The influence of biblical texts is evident in the grammar, as well. The author uses classical grammatical constructions current in New Testament Greek, such as passive verbs accompanied by nouns in the accusative81 and subjects in the neuter plural construed with verbs in the third-person singular (Attic syntax). Examples of the first are: Et µev E:crn pamA.Eu~. 7tapa-CJKEuacr0iJcrEtat rd *apµara l(ai* rov *arparov* Kata trov ex0prov aU'tOU (18, 18-19) (If he is king, he will make preparations in his weaponry and army against his enemies); eav 'Ct~ l01J, on *'l'OV fva o<fJOaA.µov* E'tU<j>A.roeri (33, 6-7) (If someone dreams that he was blinded in one eye ... ); eav 'Ct~ l01J, on Etpauµmicr0ri *n]v yA.roaaav* auwu (40, 5) (If someone dreams that he was wounded in his tongue ... ); EOV "Ct~ lOlJ 7tEptKEKaAuµµEVTJV KOpTJV *'l'O np6aomov* (76, 24) (If someone dreams of a maiden covered in the face ... ); eav lOlJ n~. on EK07tTJ *ra <Tl(EATJ* Kat *WV<; n6'5a<;* (69, 7) (If someone dreams, that he was amputated at the thighs or legs ... ) etc.82 This use of the accusative occasionally extends to sentences without a passive verb: eav 0£ lOlJ, on iopot *ra<; µaaxaA.a<;* (27, 19) (If he dreams that he was sweating in the armpits ... ); auto~ 0£ a7ta0i]~ µ£vn *rl]v opamv* (33, 12) (But he himself remains unharmed regarding his vision).

Attic syntax only occasionally occurs in the New Testament,83 and not at all in modern Greek, but the author of the *Oneirocriticon* was probably inspired

1ml cj>uA.ciiv 1ml A.aciiv 1rnl yA.oocrcrciiv; also Revelation 10: 11; 11 :9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:5.

78 Drexl 30, 24. Cf. Genesis 10:5: 1rnl 1rnA.u1j1et ti]v Oljltv tii~ yii~; Genesis 10: 15: 1rnl EK<iA.uljlEV 'ti]v O'lfl v ti;~ yi;~; etc.

79Drexl 115, 7. Cf. Hebrews 12: 11: xapa~ dvm (qualitative genitive)= it is pleasant.

80 Drexl 60, 23-24. Cf. Romans 3:15 (from Isaiah 59:75; Proverbs 1:16): o~e'i~ oi itooe~ autciiv EKXEat alµa.

81F. Blass, *Grammar of New Testament Greek,* trans. H. St. John Thackeray (London and New York, 1898), §34, 6. Biblical examples of the phenomenon include: oeoeµevo~ toil~ itooa~ (John 11:44); 1itecj>8apµEvot tov voiiv (I Timothy 6: 5); pepavncrµevot tel~ Kapoia~. A.EA.ouµEvot to crciiµa (Hebrews 10:22).

82 This rule is not followed consistently; cf. EelV tol] 'tt~ on 'tel O"KEATJ autoii E't~aKicr8T]crav *i\*  07tEK07tl] 6 7t0U~ OU'tOU .•• (68, 11-12).

83 See F. Blass and A. Debrunner, *A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,* trans. R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961), pp. 73-74 ( § 133).

to use it by an almost equivalent phenomenon in Arabic84 (but not in Syriac85). Several examples of a subject in the plural construed with a verb in the singular can be found in the *Oneirocriticon:* 'tcl aiooia auwu cl7tEK07tTJ (his genitals were cut off; Drexl 58, 11); 86 016n 'ta aiooia ayroyor; £cnt wu cm£pµmor; (because the genitals are the conduit of sperm; Drexl 58, 27); µaKpovom1cr£t 'ta 'tEKva auwu (his children will suffer a long sickness; Drexl 59, 2); £npficr0r] f\ E\JfUYTJ 'ta yovata auwu (his knees were burnt or frozen; Drexl 60, 16); OUK ap£cr£t 'tcl ooyµata auwu 'tc\) A.ac\) (his opinions will not be to the people's liking; Drexl 65, 12); qiav£pro8ficrnm 'ta µumfipta auwu (his secrets will be revealed; Drexl 69, 19); 87 ota <1>1A.ov£tKiai; ~TJµtro8ficr£'tat 'ta xpfiµma auwu (he will suffer monetary damage because of a dispute; Drexl 92, 20); 'ta OtKfiµma auwu E7tAatUV8TJ Kat £µqaA.uv8ri Kat 7tAEloV Effi'ttcr8TJ (his buildings became wider and bigger and better lit; Drexl 101, 19-20); on 't£8£µEA.irotm 'ta PacriA.Eta (the foundations for the imperial palace were laid; Drexl 103, 4 ); 88 ta youv qiuA.A.a 'tcOV 0£.voprov Eir; tfiv OlCl8£crtV KplVEtat tcOV av8pomrov (the leaves of the trees are interpreted as the disposition of men; Drexl 107, 6-7); ti µ£v £qiu'tprocr£ ta o£vopa (if the trees sprouted; Drexl 108, 11); ta &pµata aqiopiav *ano* £x8prov crriµaiv£t (weapons signify not fearing the enemy; Drexl 113, 13); £Ppaxri ta 1µcina amou (his clothes became wet; Drexl 146, 8); Eir; EVOO~O't£pa Kat A.aµnpotEpa anopficrEtm au'tc\) 'ta npciyµma (things will turn out for him even more gloriously and illustriously; Drexl 180, 24 ); £v totr; auto tr; anopficrEtm autc\) ta npciyµma (things will turn out for him in the same way; Drexl 180, 27-181, l); Kat ta Kotva trov fanrov Eir; £Mnova £uy£v£tav Kat oo~av £Kpi8TJ (common horses are interpreted as lesser nobility and glory; Drexl 181, 8-9).89

The language of the *Oneirocriticon* is occasionally tinted with peculiarities

84 In Arabic when the verb precedes a subject in the third person, the verb always remains in the singular, even if the subject is in the plural; see R. Blachere and M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, *Grammaire de I' arabe classique* (Paris, 1975), pp. 300 ff. (§ 247).

