Selection of versions and editions

As signalled, the manuscript tradition of the so-called vernacular literature poses some serious challenges for editors: many of the LMG πολιτικὸς στίχος poems have been preserved in more than one version (cf. supra 1.1.2.2.2). In what follows, I will account for my selection of the versions and of the editions.

The editions can, since recently, all be integrally found on the Thesaurus Linguae

Graecae website, the comprehensive database of Ancient and Medieval Greek texts,

which greatly facilitates queries. However, since the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae does not include the critical apparatus of the editions, we cannot solely rely on it. Rather, we should check the printed editions or − preferably − the manuscripts (cf. supra 1.1.2.2.2). For a detailed description of the manuscripts, I refer to the respective editions.30

3.3.2.1 One single manuscript

Velthandros & Chrysandza (Bibliothèque Nationale Parisinus Graecus 2909 ff. 1r-40v; 1350

verses) and the Ilias Byzantina (Bibliothèque Nationale Parisinus suppl. Graecus 926; 1166 verses) are preserved in one single manuscript and accordingly pose few problems. I rely on the most recent edition: Egea (1998) in case of the former and Nørgaard & Smith (1975) in case of the latter.31

28 _{Here, we could perhaps refer back to the fact that the first writers exploiting the vernacular for literary}

purposes had no models except oral ones; cf. supra 1.1.2.4.2.

29 _{Cf. Marboeuf (2009: 8).}

30 _{Moreover, Chatzegiakoumes (1977: 17-27) has written a survey on the manuscripts and editions of Livistros &} Rodamni, Velthandros & Chrysandza (and Kallimachos & Chrysorroi).

31 _{Egea (1998) has also translated Velthandros & Chrysandza into Spanish. Lavagnini (1988) does the same for the} Ilias Byzantina.

3.3.2.2 More than one manuscript

On the other hand, the Achilleïs Byzantina, the War of Troy, Imberios & Margarona, Livistros

& Rodamni, Phlorios & Platzia Phlora and the Chronicle of Morea survive in parallel versions.

Here, the question arises which manuscript(s) and which edition I should use.

Chronicle of Morea (9219 verses)

With respect to the Chronicle of Morea, the answer is straightforward: it is generally established that the Copenhagen manuscript or Havniensis 57 (H) manuscript is “la plus ancienne, la plus complète et la plus authentique” (Marboeuf 2009: 14) of the five manuscripts in which the Greek version of the chronicle has been handed down to us (Lurier 1964; Shawcross 2009). Therefore, M. Jeffreys (1973: 194) speaks of a “clear codex optimus”.32 _{By choosing H as basic manuscript, I follow Egea (1988), who has written a}

grammar of the chronicle and mainly uses examples from H (if not: it is indicated which manuscript he does use), as well as Lurier (1964), who has based his English translation on H.

I have relied on the edition of Schmitt (1904), which is “old but nevertheless reliable” (Aerts 2005: 142). The beginning, which is missing in H, and other lacunas in H are supplemented by manuscript Taurinensis B II I. Schmitt has undertaken an enormous task, for his edition also contains the Parisinus Graecus 2898 (P) manuscript, the other important manuscript in which the chronicle has been handed down to us (8191 verses). He has presented H and P in parallel. As such, the chronicle provides us with a unique situation, which enable us to conduct comparative case studies (cf. infra 4.2.3). I am not the first one to see this advantage:

“L’édition de Schmitt présente l’avantage considérable de fournir en parallèle les versions principales H et P et en apparat critique les variantes de T. C’est pourquoi les éditeurs, commentateurs et traducteurs suivants, comme Kalonaros et J. M. Egea, ont fondé leurs recherches sur ce travail” (Marboeuf 2009: 14)

Such a parallel edition has been possible, since both manuscripts more or less tell the same story. Nevertheless, there are some important ideological and linguistic differences. H is the older of the two, written in the late 14th _{century. H seems to reflect}

a somewhat anti-Greek attitude (M. Jeffreys 1975b: 305f.; Shawcross 2009: 263). P, copied much later, filters out the pro-Frankish passages “found distasteful” or rewrites them

from a more Greek perspective (Shawcross 2009: 264). With regard to the exact relationship between H and P, M. Jeffreys (1975b: 350) is convinced that P is probably not directly or indirectly copied from H. As a result of its pro-Frankish feelings and its “badly written Greek”33_{, Schmitt (1904: xxxviii) claims that H is written by a non-native}

speaker (Schmitt 1904: xxixf.).34 _{On the other hand, M. Jeffreys presumes that both H}

and P are written by native Greeks.

