6. . . . A p^rk tovt eiVav opdSis 

t<TTiv to tov vop.o6(Tov / apa <j>p(i£ap.ev tovto/ rj yap; KA. Nat. AO. To&e 

k. t. X. "Ath. What shall we rightly set down after this as the 
answer of the legislator ? Shall we indicate this answer ? Klin. 
Yes. Ath. This he will say," etc. Thus the Armenian only 
involves the transposition of apa and the addition of to before tov 
vopoBerov. To this addition Ficino also testifies, for he renders : 
"Quid recte deinde dicitur? An legum latoris responsio afferri 
debet? Clin. Utique," etc. Ast conjectured to before tov 


*St. 710 A, Sch. IO5. 19 K.a\ vvv ttj Tvpavvovpivrj \jrvxij tovto £vveitio-8a> 

is the reading of the Paris MS ; but it is the n6\ie which three lines 
before was Tvpawovpivrj, and not the faxy of the rvpawos. " Affertur 
alia lectio ttj tov Tvpawov yjfvxu," notes Stephanus. The Arm. = 
" et nunc huic quae a tyranno regitur civitati sequatur anima talis." 
Therefore read \jsvxr)s toUto ' the despotically ruled city must have, 
along with the rest, this element of the soul (in its ruler), if it is to 
profit by the other qualities (of youth, memory, etc.) which he 
has already got." That this is the true sense is clear from the 

words just below in 7IO B : Tairrfv toivvv r)plv k. t. X. Even if rvpav- 

vovpJvn be middle, it is still the n6\is, and not the tyvxi), of the ruler 
which may be said to govern itself despotically or to have 
despotic institutions. 

*St. 710 C, Sch. 106. 10. The Armenian includes ivrvx^is in the 
speech of Klinias, and instead of npoo-des, pr) kot SXko implies irpocr&es 
ptj tl S\\o. Therefore the Armenian had the same text as Ficino, 


who renders: "Cli. . . . fortis, magnificus atque felix? Athen. 
Adde nihil aliud, nisi ut," etc. Stephanus would give emvxns to 

St. 710 E, Sch. 106. 27. The Arm. implies Xeyo/iev 8e ravra 

where the Greek MSS have 817. 

*St. 711 A, Sch. I06. 32 TavTT) tai Tore ra^fos (cat pqarwur) k. t. X. 

Schanz writes: "in verbis kcu tote haereo." The Armenian omits 
roVe. So does Ficino: "ibi celer et facilis fieri mutatio solet." 

*St. 711 A, Sch. 107. 2 olx awag aXX' otfuu woXXd/ar. The Arm. 
involves ovx air. aWa Kai noK. 

St. 711 B, Sch. 107. II nopeveatiai 8e avrov det Trparov Tairr). The 

Arm. reads S17 for §«. The same reading is in one of Bekker's 
codd. a. 

St. 711 C, Sch. 107. 17. The Arm. agrees with the Paris MS 
in reading ko.\ n-m? olopcOa without ovk. 

St. 7II C, Sch. I07- 32 V TrjV N«CTTopof iiiv ■noji Tts iiraveveyKy (f>v<riv. 

The verb iirava<pipa> is used in three other passages in the Laws, 
viz. I 631 A, III 680 D, V 742 C, and always in the sense of 'to 
refer or trace a thing back to its source or centre.' In the Politeia 
and Cratylus, 434 E and 425 D, it has the same sense ; also in 
Lysis 219 C. Thus the sense of 'to bring up again or restore 
what is past,' which the context requires, is a sense in which 
imtva<f>epa> is never used in Plato. On the other hand, the sense of 
'refer back,' in which he always uses it, is here impossible. The 
Armenian gives this sense: "vel earn quae Nestoris si quando 
quis renovaverit naturam." Ficino renders: "aut si quando- 
naturam Nestoris quis reduxerit." It is clear that the Arm. 

translator read (TravaveoxjrjTat Or avaveaxrrjTai. Cp. Pol. II 358 B 

ciravaveaMTo/iai tov 0pa<rvp.dxov \6yov. Ast in his lexicon renders 
etrava<pe'pa> by refero, and gives no reference to this passage in the 
Laws. The active inavaveixirj would involve less change in the text, 
but it has a post-classical air. The uncials COC might easily have 
been confused by a copyist with T K. Then iitavaviyKiyrat would 
have given way to the more usual form iiravaveyKji. The change 
would also be explained if we supposed that the termination tjtcu 
was written as a compendium in some MS of which the Paris MS 
is a more or less direct copy, and that this compendium was 
wrongly copied. Badham suggested such a theory in explanation 
of most of the bad readings of the Paris MS. 