85 In Syriac a plural subject requires a plural verb; see T. Noldeke, *Compendious Syriac Grammar,* trans. J. A. Crichton (London, 1904; rpt.Winona Lake, 2000), p. 255 ( §321).

86 However, cf. E:0A.acr0ricmv "ta aiSo1a (58, 14) and on anEKonricrav "ta aiSo1a mhou (58, 26).

87 However, cf. E:<1>avricrav "ta Kpuma (Drexl 68, 19).

88 However, cf. 1>t£1a~mo Kncr0ijvm vf:a ~acril..Eta ... , £i µE:v E"tEAEtw0ricrav ... (103, 2-4).

89 Attic syntax can also be found in other Byzantine dreambooks which, like the *Oneirocriticon,*  were written in a language close to the vernacular, but were not translations of Arabic originals.

#### 82 CHAPIBRTWO

that do not occur either in the Old or the New Testament, nor do they conform to the rules of syntax and grammar in what is considered regular Greek. These peculiarities should therefore be attributed to the influence exercized on the *Oneirocriticon* by the language of its source. Deciding in which language this source was written can help us understand the process of disguising Islamic dream interpretation as Christian. Although Islamic works on dream interpretation in Arabic form the ultimate source of the *Oneirocriticon,* it is not immediately clear whether the Byzantine author translated and at the same time adapted Arabic Islamic material to which he had direct access or simply translated a Christian source that was, in its tum, based on Islamic interpretations, unaware of its Islamic origin. The languages of the Christian Orient in which a Christianized version of an Islamic dreambook serving as the immediate source for the Greek *Oneirocriticon* could have been written are Armenian, Georgian, Coptic or Ethiopic, Syriac, and Arabic.90 All, with the exception of the last one, were exclusively used for the literary expression of Christians, and if the source of the *Oneirocriticon* were written in any one among them besides Arabic, the Byzantine author would have been translating from an already Christianized text. However, the occasional peculiarities of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary in the Greek text indicate that its source was indeed in Arabic, since they closely render equivalent Arabic expressions that do not exist in any other Middle Eastern language, including Syriac, which is the language of the Christian Middle East most akin to Arabic. The resulting Greek, where it is influenced by the wording of the Arabic, is awkward and sometimes even unintelligible. Some examples follow.

90 The Armenian tradition of dream interpretation has not been examined in any scholarly publication that I know of. No such works are mentioned in R. W. Thomson, "Let Now the Astrologers Stand Up: The Armenian Christian Reaction to Astrology and Divination," *DOP* 46 (1992), pp. 305-12; rpt. in idem, *Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity* (Aldershot, Hampshire and Brookfield, Vt., 1994), no. 11; dream interpretation as a method of divination practiced in Armenia is mentioned on p. 308 and n. 36. Contemporary scholarship does not do justice to the rich Armenian tradition of dream interpretation; dreambooks translated from the Arabic, as well as dreambooks ascribed to Ibn Sirin, were apparently circulating in Armenian (see Lamoreaux, "Dream Interpretation in the Early Medieval Near East," pp. 280-81), but no work on dream interpretation in Armenian, Coptic or Ethiopic is mentioned in K. Brockelmann, et al., *Geschichte der christlichen Literaturen des Orients* (Leipzig, 1907). No Georgian work on dream interpretation is mentioned in P. M. TarchniSvili, J. Assfalg, *Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur* (Vatican City, 1955). Nothing on dreambooks is mentioned in E. Khintibidze, "Byzantine-Georgian Literary Contacts," *Bedi Karthlisa: Revue de Kartvelologie* 36 (1978), pp. 275-86. For an overview of the early Christian position on dream interpretation, including Greek, Latin, and a brief mention of Coptic and Syriac Christian works, see Lamoreaux, "Dream Interpretation in the Early Medieval Near East," pp. 230-42, who concludes that the consistently negative or mistrustful position of the church prevented the composition of dream manuals.

Chapter 117 of the Oneirocriticon opens with the phrase (Drexl 69, 2-3): Τα σκέλη και οι πόδες κίονές είσι του σώματος και χωρις αυτών πίπτει το σώμα τιμωρούμενον έν τω έλκεσθαι (The legs and the feet are the pillars of the body; without them the body falls and is condemned to creep).

The verbs of punishment in classical Greek are never construed with a preposition.31 In modern Greek, which is probably closer to what the author of the Oneirocriticon spoke in everyday life, the verbs of punishment are construed with the preposition eis>se. The combination timoroumenos en is definitely not correct Greek. In Arabic, however, the verb hakama, ("to condemn," "to punish") is construed with a preposition followed by the penalty inflicted: hakama bi. One of the possible translations of the preposition bi in Greek is en.