The War of Troy (14,401 verses)

The War of Troy has been preserved in no fewer than seven manuscripts (Papathomopoulos & E. Jeffreys 1996: xciii-civ), which can be interpreted a sign of its popularity:

“Despite its prodigious length [14,401 verses!], it seems to have been the most read and copied of all the vernacular romances, if the number of surviving manuscripts (seven) can be taken as a reliable guide” (Beaton 19962_{: 136)}

Not surprisingly, thus far only one edition has been published: the edition of Papathomopoulos & E. Jeffreys (1996). Papathomopoulos & E. Jeffreys thought it best to combine all manuscripts using a Lachmannian stemma.35

Livistros & Rodamni (4013 verses)

With regard to Livistros & Rodamni, which has been attested in five manuscripts, Agapitos (2006a) has combined manuscripts according to his understanding of the author’s language, which has resulted in text “α” (cf. E. Jeffreys 2008 review).36 _{However, I have}

given preference to the edition (princeps!37_{) of Lendari (2007), who presents a single}

manuscript, i.e. the Vatican one (Vaticanus Graecus 2391 ff. 1r-152v), which is our fullest witness (Beaton 19962_{: 106; cf. Manoussages 1952: 75).}

33 _{Aerts (1990) alludes to this point of view in the title of his survey article: “Was the Author of the Chronicle of}

Morea that Bad?”.

34 _{More specifically: by a Graecised Frank or a so-called Gasmule, the offspring of a Graeco-Frankish marriage}

(Schmitt 1904: xxxviii).

35 _{Cf. Papathomopoulos’ (1987) article “L’édition critique du ΠΟΛΕΜΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΤΡΩΑΔΟΣ: Problèmes}

méthodologiques”.

36 _{The five manuscripts are: Parisinus Graecus 2910; Neapolitanus III Aa 9; Escorial Ψ IV 22; Leiden Scaliger 55}

and Vaticanus Graecus 2391 (cf. Manoussages 1952: 74f.).

37 _{Ten years ago, Beaton (1996}2_{: 106) wrote: “our fullest witness is a manuscript of the Vatican (Cod. Vat. gr.}

Achilleïs Byzantina (1926 verses)

I have treated the Achilleïs Byzantina in a similar way: I have chosen to concentrate on the Naples version (Neapolitanus Graecus III B 27 ff. 13-60), edited by Agapitos, Hult & Smith (1999), because it is held to be the most complete manuscript (Agapitos 2006b: 158).38

Phlorios & Platzia Phlora (1867 verses)

With regard to Phlorios & Platzia Phlora too, I have adopted this line of reasoning. Two manuscripts survive containing the story of Phlorios & Platzia Phlora (Londinensis add. 8241 & Vindobonensis Theologicus Graecus 244; cf. Beaton 19962_{: 137). The most recent}

edition is the one by Salas (1998a), who bases his edition after a profound manuscript study on the Viennese version, which seems our most complete one.39

Imberios & Margarona (893 verses)

Finally, with regard to Imberios & Margarona, the same principle has been applied once more. I have relied on the manuscript that contains the fullest version of the story, i.e. the Naples manuscript (Neapolitanus Graecus III Β 27, which also contains the Achilleïs

Byzantina). This seems to be Kriaras’ (1955) base manuscript:40 _{“It is preserved in whole}

38 _{Cf. Smith (1987: 316); Beaton (1996}2_{: 104).}

The other manuscripts are the British Museum add. 8241 and the Oxoniensis Bodleianus Auct. T.5.24. The latter, which is twice as short as the Naples version (M. Jeffreys 1975a: 189), possibly reflects a real oral performance (Agapitos 2006b: 162; Smith 1987: 321ff.; cf. supra 1.1.2.5.1.1).

39 _{Cf. separate article by Salas (1998b) on the mistakes made in previous editions: especially the edition of} Phlorios & Platzia Phlora by Kriaras (1955) is severely criticised. Salas’ (1998a: 68) principle reads as follows: “Con

nuestra edición pretendemos aunar, por tanto, los aciertos de las anteriores pero bajo criterios filológicamente conservadores, manteniendo en la medida de lo posible el texto trasmitido por los manuscritos y otorgándole mayor protagonismo al vienés, el más susceptible de mejora después de haber sido maltratado por el pruritus emendandi de los editores que nos precedieron”.

40 _{This is suggested by the following scheme:}

1-35: NOV 36-414: NOVH 415-745: NOVHG 746-824: NOVG 825-860: NOV 861-893: NV

with O standing for the Bodleianus miscellaneous 287; V for the Vindobonensis theologicus Graecus 297; and G and H for the Palatinus Graecus 426 (G: 65r-72v; H: 73r-93v) (Kriaras 1955: 23f.; cf. E. & M. Jeffreys 1971: 125f.).

or in part in five manuscripts, of which the earliest is the Naples manuscript that also contains the fullest version of the Tale of Achilles” (Beaton 19962_{: 140).}41

In conclusion, these eight texts constitute a representative as well as a manageable corpus of LMG πολιτικὸς στίχος poetry, totalling about 35,000 πολιτικoὶ στίχοι.42

41 _{Tachibana (1994: 432; fn 2), for instance, also relies on the edition by Kriaras for her linguistic analysis of the}

spatial expressions in the LMG πολιτικὸς στίχος poetry.

Chapter 4 The πολιτικὸς στίχος: a natural and