*St. 711 E, Sch. 107. 34. In the next line the Arm. omits 
dvdparrrav. As it is not necessary to the sense and is also omitted 


in Ficino's version : "quem . . . multo magis omnibus excelluisse 
ferunt," we can infer that it was not in the Greek texts used by 
Ficino and by the Armenian translator. 

*St. 711 E, Sell. 108. 4. For lovrav \6yav the Arm. has peovraiv 

\6yav, which Ficino also read, for he renders: "et illi quoque 
bead sunt, qui fluentia ex ore modesto audiunt verba." 

St. 712 B, Sch. 108. 14, 15. The Armenian translator renders: 
"conemur accommodantes te civitate, seniores tanquam pueri 
oratione confingere leges." He misunderstood 0-01. 

St. 71 2 D, Sch. 109. 2, 3 Kai Tij e'viore p.01 (paiverat naoSiv to>v irokea>v 

8t)iioKpaTovfi.evi) pdXio-T eomevai is the reading of the Paris MS. 
Stephanus, following Ficino's version, which has "nonnunquam 
tamen," conjectured Kai rot, which Sch. adopts. The Arm. retains 
rif, but for &rjfioKpaTov(uvri has rvpawovfievr) or Tvpawlbi. The substi- 
tution is probably right, since it agrees better with what precedes 
and renders «? more tolerable. The sense may be ' and in a way 
(or under some aspects ni) it sometimes appears to me of all 
states most to resemble a tyranny.' Just below, in 1. 7, the 
Armenian retains the reading of the Paris Codex : av iparrjdzis. 

*St. 712 E, Sch. 109. 10. Sch. reads ndya> < where the 
Paris MS has KaTa<f> Ficino has "mihi quoque, Megille, 
perinde ac tibi contigisse videtur." The Arm. translator probably 
read Kaya, for he renders: "Eadem ista affectione, Megille, videor 
ego affici." 

St. 712 E, Sch. 109. 16 to tov fteo-rroTov de e/caari; irpoo-ayopeifTcit 

Kpdros. The Armenian translator reads e'jcaonjr, a vicious reading, 
if it was really in his text. 

St. 712 E. The speech ralrav 0-01 wddos is in the Arm. given to 
the Athenian. Then the speech '6ma>s yap k. r. X. to Megillus and 
Ti'r 8' o 6e6s to the Athenian. Then &p' ovv, etc., to Megillus. Then 
the words ovkovv — bpav to the Athenian, the words ndvv p.iv ovv to 
Megillus. The Athenian resumes tS>v ydp B!j down to oIkutcu, and 
Megillus has the words o-<j>68p' &v w, etc. Comp. the editors. 

St. 713 A, Sch. 109. 17, 18. The Armenian involves xpn" 8' 

€t7T€p TOIOVTOV Ttvbs rrjp ttoXiv cSft €7rovop,d^€o-0ai, TO TOV TuiV d\y)8a>s vovv 

ixdvTav 8eo-7r6^opTos k. t. X. Just below the Arm. has ye n, with the 
Paris Codex, which Sch. corrects to y in. 

*St. 713 B, Sch. 109. 25 en npoTepa tovtwv. The Arm. omits 
tovtvv, which is redundant, and not translated by Ficino. 

St. 713 C, Sch. IIO. 4 Tt)s toiv TOTe fiaxaplas £<»>ijr. The Arm. 

omits tS>v. Perhaps Ficino did so also, for he renders: "beatae 


illius vitae." Just below, in 1. 9, the Arm., along with Ficino and 
the Paris MS, omits tote, which Schanz introduces from Julian's 

*St. 713 D, Sch. IIO. II ■y/xow deioripov re km afieivovos. For re 

the Armenian has twos. Ficino and Julian omit re. Just below, 
1. 14, the Arm. retains avTolo-i npat, which Ficino omits. 