The Oneirocriticon contains the following narration of a dream (Drex) 148, 18-21): Είδον και όναρ, ότι πάντες οι κέραμοι της πόλεως ανευ ύετου ἔρρεον ἔνθολον και πάντες ἐδέχοντο τὸ ὕδωρ ἄνευ ἐμοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐμῶν ανθρώπων (I dreamt that all the roof tiles of the city were streaming with turbid <water>, though there was no rain, and that everybody was collecting this water, except for me and my people).

The word ένθολον does not fit very well into the Greek sentence. Instead of an adjective in the accusative case one would normally expect an adverb. The anomaly of the Greek text is explicable, however, if we assume that it was translated from the Arabic. Arabic does not have proper adverbs; instead, it employs adverbial accusatives. 2 Syriac does not have a proper equivalent of the Greek accusative 3 and Syriac adverbs are normally formed with an adjective and the suffix -ith, or, more rarely, a word compounded with a preposition."

91 The verbs of punishment are usually construed with the genitive of the punishment inflicted: τιμώ τινι φυγής (I condemn someone to exile); ἔκριναν αὐτὸν θανάτου (they condemned him to death).

92 The adverbial accusative "amply makes up for the want of adverbs in Arabic" ; see C. P. Caspari, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd ed., trans. W. Wright (Cambridge and New York, 1979), vol. 2, pp. 109 ff., § 43-44; vol. 1, pp. 288 ff., § 364. This phenomenon was called compliment circonstanciel de manière (e.g., مــتـــمــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Demombynes, Grammaire de l'arabe classique, p. 294, §238a; cf. also pp. 207-8, §134, "noms au cas direct de valeur adverbiale."

95 Syriac has no cases marked with terminations; the nominative and the oblique cases of Greek and Latin are recognized by the context or are expressed by the constructive state, by the influence of a transitive verb, or by some particle; cf. G. Phillips, A Syriac Grammar (Cambridge and London, 1866), p. 53.

94 On the formation of adverbs in Syriac, see T. Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, pp. 98-101; also Phillips, Syriac Grammar, pp. 132-33, 177.

The irregularity of the Greek text in this passage proves that it was translated from Arabic and not from Syriac.

In chapter 169 of the *Oneirocriticon* we read the passage (Drexl 132, 15-20): eav l01J 1u;, on U1t0 acn£prov oomouµEvor; 01t001']µ£l Ota "CE ~ripar; El TE 8aA.acr<JT]r; Ka'tEUOOOU'tat, de; µ£y1crwv Kpl 'ti]V Kat oi KatOV KoA.A.118i]cr£'tat Kat Eupi]crn xaptv 1tap. auwu. £i OE Ti Mor; auwu £y£v£'t0 *Kata*  1tAclVT\V OKa'tEUOOoYtEpOV, de; av8pro1tOV \j/EUOOKpt'ti]V f}~Et Kat 8A.1pi]cr£'tat 1tap' auwu (If someone dreams that, guided by the stars, he had a successful journey by land or sea, he will devote himself to95 a great and fair judge and will find favor with him. If his journey became more difficult because of an error, however, he will go to a false judge and will be grieved by him). The second half of the excerpt includes an obvious mistake: d 0£ Ti 6oor; amou £y£v£w Kma 7tA.avriv aKmEuoomtEpov (If his journey became more difficult because of an error, however. .. ). According to the rules of Greek syntax, the case, gender, and number of the predicate should agree with those of the subject. In our example, the predicate is in the accusative case while its subject is in the nominative. In Arabic the verb .;L..:. (~ara = to become; *egeneto* in the Greek text) is construed with the predicate in the accusative case, even though its subject is in the nominative. Again the irregular syntax of the Greek text suggests a slavish adherence to the syntax of an Arabic model. Syriac does not have an equivalent to the Greek accusative case. If we postulate that the *Oneirocriticon* was translated from Syriac, we would not be able to account for the accusative case of the predicate in Greek.

Chapter 218 of the *Oneirocriticon* contains the phrase (Drexl 171, 8-9): 6µoiroi; £av m'.noi; EKEtvor; o pamA.Eur; *£w\j/£* nva µayKA.cipw il xapl;civw ... (Likewise, if the king himself beat someone with whips or straps). In this phrase not only the object of the verb *typto* (to beat) but also the instrument with which the action of the verb is carried out is in the accusative

95 The Greek KoA.A116i]crE1m (he will devote himself to) could be attributed to the influence of biblical language on the vocabulary of the Greek author, since KoA.Acioµm (to devote myself to) occurs in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 19:5 KoA.A116i]crE1m 11] yuvmKt mli:oii; Luke 15:15 7t0pEu6d~ EKOAAT]611 EVt 'tclJV 1toAt'tclJV TI]~ xwpa~ EKEiv11~; Acts 10:28 ffi~ ci6£µti:6v fon *a* vii pt' louliai{\l 1COAAcicr6m ,. . ciA.A.o<IJUA{\l; Acts 17:34 n VE~ OE avlipE~ 1COAA116£v1E~ aui:<jl E:nicri:Eucrav). In the New Testament, however, this verb is consistently accompanied by its object in the dative, while in the *Oneirocriticon* it is followed by the preposition Ei~ + accusative. The phrasing in the *Oneirocriticon* could possibly reflect a close rendering of the Arabic verb Jl....:; *(ta'allaqa)* which is regularly followed by the preposition *hi* (possibly rendered in Greek as Ei~) and means "to be devoted to." The verb *ta'allaqa* is form V of the root Jl..c *('aliqa),* the primary meanings of which are to hang, to be suspended, to cling, to stick, to adhere to, the same as the literal meanings of the verb KoA.A.cioµm in Greek.

