In recent decades it has become common practice for editors of texts to issue a volume containing discussion of difficult passages that would have made the apparatus criticus impossibly unwieldy. Prof. Boter has now produced an excellent volume to accompany his Teubner edition of Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii (2022). He acknowledges the benefit of discussion with friends and colleagues, including Donald Mastronarde and the late Stefan Radt. For any reader with an interest in the niceties of Greek idiom and the practices of the Atticists of the Second Sophistic there is plenty of thought-provoking material here.
The introduction occupies pp. 1-21. On the source of the Aldine edition (p.11) I would observe that though Aldus may have hoped to use a manuscript in the Marciana collection, it has not proved possible to establish beyond doubt that he ever did, the only possible exception being his edition of Plato. So in the present case a lost close relative of MS Laur. 69.26 is indeed likely to have served as printer’s copy. P. 15 n. 47: Jones in volume 1 of his revised Loeb edition of 2012 adjusted the phrasing of his comment on Kayser. Pp. 18-20: The quotations from Photius and Kayser about Philostratus’ frequent deviations from the rules of Attic syntax are a warning that textual critics need to be very cautious in the exercise of their skills, as Boter recognises. I offer some miscellaneous and necessarily tentative observations.
1.1.3. The use of the verb βαδίϲαι in the sense of “following the doctrines” might have merited a note. 1.2.3 Is the good reading in MS C a scribal conjecture? 1.7.2 On διακείμενοι without a modifying adverb: I see the point, but the parallel adduced did not seem fully convincing. 1.14.2. For what it is worth I am inclined to share Mastronarde’s view about the parallelism and to suspect that this example of P.’s “pregnant brevity” may be illusory. 1.18 Rhoer’s conjecture is very astute, but one wonders how the corruption came about – an over-hasty correction by a scribe/reader? 1.25.1 The LGPN reports one instance of the name Medea from Athens, and the masculine Medeios is not exceptionally rare.
2.2.2 In the passage cited by Hågg as parallel, the context describes action based on a belief, but in the present passage a fresh context is introduced, which makes me less certain that Photius’ variant is to be rejected. 2.8 Boter does not comment on ὑπὸ τοῦ γεωργεῖϲθαι. Might ὑπὲρ be considered? Jones translates “for the purpose of”. 2.13.3 Am I alone in wondering if γράφουϲι is sound? But what other alleged activity might be taken as evidence of high intelligence? 2.28.2 This is an interesting example of emendation by Boter to create another example of P.’s deviant syntactical practice. Would ᾽ἁμαρτόντι <τι> also be possible? 2.35.1 It would not be out of the question to see here a corruption arising equally well from minuscule script.
3.2.1 I do not find the omission of ἄν very difficult if it is legitimate to translate “no-one who has drunk from this cup has fallen ill”. 3.12 One could consider supplementing e.g μεμαθηκέναι. 3.24.2 Boter rejects Cobet’s correction of the dubious optative form “for fear of correcting the author”. This seems to imply that Philostratus was not fully in command of Attic conjugation. But Boter also suggests that the MSS reading, with different accentuation, could be understood as a future optative, which is ingenious. 3.25.3. Boter is misled by a misprint in Jones, but his emendation to make it clear that Tantalus was punished for two offences does appear to be what is needed. 3.28.1 I wonder if the compound ὑποκεκλιμένον is the best way to indicate that Apollonius was reclining alongside Iarchas. One might expect the compound in ἐπι-. 3.38.1 Might ἑτεροίουϲ be possible? 3.41.1 I feel uneasy at the suggestion that the faulty reading ἢ is easy to explain as a corruption of τε, unless one is prepared to accept the far-fetched hypothesis of confusion of two similar shorthand symbols; see nos. 200 and 785 in N.P. Chionides – S. Lilla, La brachigrafia italo-bizantina (Studi e Testi 290), Vatican City 1981. 3.45.1 The suggested corruption of TI to DIA is not one of the most plausible.
4.22.2. Boter and Jones both print τοιοῦτον and translate “so much”, which suggests the possibility of reading τοϲοῦτον. But perhaps the meaning is “blood spilt that way”. 4.24.1. If the remark concerns those who do not visit Olympia of their own accord, might one expect a negative in the Greek? In defence of the transmitted αὐτόθι perhaps one should note its alternative meaning “at once”. 4.38.3 Has no-one suggested <πρό>ϲχημα ?
5.4 Might <ἐπι>δόντα be worth considering? 5.19.2 I can believe that ἀμελῶϲ describes extempore wit, but would have appreciated a parallel from a context where there are no unfavourable connotations. 5.42.1. Amasis was indeed king of the whole country, not just Sais, from which he originated, and one wonders if there is something wrong with the text.
6.3.1 The notion that the ship was Timasion’s private property seems acceptable. It suggests that though he was still young he had managed to buy it rather than hire it. 6.11.5 The infinitive serving as imperative seems very abrupt, as it was at 1.41.2. If I have read Schmid, Der Attizismus correctly, he does not cite examples from Philostratus. 6.11.8. Might one expect here ὁ μέν τι? This is simpler than Cobet’s proposal. 6.16.2. I confess to being puzzled by the participle καθιϲτάϲ, translated by Jones as “taking your stand”. That suits the context, but is it not transitive? 6.20.6. I wonder if ἢ <ὥϲτε> γιγνώϲκειν should be considered.
7.2.3. In place of περὶ ὧν a less pretentious Atticist might have written ὅτι. But might one suppose that a participle of a verb meaning “complain”. has been lost? 7.12.1. Punctuation here is vitally important. But was P. In a position to ensure that copies of his work would have full and accurate punctuation?
8.7.38 Jones translates “and still less the Arcadians”, which makes me wonder if in place of μᾶλλον Philostratus may have written ἧττον. 8.12.1. In the context of anticipated grief might a future perfect be better here, i.e. πεπαυϲ<ό>μεθα? 8.25.1 ἐϲ <τ>ἀνδρόϲ is perhaps worth considering.