St. 713, Sch. no. 15. The Arm. retains dpa after 6*6s, which 
Sch. omits, following Julian's citation. The Paris Codex has Spa 
km. In the next line, instead of ro yeW, the Armenian has *ro0 
yevovs, which Ficino also no doubt read: "similiter deus, homines 
amans, genus daemonum generi nostro praestantius nobis prae- 
fecit." Schanz brackets to, for which Hermann conjectured roYe. 

*St. 713 E, Sch. no. 18. The Arm. has dpr\vi\v re km al&S, km 
iXevSeplav km drpdovlav. Schanz adopts the reading of Julian's 
citation : tip. re k. al8S> km 87 ap8. The Paris Codex has dp. re k. 
alBS) km fivoplav (yp. i\tvdzpLav) km d<p9oviav. Ficino agrees with the 
Armenian: "pacemque- et pudicitiam, libertatem et iustitiae 
copiam proebens." 

*St. 713 E, Sch. no. 22. The Arm. omits ouSe w6va>v, which 
Ficino retains, but, with Ficino, renders dvd<pvgis in sense of 
' quies.' Both these authorities therefore read dvdtyv^is, which is 
also Julian's reading. This is the only one of Julian's divergences 
from the Paris MS which is reflected in the Armenian. *In the 
same line the Armenian omits oUtm, which is not wanted, and 
perhaps read Set. In the next line, for t6v eV« rod Kpovov Xtyopevov 
fiiov the Arm. has *t. <■. r. Kp. yevopevov /3., which Ficino also read : 
" imitari nos iubet vitam quae sub saturno fuit." 

*St. 714 B, Sch. in. 10 /117 87 (paiXov irlpi. The Arm. has hi for 
8rj. So also Ficino : "neque de re vili," etc. 

*St. 714 C, Sch. in. 13 ff. oSn yap vpos k. t. X. The Arm. gives 

the Sense as follows : oure yap . . . row vopovs, dX\' o n av Kadeo-TrjKvia 
rj iroXtTela £vu(pepoi> 17, O7ro)s ap£ct T€ act Ka\ prj KaTa\v6f]<T€Tai, tov (pvoti 

Spov, etc. Perhaps the true reading may be KaSeo-TtjKvia fj Kokirelq 
gvpcpepov, 6V<»r, etc. The sense of the whole clause would be : "for 
they say the laws ought to regard not war nor excellence all round, 
but whatsoever is expedient to the established constitution; 
namely, that it may always prevail and never be dissolved, thus 
(they say) is the natural definition of the just best stated." The 
Armenian has rendered the dative (ca^eo-njKui'a 7roXir«'a as if it were 
nominative and n as if it were §. In a MS in which no iota 
subscript was given, such a blunder was natural enough. The 


words TavTfi delv, which the Paris Codex adds before to gvpfa'pov, 
are omitted in the Armenian. Critics have replaced them by all 
sorts of conjectures, and all are agreed that they are wrong. 
Ficino's rendering supports in a marvellous way this explanation : 
"nee enim ad bellum, nee ad omnem virtutem referri leges debere 
aiunt : sed ad illud potius, quod constitutae reipublicae conferat, 
quaecunque ilia sit, ut dominetur semper nee pereat : iusti que 
definitionem sic natura optime se habere contendunt." This 

would be in Greek : a'XX' o ti av Ka6eo-TT]Kvlq fjns av rj noKiTila 5 

|u/*(£cpoii, onws k. t. X. Supposing this to be the true text, we may 
suppose that a copyist who did not see that KadeaT^Kvla and wdkmia 
were datives, left out o « ta> and wrote 17ns av instead. Then the 
introduction of ravry 8elv (or IBttv) would be necessary in order to 
make sense. 

St. 714 C, Sch. III. 20 A«y m o-arfricTTepov. Arm. has Xe'ye ti aacp. 