case. But the instrument in Greek is never expressed in the accusative; it is always expressed either with a dative or with a preposition and an oblique case, as is done throughout chapter 218, with the exception of the phrase quoted above. 96Though the Arabic verb *qaraba* (to strike) is usually accompanied by the object of the verb in the accusative and the instrument of striking prefixed by the preposition *bi* (with) (e.g., ..bJ-'-"-:' l..1.:>j ~fa= I hit ~ Zayd with a whip), it is also possible to construe *qaraba* with two accusatives, one expressing the object and one the instrument (Lb\_,\_\_....,.. l..1.:>j ~~=I hit Zayd with a whip97). It is therefore possible to account for the irregular instrumental accusative of the Greek text if we assume that the Greek author was translating from the Arabic and following closely the syntax of the Arabic source. However, no explanation can be provided if we postulate that he was translating from a Syriac source. Syriac does not have a proper accusative and expresses the instrument by prefixing a *lomadh* to the noun.

In the *Oneirocriticon,* dreaming of a pleasant smell is consistently interpreted as gaining an excellent reputation, while dreaming of an offensive smell signifies losing one. 98 The connection between this symbol and its meaning does not come from the ancient oneirocritic tradition-Artemidoros says nothing about dreaming of perfumes and smells-and seems arbitrary. It becomes obvious, however, once we realize that the Arabic expression:;~ ~ • a . ,, *(sum< a <atira),* which actually means "excellent reputation" but can be literally translated as a "fragrant reputation," must have given rise to the interpretation in Arabic dreambooks of a fragrant smell as indicating a good reputation. Reliance on puns and the alternative meanings of words for interpreting dreams is a method mentioned in ancient Greek, Jewish, Islamic and Byzantine texts on dream interpretation.

96 Drexl 171, 3: E1:\Jq>0Ji ~ouvn'ipot1; (He was beaten with straps of raw ox-hide); Drexl 171, 67: wptcrE "tu<j>6fivai nva ~ouvEupot1; (He commanded that someone be beaten with straps of raw ox-hide); Drexl 171, 10: E'tulj/E nva pci~oo;i (He beat someone with a stick); Drexl 171, 13: µEta 01ta0Ji~ EOCOKE n vt (He gave someone [a blow J with a sword).

97 See Lane, *Arabic-English Lexicon,* s.v. '-:"~(col. 1777).

98Ei OE lOl:J, on KaltVOU *£n1'.i]ae11* 6 OlKO~ ... El OE 6 KaltVO~ EUOOO!l~ ~v. A.Oyot~ yAuKEat tl]v E~ouaiav autou napE~Et EtEpot~. EUpljaEt OE Kat <1>iJµ11v avcil.oyov tii~ toU KaltVOU EUCOOta~ Kat tii~ i]out11to~ (121, 23-26). Ei. OE Ei.~ ouaroo11 n11Mv 1tEpt1tCHEl, ~aput£pav 6A.tljltV Kat <j>i]µ11v KaKi]v Acl~Et Ota tl]v ouacooiav (134, 8-10). Ei. OE lOl:J, on EUpE o£vopov Kttpov, Eupi]crEt avopa EUyEvii, ltAOUO'lOV, EU<\>11µov Ota tl]v EUCOOiav Kat to EUKapnov (155, 25-26). El OE lOl:J, on E<j>ay£ O'Kopoov *i\* Kp6µµuov *i\* npaaov ... <1>iJµ11v KaKi]v E~Et Ota tl]v OUO'OO'µtaV aUtcOV (160, 8-10). EaV lOl:J n~, On fo6tE pE<j>clVOU~ ... , KaKO<\>llµO~ Eatat ava µfoov 1'.aou Kat µtcr11to~ Ota to tii~ EpEUYll~ o\Jaoaµov (162, 8-10). El OE (lOl:J nooopna) ouacooiav €xovta, <1>iJµ11v KaKi]V Eupi]crEt Ota to OUO'cOOE~ EV ttji Epyqi toU µtcr6ou autou (176, 6-8).

#### 86 CHAF'TER TWO

Besides the examples indicating that Arabic and not Syriac was the language from which the author was translating, others conform to patterns common to most Semitic languages. For instance, in the phrase 1mA.aioac; £av E1t't(OOEV £-repov, nµi]oEt -rov neo6v-ra (If, while wrestling, he made his opponent fall, he will honor his fallen opponent),99 a verbal form otherwise unattested in the Greek language was concocted from the stem of the perfect tense of the verb nimm (to fall) 100 and used in the sense of "to make someone fall." Such a grammatical twist was probably instigated by the mechanism of producing verbs from a root according to a pattern that is typical of all Semitic languages. Form I of the root b li ... *(s-q-.t)* means "to fall"; form IV means "to cause someone to fall." The spelling of the third person singular in the imperfect is identical in both forms ( b li . ,, *.:),* though in each case the word is vocalized differently. Instead of emmoev the correct Greek verb would have been av£-rpE\JIEV or KmEpt'lfEV (which is close to the Modern Greek £ptl;E), but it seems that the author of the *Oneirocriticon* was unable to think of an alternative to *nin-rw,* the primary meaning of the Arabic root *s-q-.t,* and since it was inappropriate for his translation, he resorted to emmoev. 101

