Pinakes | Πίνακες

Résumé :

The construction of a manuscript, including the order of treatises within, has a meaningful impact on the reader's perception of the individual texts and the corpus as a whole. In this study, I evaluate the collections and treatise orders of Philo's Greek codices through the lens of the list. We begin with a discussion of two early catalogues of Philo’s corpus by Eusebius and Jerome before moving to an evaluation of the extant manuscripts. I am specifically interested in how the treatises are ordered, what collocations are evident, and how these differ from modern critical editions. I consider the impact of manuscript collections, including the pinakes, on the interpretation of treatises and modern understanding of Philo’s corpus and argue that curated critical editions limit useful data by obscuring textual associations available to and influencing readers in the pre-modern eras. This paper does not cover codices that excerpt portions of Philo’s corpus (e.g., Escurialensis Χ.I.13 [Andrés 355], 13/14th century; Biblioteca nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, (Neapolitanus) II C 32, 14th century; Coislinianus 276, 10th century, including “The Parallels,” C.-W. Family D), collations (e.g., BL Add MS 6455, 18th century), or catalogues, but those that contain multiple, whole treatises. On the Catenae and the Florilegia, see James R. Royse, The Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria: A Study of Textual Transmission and Corruption with Indexes to the Major Collections of Greek Fragments, ALGHJ 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 14–25 and 26–58, respectively. See also the important contribution of Françoise Petit, Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum. I. Catena Sinaitica, CCSG 2 (Turnout: Brepols, 1977).