St. 714 D, Sch. in. 24. The Arm. adds *rj before o%iov, and 
just below .paraphrases in the following sense : $) vpos ™ <rvp<pepov 

iavTta (Or eavrov) nal Tr/9 dp)(tjs tov pev€iv. 

St. 714 E, Sch. 112. i. The Arm. has adiKripdrav, which is read 
in the Paris Codex. 

St. 715 A, Sch. 112. 12. The Arm. seems to have omitted fjSt]. 
Also Ficino : " millies namque in civitatibus nonnullis id contigit." 

St. 7^5 ■"■> Sch. 112. 15 T« T€ 7rpdyp.aTa Kara Trjv ttoXiv 0VT<ay *<T(p€Te- 

purav <r<p68pa. There follows no nal to answer re, and so Stephanus 
read ye conjecturally. The Arm. involves to. re irpdypara km to koto 
rt)v iroK. ov. 4(T<p. and omits <rcp6dpa. Ficino renders: "adeo ad se 
solos rem contraxerunt." 

St. 715 A, Sch. 112. 18. Is it a mere coincidence by which the 
Arm. and Ficino both render /xiji-e airols pr/re tuyovois as if it were 
prpe avrwv rots e Kyovois ? Ficino, e. g., has: "ut nullum victis 
eorutnque posteris magistratum concesserint." 

St. 715 B, Sch. 112. 23. The Arm. retains <TTa<Tia>Tas . . . noXiras, 
read in the Paris MS, but for tovtovs, which follows, implies 6 or 
oiis, which gives no sense. In the next line it adds *ol6pe9a, or a 
word of the same meaning, before pdrr/v. So also Ficino : "et iura 
sua frustra sic ab eis vocari censemus." 

St. 715 C, Sch. 112. 30 vopxav imrjpto-lav. For voparv, which is a 

conjecture, the Arm. retains 0eS>v or 6eo0 of the Paris MS ; but in 
the next line the Version implies 6\ ehm -n\v ptyiemp' rrp> peyiotrpi r» 
npi>ra. Ficino renders: "deorum quoque cultum et ministerium 
dabimus ; maximum quidem primo." 


*St. 715 D, Sch. 113. 9 oo-a 6(o\. The Arm. has 8<ra ol fool, 
which Stobaeus also read. 

*St. 715 E, Sch. 113. 20. The Arm. has &v8pes, which Sch. 
adopts. Ficino : " O viri." Codex Paris, has SvSpes. 

*St. 716 A, Sch. 113. 22. The Arm. has evBeia nepalvei iravra Kara 

(pio-tv Ttepupeponevos. Schelling, Diar. Antiq. 1843, Nr. 88, p. 704, 
conjectured irepicpepopevos. The Paris MS has irepmopevonevos and 

Omits iravra. 

*St. 716 A, Sch. 113. 25 raiteivos (col KeKoo-pripcvos. Schanz 
brackets the last two words, which are 'extra versum' in the 
Paris MS. Arm. has Taiteivorrin KeKoo-pripevos, with which cp. 

Xenoph. Air. 2, I, 22 KeKoo-ptjpevtjv to pev oaipa Ka$apoTr)n, rd fie oppara 

aifiol. In the same line the Arm. implies Sony fie, or less probably 
« fie tk, where the Paris MS has 6 fie nr. Just below the Arm. 
implies dvoia (pXeyerai, with the Paris MS. 

St. 716 B, Sch. 114. 2. For iravra Spa the Arm. has, with 
Theodoret, citing this passage, Spa irdvra. 