The *Oneirocriticon* includes at least one passage where the words at the end of each colon conform to a rhythmical pattern. This phenomenon of literary prose has been broadly defined by S. Skiminaw2 and has been studied mainly

99 Drexl 72, 18.

100 In the perfect JtEJt'tOJKa. The stem m:w- is used in other derivatives of nimw, such as mwcru;, Jt'tooµa.

101 A similar way of thinking may have resulted in the use of PacrtA.Euw in the following passages: pacrtA.EucrEt µiav £1; au-rwv (110, 16) (He will make one of them queen); ti µ£v EXEt uiov, PacrtA.dcrn au-rov, d 0£ µr,, faEpov pacrtA.Eucrn (175, 6-7) (If he has a son, he will make him king; if he does not have a son, he will make someone else king). The Arabic equivalent of this verb is dL which in form I means "to reign" and in form IV "to make someone reign." The third person singular in the imperfect of both forms is spelled ~· The primary meaning of PacrtA.EUW (the only possible in classical literature) is "to reign"; however, the meaning "to make someone king" occurs at least three times in patristic Greek texts (Basil of Seleucia, Ephraim the Syrian, and John of Nikiou. They all lived in areas where Semitic languages were spoken, and especially the works of Ephraim were originally written in Syriac and then translated into Greek. For references to these texts, see Lampe, s.v. "PacrtA.Euw").

102 See S. Skimina, *L' erat actuel des hudes sur le rhythme de la prose grecque II* (Lwow, 1930), pp. 5-6: "Un texte, divise en unites logiques, presente a la fin de chaque phrase ou de chaque proposition une clausule qui se distingue au point de vue rythmique du reste du texte. C'est le propre du rythme de la prose artistique, ou plut6t d'une tendence souvent inconsciente de chaque ecrivain et que Jes theoriciens ont remarque et condifie depuis longtemps." The most recent and comprehensive publication on the subject is Horandner, *Der Prosarhythmus in der rhetorischen*

in Byzantine authors of the high style, such as Synesios, 100 Procopios of Caesarea, 104 and Agathias. 105 Each author prefers a different rhythmical pattern. As to their variety, Skimina enumerated eighteen different types belonging to three different forms that are applied to the last two to six syllables of a colon or semi-colon.100 The four examples of rhythmic phrases in the Oneirocriticon could be extended to comprise the last twelve to fifteen syllables at the end of the colons where they appear (the phrases that present rhythmical patterns are italicized):107

πολύτροπός έστιν ή των δένδρων κρίσις πολυσχεδής 108 γάρ έστιν ή των δενδροκάρπων φύσις, τα γουν φύλλα των δένδρων είς τὴν διάθεσιν κρίνεται των ανθρώπων τα γαρ εὐθαλὴ καὶ εὐτραφὴ εὐθύτητα γνώμης διασημαίνουσιν, τα δε άσθενη και ροώδη και μεμαραμμένα γνώμης διακρίνουσιν άσθενείς τρόπους.

The interpretation of trees is complex, since fruit-bearing trees by nature have many component parts. The leaves of the trees are inrpreted as the disposition of men; those that are thriving and luxuriant indicate straightness of intent, but those that are declining and falling off and withering away signify the weakness of one's intent.

The rhythmical patterns discernible in the above excerpt can be analyzed as follows:

xxx--- // xxxx-- ( twelve syllables, caesura after the 6th : ------- // -------- // ---------- // -------- /109 xxxx--- || xxxx ---- (fifteen syllables, caesura after the 7th: -------- || ( ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xxxxx-~~ // xx-~ (twelve syllables, caesura after the 8th: ~~~~~~~ // ~~~ ) xxxx-~~ // xxx-~ (twelve syllables, caesura after the 7th:-------- // ----- )

Literatur der Byzantiner (Vienna, 1981), including study of several authors from the Middle Byzantine period.

103 N. Terzaghi, "Le clausole ritmiche negli opuscoli di Sinesio," Didaskaleion 1 (1912), pp. 205-319.

104 H. B. Dewing, "The Accentual Cursus in Byzantine Greek Prose with Especial Reference to Procopius of Caesarea," Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 14 (1910), pp. 415-66; A. W. De Groot, Untersuchungen zum byzantinischen Prosarhythmus (Groningen, 1918).

105 G. Franke, Quaestiones Agathianae (Bratislava, 1914). For remarks on later Byzantine authors, see W. Horandner, Der Prosarhythmus, pp. 47-152.

106 Skimina, L'état actuel, p. 9; see also Hörandner, Der Prosarhythmus, p. 33.

107 Drexl 107, 5-12,

108 Corrected by Charitonides, review of Achmetis Oneirocriticon, p. 233, to πολυσχιδής.

109 The regular caesura in a Byzantine dodecasyllabic verse is after the fifth or the seventh syllable; cf. P. Maas, "Der byzantinische Zwölfsilber," BZ 11 (1903), pp. 278-323.

#### 88 CHAPTER TWO

Every colon or semi-colon is preceded by a rhythmic phrase in two parts. The first part ends with a dactyl ( ---) and the second part with a trochee (--). The trochee of the first rhythmic phrase in the quotation (Kpicru;) rhymes with the trochee of the rhythmic phrase that immediately follows it (<!Jucru;) *(homoioteleuton).* The last rhythmic phrase in the quotation constitutes a regular Byzantine dodecasyllabic verse with the caesura after the seventh syllable. 110 Given that this is the only instance of colons ending with rythmical patterns that I was able to identify in the *Oneirocriticon,* it might well be accidental. Or, if it is intentional, its rarity indicates that the author could not produce it with ease, so even in this case it does not necessarily reflect the author's familiarity with texts of the high style. The occurrence of rhythmical prose at the end of colons has been observed in texts read by the educated but not erudite Byzantine public; they include the chronicles of Theophanes and George the Monk and the writings of St. John of the Ladder. 111 Rhythmical patterns extending longer than the last six syllables of a colon also occur in the New Testament. 112

Our author's work, though far from erudite, betrays a man with a Byzantine elementary education, familiar with such basic texts as Homer, 113 and possibly

111See Skimina, *L' hat actue/,* p. 24 (summarizing information originally found elsewhere). For elements of poetry, including rhythm, in the work of St. John of the Ladder, see J. Duffy, "Embellishing the Steps: Elements of Presentation and Style in the *Heavenly Ladder* of John Climacus," *DOP* 53 (1999), pp. 1-17.

113It is even possible that the author of the *Oneirocriticon* had read some patristic texts that contain words such as aip£atapx11s ("heresiarch" ; Drexl 8, 21) and A.oyoµaxos ("contender

''0 The Byzantine dreambook attributed to Patriarch Nikephoros is written in Byzantine dodecasyllabic verses, but the dodecasyllable of the *Oneirocriticon* cannot be found there, which indicates that it was neither lifted nor copied from somewhere else; see Nikephoros, ed. Guidorizzi, V. 56: KOltEVm Mvopa lt'tWCHV avopciiv µ11vu£t (repeated verbatim in v. 111 of the dreambook attributed to Patriarch Germanos, ed. Drexl). The interpretation of trees in the remaining Byzantine dreambooks do not coincide with the rhythmical passage of the *Oneirocriticon,* either: Nikephoros, ed. Guidorizzi, v. 78: 211pciiv <)>avE:v-rcov CiEvopcov E:v K£vots n6vot or K£vot oi K6itot. Daniel, ed. Drexl, vv.121-123 and 127: l'>E:vopov Kapito<)>6pov l0£lV KEPOos a11µaivn./l'>E:vopa s11pa t0£lV clltO'tuxiav a11µaivn, aAA.a oi] Kat l;11µiav Kat oouA.qi KEpoo<;/Mvopa EKptl;coµE:va l0£lV ij Ka'ta"tEµVHV ltOAEµOUs Kat lt'tWCHV K'tllVWV Kat av6pcimcov O!lAOl/ ... i'lf:vopov av6ouvm l0£lV ltCTO'l KaA.Ov EO''tlV. 312: KA.aoov clltO CiEvopou KA.aam <)>tA.iav amilaaaem <011A.ot>. Anonymous dreambook from *Paris. gr.* 2511, ed. Drexl, vv. 55-57: l'>E:vopa io£tv Kapno<)>6pa daooov a11µaivn, s11pa OE clltO'tuxiav./ l'>E:vopa K01t'tOµ£va l0£lV EA£U6Epots µEv t;11µiav, OoUAOls OE KEPOos 011A.ot/Mvopa i.&tt v EKpt1,;ouµ£va 1t0A.£µov Kat lt'tWCH v avepcilltcov a11µai V£t. Manuel Paleologos, ed. Delatte, chap.14: Ta µf:ylO'-ra OE:vopa £ts £uy£vous *[sic]* avopas KptV£'tat Kat Y£VVatOUs Kat {j lt'tWO'ls au-rciiv 6avmov Eµ<)>atVH.

112 Matthew 16:17-19; Matthew 28: 18-20; Luke 11:2-5; John 1:1-8; John 6:26-59; Romans 3:24-26; etc. For an analysis, see K. Metsakes, *Byzantine hymnographia apo ten epoche tes Kaines Diathekes heos ten Eikonomachia* (Athens, 1986), pp. 41-42.

with access to philological tools such as dictionaries, as is evident from his gloss on the word Kv~ri; he may have dabbled in learned literature, though he was far from having mastered it. His readings from the Bible and especially, if not exclusively, the New Testament must have been much more extensive, since this is the most salient textual influence on his work, evident in the quotations, language and expressions employed. He also seems to have been familiar with ecclesiastical literature.

His Greek is influenced by Arabic, the language of his model, but this is not an unusual fault among translators. The Arabic translation of Artemidoros by J:Iunayn b. IsQ.aq is a pertinent example. 114Before deciding which language -Greek or Arabic-the author of the *Oneirocriticon* appears to have known better, it is important to keep in mind that too slavish a translation (reflecting word by word the language of the prototype and therefore resulting in solecisms in the language into which one translates) can be a choice made not because the translator has not mastered the language into which he is translating, but because he is unsure about the meaning of words in the language from which he is translating. This problem can be compounded when translating from a language such as Arabic, which, like Greek, has a literary idiom rather different from its spoken vernacular. Mastering the intricacies of classical Arabic required special schooling even for a native speaker, which individuals received in varying degrees. Among the four examples of too literal renderings from Arabic into Greek resulting in irregular Greek expressions, three are slavish renderings of grammatical phenomena that occur in literary Arabic, but which modern dialects tend to do away with, suggesting that at least some of the solecisms in the Greek translation might have been caused by the author's unease with classical Arabic.