St. 716 B, Sch. 114. 7. The Arm. has as follows : AijW fiij toOto' 

■ye, as tS>v ^vvaKo\ov6t)cr6iiTiov tw 6ca, els to pihXov fiei Siavorjdfjvai iravra 

avSpa. "This much, then, is clear, that we must for the future 
conceive of every man among those who shall follow along with 
God." But this is not satisfactory, and 5n, which Schanz conjec- 
tures before i>s, is still required. Of course, els r6 /xe'XXoi/ may 
easily have been corrupted into e'o-opevov, but it seems otiose. The 
phrase used in the Version, and which I render by els to peXlov, 
admits of being put into Greek quite literally by the phrase els t6v 
eneiTa xpovov. In the long speech of the Athenian which follows, 
the Armenian reflects the Paris MS in the following readings, 
which Schanz or others find unsatisfactory, viz. St. 716 D, Sch. 
114. 18 Kal u&ikos. Just below, 1. 22, Sei where Sch. writes del. In 
St. 717 A, Sch. 114. 30 the Arm. has e'yKaiporaros. Then Sch. 115, 

1. I erpeais and \eyopeva, 1. 4 dpioreia or apio~reia. Then in St. 718 A, 

Sch. 116, 1. 4 Arm. has Sairdvrjs re, in 1. 6 of same page it has av, 
which Stobaeus omits. Just below, in 1. 10, irpos 8e5>v. In 1. 12, 
lastly, it has the same lacuna after 8U£o8os as the Paris MS. In 
the following passages, however, in this speech it varies from the 
Paris Codex : 

St. 716 D, Sch. 114. 22. The Arm. has evxals Kal ^vpnao-iv dvadr)- 
pao-iv Kal depmrela 0eia o Kal KaWiarov. Here 8eia may be right. 

St. 716 E, Sch. 114. 27 omits fiSpa after piapov. Just below, in 
1. 29, it renders toi? dvoo-iois in the sense of tois dbUois, and in the 


next line oVi'oir in the sense of xadapois. *In the same line it has 
for airaaw the nom. sing, anas, which is certainly right, the sense 
being that, for the unholy, all their arduous and ample labor is in 
vain, but for the pure in heart every service (anas), however 
humble, is in season, even if it be not 6 ttoXvs. Ficino : "quod 
opportune faciunt omnes sancti " ; so he read cmaviv. 

*St. 717 A, Sch. 114. 31 fitXt) 8c aZ. Here the Paris MS has 
|3. Sf airoi, which is impossible. The Arm. has avra or ravra. The 
Basle edition already had alra. Ficino: "sagittae vero ad illud 
quaenam ?" 

St. 717 B, Sch. II5. 6, 7 TO(? 8e Tovrav avadev down tO i/w8ij]. 

The Arm. omits, but since these words are glanced at in Plutarch, 
de Iside, p. 361 A, they can hardly be a gloss. Ficino renders 

*St. 717 B, Sch. 115. 13 vonifav it. The Arm. adds 8«. This 
must have stood in the original Greek, for Ficino also adds it : 
"putare enim quisque debet omnia quae possidet eorum esse." 

*St. 717 C, Sch. 115. 17. The Armenian reads *a< after instead 

of before xmepTrovovvrmv, and in 1. 19 817 waKaiois for be wa\aiols. 

These very insignificant changes make the Greek text to run 
more smoothly. Ficino's text also must have transposed the <a\ : 
" haec omnia videlicet mutuo data persolvens, et pro curis dolo- 
nbusque priscis parentum, in senecta recentes reddens, quando 
maxime indigent." 

St. 717 E, Sch. 115. 29 t&v el6i<rixtvu>v oyKov is Schanz' reading. 
The Paris MS has 6yK<ov, but t5>v eldio-pivav. Stobaeus has rbv 
eWte-fievov ojkov. The Arm. has to» eWto-ncvov vofwv. Ficino : " con- 
suetam magnitudinem." Here vd/wv might be right, but SyKov is 
more graphic. 

*St. 717 E, Sch. 115. 30. The Paris Codex and Stobaeus share 
the vicious reading tow aWav yevvrjras. Schanz conjectures and 
reads rots avrmv yewr)Tals, which is actually involved by the Arme- 
nian and was also read by Ficino: "quae maiores genitoribus 
suis struebant." 

St. 717 E, Sch. 116. 1. For emueXcias the Armenian Version 
has fivi)ixas, which is inept. Just below it omits irap^x°^'">'>, and 
translates the entire clause as if it were t<» (or to) 8e /«? irapakeLnuv 

fivrjfirjv (P&€\f)(rj avrStv aWa rovro) fxa\ior del 7rp€<r(3*v€iv, SaTrdvrjs re 
k. r. X. 