One instance could be interpreted as an indication that the author of the *Oneirocriticon* was a native speaker of Greek who had learnt Arabic as a

about words, quibbler" and also "contender against the Logos", i.e. Arian; Drexl, 8, 21). The latter word was also used by Gregory of Nazianzus (see Lampe, s.v. "A.oyoµaxo~" ), who was characterized as "the Christian Demosthenes" and was by far the most widely read patristic author in Byzantium.

114I:Iunayn must have had native fluency in Arabic, because Arabic was the vernacular of his home town, al-l:lira in Iraq. At the same time, he belonged to the Syrian Nestorian church, where Syriac was the language of the liturgy and of high Christian education. He translated from Greek into both Arabic and Syriac, and his predilection for Syriac, as opposed to Arabic, should not be considered as a sign of greater fluency in Syriac. As I:Iunayn himself explained in his writings, compared with Syriac or Greek or Persian, Arabic in his time lacked an adequate scientific vocabulary, which he and his students and colleagues helped foster with their translations. For further comments and references, see *EI2,* s.v. "I:Iunayn b. lsJ:ia~ al-'Ibadi."

second language. The following passage from the Oneirocriticon includes an expression that is incomprehensible in Greek: 15 ' Eάν τις Ίδη, ότι αι ρίνες αυτού έφράγησαν και ούκ όσφραίνεται, εί μέν έστι βασιλεύς, νοείτω, ότι κινδυνεύσει έν αύτφ ό άναφέρων ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ πρώτος τὰς κοσμικὰς διοικήσεις, διότι ή διάκρισις της εύοσμίας και της δυσωδίας διά της ρινός ἐστι τφ ήγεμονικώ (If someone dreams that his nostrils were obstructed and he could not smell, if he is king, he should know that the chief among those who report to him about secular administration" will risk his life [?] because the intellect can distinguish between good and bad odors through the nose). The meaning of the phrase κινδυνεύσει έν αύτω (rendered in our translation as "he will risk his life") is unclear. The combination κινδυνεύω ev (to risk in) does not appear in Greek dictionaries, and contemporary translators disagree as to how it should be understood. 17 Once the Arabic provenance of the Greek text is taken into consideration, however, κινδυνεύσει خـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ه (khāṭara bi-nafsihi) or جازف بنفسه (jāzafa bi-nafsihi) which is an expression meaning "to risk one's life," an expression the Greek author seems not to have known, since he translated each word literally and came up with "to risk in oneself."18

It is impossible to ascertain where the Oneirocriticon was composed. Though the profile of its author (a tenth-century Greek who had learnt Arabic and was conversant with biblical and ecclesiastical literature) seems to point to the monastic milieu of Sinai and Palestine, any suggestion that this was the world where the author belonged would be a conclusion hastily drawn. Not only monks living in Muslim lands but also former prisoners of war, traveling merchants, and residents of the eastern frontier of the empire all had the opportunity to learn Arabic. Biblical and ecclesiastical readings interested both men of religion and secular individuals. Even Constantinople cannot be excluded as a possibility, especially if the Oneirocriticon was compiled for an emperor, as suggested earlier. Unless further evidence appears it is unlikely we will ever know anything more definitive about the identity of the Oneirocriticon's author or the date and locale of its composition.

115 Drex1 36, 12-16.

116 It appears that the phrase ὁ ἀναφέρων ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ τὰς κοσμικὰς διοικήσεις renders an office that did not exist in the Byzantine court (vizier, wali?).

117 Oberhelman, Oneirocriticon of Achmet, p. 107, translates it as "will fall into danger along with him." Brackertz, Traumbuch des Achmet, p. 51, renders it as "in Ungnade bei ihm fallen wird."

118 khāṭara = to risk = κινδυνεύσει; hi = in = ἐν; nafsihi = himself = αὐτῷ (ἑαυτῷ).

#### CHAPTER THREE

#### THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION, TRANSLATIONS, AND EDITIONS

When Drext published the critical edition of the Oneirocriticon, he knew of sixteen Greek manuscripts and based his text on eight of them. To these one can add another seven that contain parts and versions of this work, some long some short. I made no systematic effort to identify all of its extant manuscripts and therefore a few more manuscripts containing at least parts of the Oneirocriticon may have escaped my attention. When I set out to reexamine the manuscript tradition, my objective was not to establish a foundation for a new critical edition but to circumvent the limitations imposed by the existing one that make it difficult to use for investigating problems such as the identity and linguistic ability of the Greek author and the exact relationship of the Greek text to equivalent Arabic works. As grateful as one ought to be for the existing critical edition, especially considering the complicated and contaminated manuscript tradition of the work in question, it has also to be acknowledged that Drexl's text is, like all scholarly publications, very much a product of its time. As a result, its usefulness for my purposes was often compromised, not by the limitations of the editor's philological expertise, but by his adherence to criteria that today, after eighty more years of scholarship, seem anachronistic.