St. 718 B, Sch. 116. 13. For plq ko\ the Arm. has fimla. In 
reading an old text a translator might confuse <ai with tat. 


*St. 718 B, Sch. Il6. 18. The Arm. has irapd.8ei.ypa irpoeveynovra, 

which Ficino also read: "horum exemplum." The Paris MS 

has 8e7yp.a. 

St. 718 D, Sch. 116. 30. After Xf^dhra the Arm. introduces 
this gloss : irepl dvaiav Kal yoveav. In the next line it omits els to, 
but in the rest of this hard speech it faithfully reflects the readings 
of the Paris Codex. 

St. 719 A, Sch. 117. 13. The Armenian read tpepeiv, with the 
Paris Codex. Cp. Hesiod, op. 213, for a similar use. Why does 
Schanz in his text adopt the insipid reading neXei of the editions 
of Hesiod ? Plato certainly read cptpew. 

*St. 719 A, Sch. 117. 16 ei to fieo-ov avTo Sewai is read in the Paris 
MS. Badham conjectured a5 for ai™, which Schanz adopts. The 
Arm. omits al™. In the preceding line, for 5 ye poi it implies & ye 
poi. Ficino: "verum quo sermonis spectabat progressio, volo in 
medio vobis proponere." The Armenian also assigns now pep ovv 
to Clinias. 

St. 719 B, Sch. 117. 20. The Arm. omits ov before SrjXop, and 
after it reads S n. 

St. 719 D, Sch. 118. 8. The Arm. omits 8el after del. 

*St. 719 D, Sch. 118. 13. The Arm. has Bdirreiv nirriip 'and if it 
were commanded to bury her in poetry.' This is better than 
ainjv, read in the Paris MS and implied by Ficino's rendering. 

*St. 720 A, Sch. 118. 30. After irpaoraTov the Arm. omits avrov, 
which "delevit Badham." Just before, after dpapippjio-Kwfieda, in 
1. 28, the Armenian omits 8e. 

*St. 720 C, Sch. 119. 16. The Paris MS has Udo-Tov irept voo-t)- 
p-aTos enao-Tov twv oliceT&v. Schanz notes thus: "unum alterumne 
eicao-Tov delendum esse videtur." The Arm. has UaaTw nepl voo-ij- 
fiaros eKaerrov t. oik., which may be right. 

*St. 720 E, Sch. 120. 2, 3. The Paris MS, which Schanz 

follows, has tip apa irpoyrov vofiov Be'iT av 6 vopodeTTjs J ap' ov Kara (piaiv 
Tr\v irepl yeve'o-ems apxi)v npaiTrjv iroheiov nepi KaTaKoo-p.rj(rei rats rdgeaiv ; 

Badham felt this text to be wrong, and conjectured rw nepl yeveo-iv, 

o>s dpxrjv irpwTTjii iroXewv, npiv KaTaK.oerp.rjo-ai reus Ta^eai. For irepl 

Stephanus conjectured napd. The Arm. involves ap' ov top koto 

Kpiaiv, rfjv irepl yev. dp. irok. irepi irpd>Tt)v kotok. rats irpd£eaip ; which, 

however, is not quite satisfactory. Ficino adheres to the text of 
the Paris MS. 

*St. 721 A, Sch. 120. 7 koi fj Koipcopla is read in the Arm., as also 
in Codex A Stobaei. Just below the Arm. involves yaptml 8c 8fj 


vofioi. The Paris Codex has 81) and omits 8e. The codices of 
Stobaeus have some 81? and some 8e, some neither. 

*St. 721 A, Sch. 120. 12 ?x<h 8' av tt&s; Uas &B(. The Arm. has 
cxoi 8' av'lo-as &8e. Badham conjectured nas la-as. Ficino : "quae 
sic se forsan habebit." In next line, for yapziv 8* the Arm. perhaps 
implies yapeiv ye or y. 817, but hardly y. Se. 

*St. 721 B, Sch. 120. 15, 16. The Arm. has xphl J - aa ' 1 p* v ™<tok 

Koi toIs, T$8e 8( Kal ttj dripla. Heindorf conjectured TrjSe 8e Kal ttj dr., 

of which reading there are traces in the Paris MS and in the MSS 
of Stobaeus. Ficino : "dedecore autem tali quodam vel tali." 

St. 721 B, Sch. I20. 19 8tavot]6evTa as etrnv r; k. r. X. The Arm.= 

cogitantem quia sit veritabiliter humanum genus et natura quadam 
particeps est immortalitatis, which is a bungle. 

*St. 721 D, Sch. I20. 31 to'oo) Kal roam. Arm. = too-co koi xf 

St. 721 D, Sch. 121. 5 irorepov aiirovs SiTrXoOr]. The Arm. adds 
avTwv. avrav would not be amiss. Just below it retains t<u pfj<€i to 


*St. 722 A, Sch. 121. 14. The Arm. has alpolprjv, with the 
Apographum Marcianum. The Paris Codex has epol^v. Lower 
down in the same speech, 1. 29, the Arm. reads pdxv, with the 
Paris MS. 

*St. 722 C, Sch. 121. 33 «| aiirav hv vvv SieiKeypeda. The Arm.= 

ex iis etiam nunc a nobis selectis, which corresponds to «£ airmv 
&v vvvty el\6)ieda (or ^prjptda). Schanz notes : "vvvSt/ scribendum 
videtur." Just below, Sch. 122. 1, for nva yeyovos the Arm. has 
*i-t yeyovos, which must be right. Ficino read nva and SieCkiypeda : 
"quod per ea, de quibus disseruimus, nobis Deo quodam adspi- 
rante factum est." 

St. 723 D, Sch. 123. II ov8e nepl acrparos. The Arm. has oi>Se 

yap aaparos, with the Paris Codex. Ficino seems to have had oiSc 
yap nepl a<rp., for he renders: "non enim in cantu neque in omni 

*St. 723 E, Sch. 123. 25 /iera 8e toSto. The Arm. involves p. S<f 
rodro 8fj. The second hand adds tjbr) in margin of the Paris Codex. 

*St. 724 A, Sch. 123. 34. The Arm. omits airav before -^vxas. 
So also Ficino : " Post ilia vero quae ad animos, quae ad corpora," 
etc. Just below, in 1. 35, for npoa-ijKov r the Arm. has npoo-rjicov 8'. 

The above exhausts, for the IVth book of the Laws, the readings 
in respect of which the Greek text of the Armenian translator 
differed from that of the celebrated Paris Codex. Hitherto we 


have had but two witnesses to the text of the Laws, to wit, (1) the 
Paris Codex, of which all our other MSS are copies, more or less 
remote, and (2) the Latin Version of Ficino, representing an 
independent Greek text which must have perished towards the 
beginning of the XVIth century ; and we may rank the ancient 
authors, chiefly Eusebius and Stobaeus, who have handed us 
down citations of the Laws, as a third source of testimony. But 
the variants either implied by Ficino or given in the Florilegists 
were always liable to doubt, so long as they stood alone. There 
was no certainty, for example, that an omission or addition or 
other change in Ficino's Version was more than a device of 
translation. In Eusebius or Stobaeus similarly they might be 
due to careless citation. It may be claimed for a version like the 
Armenian that in scores of passages it removes this uncertainty, 
which especially attaches to omissions and additions. For 
wherever it supports a various reading found either in Ficino or 
the excerptors, we are at once certain that that variant was actually 
in the Greek text used. In this IVth book there are many 
passages in which Ficino and the excerptors win such support. 
In every such case a variant, if it really mends the text, is doubly 
confirmed; while, in case it does not mend the text, the mere 
participation in error proves that we have in the Armenian a text 
which has pro tanto had the same history and comes from the 
same hands as that whose errors it shares. When our collation 
of the whole of the Armenian Version is concluded, we shall try 
to exhibit in a summary the new evidence which the Armenian 
and Latin Versions, in conjunction with one another, afford in 
respect of the families of the texts of the Laws used by the 
various excerptors of antiquity, by Stobaeus in particular. 

Fred. C. Conybeare.