Drexl's text is regarded as inadequate, mainly because at the beginning of the twentieth century, the editorial technique adopted for Byzantine texts was the same as that applied to classical Greek texts: the existing manuscripts were classified into families of older and better (closer to the archetype) or recentiores et deteriores. They were subsequently arranged in a stemma and the choice of the different readings was often made mechanically, dictated by the stemma. Since then scholars have become aware that Byzantine scribes did not copy all kinds of texts with the same reverence. For texts such as the Old and the New Testament, the writings of the Fathers of the Church and the canon of ancient authors every effort was made to ensure that the text copied was as close to the archetype as possible, often by collation and correction on the basis of more than one manuscript. Volksliteratur, on the other hand, along with scientific

1 Cf. H.G. Beck, "Überlieferungsgeschichte der byzantinschen Literatur," Geschichte der Textüberlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen Literatur, ed. H. Hunger et al., vol. 1 (Zurich, 1961), pp. 425-510.

#### 92 CHAPfER THREE

and pseudo-scientific texts destined for practical consultation, was treated in a less formal way. The scribe, who in many cases was copying for his own use, felt free to deviate from his model at will by adding, subtracting, or paraphrasing, depending on what he judged to be appropriate for the future user's purposes. This "irreverent" attitude accounts for the confused and contaminated tradition of Byzantine texts on medicine, pharmacology, alchemy, astronomy, astrology, dream interpretation, and other forms of divination. The different attitude of the scribes toward different kinds of texts makes it not only inappropriate but also impossible to adopt the criteria developed for classical philology to the editing of Byzantine texts of the "unrevered" category. The weaknesses in Drexl' s critical edition of the *Oneirocriticon* well illustrate this problem.

In the following pages I will try to demonstrate the importance of the newly surfaced data, including extant Arabic texts on dream interpretation, for textual criticism of the *Oneirocriticon,* and the need for a new critical edition. I will begin by presenting the seven Greek manuscripts that were unknown to Drexl. Discussion of the remaining sixteen will be limited to observations not made in Drexl's publications and resulting from my own examination of the relevant manuscripts. The Latin versions of the *Oneirocriticon* will also be discussed, as their importance in shaping W estem medieval tradition on dream interpretation can hardly be overestimated. The problems of Drexl' s edition will be pointed out, and the guidelines along which a new critical edition can be planned will be indicated.

#### *Greek Manuscripts*

*Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690. I Ith century, parchment, 258 fols., 24 cm x 19 cm, anthology of texts. 2

*Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 is a collection of 94 texts representing a wide variety of authors and literary genres. It has been in the Bibliotheque Nationale since 1859, but the only adequate description of it was not published until 1950. 3 It is important for the manuscript tradition of numerous Greek works. It is a *de luxe* volume, though it has no illuminations and its ornamentation is simple,

2For a detailed description of the manuscript and a report on its contents, see G. Rochefort, "Une anthologie grecque du Xie siecle," pp. 3-17.

*3 Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 was brought from Mount Athos to Paris by Minas Minoides in 1842 and was obtained by the Bibliotheque Nationale upon his death in 1859; see G. Rochefort, "Une anthologie grecque du Xie siecle."

consisting of titles and initials written in gold ink. According to G. Rochefort, it must have been written between 1075 and 1085.

Fols. 123v-132v comprise a collection of short texts on dream interpretation that was discussed by D. Gigli in 1981; 4 it includes an abridged version of the *Oneirocriticon* on fols. 125-129, which constitutes its oldest known surviving version.5

The abridgment in the Paris anthology bears the title "'EK -r&v 'Ivo&v, CTEpcr&v Kai Atyu1nimv" (From the Indians, Persians and Egyptians); no author is indicated.6 The distinction between the dream interpretations of the Indians, Persians and Egyptians is made only in the title and does not appear in the chapter headings, as it does in Drexl's text. Moreover, the titles and the order of the various paragraphs are in several instances very different from the critical edition, and some of the paragraphs are missing altogether. The interpretations given are schematic and comparable to those in the dreambook of Daniel. Gigli observes that "a compendium of this type would correspond to a popular dissemination, in which schematic treatises are easier to use and to consult" and points to passages from the abridgment where the epitomist admits that his work is not meant for the professional dream interpreter (fol. 125r, col. 1): CTEpt yap 'tfi<; Ota<jlopa<; 'tcOV ElOcOV Kat 'tfi<; rrpo<; au-ra KpicrEm<; 7totKtATJ<; ofuric; £mmrrficraµEv, •0 ovEtpoKpi'tl) TI]v WU'tTJ<; Kpicrtv rrapaxmpficrav-rE<; (We have been silent on the subject of the difference between the kinds [of dreams] and their various interpretations, ceding the judgment about this to the dream interpreter).7

Gigli collected all the instances where the text of *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 implies the possibility of new variants, or contains notes and interpretations that are absent from the other manuscripts of the *Oneirocriticon. 8*In particular, he identified a number of variants in *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 that confirmed readings that were rejected by Drexl and were only included in the apparatus to the critical edition, or that offer a better text than the other Greek manuscripts

4 D. Gigli, "Gli onirocritici del cod. *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690," *Prometheus* 4 (1981), pp. 65-86, esp. 79-86, and 173-88.

5 Drexl incorrectly considered *Vindob. philos. et phi/of. gr.* 111 of the 13th century to be the oldest surviving Greek manuscript of the text.

6 Gigli, "Gli onirocritici del cod. *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690," p. 85, suggested that the lack of author's name and the "generic" title of the work indicate that the epitomist distanced himself from his model. However, further evidence from the Greek and Latin manuscript tradition indicates that the epitomist simply copied the title of the work as he found it in his model.

7 Ibid., p. 79.

8 Ibid., pp. 83-85.

#### 94 CHAPTER THREE

known to him.9 A further instance shows that Drexl was correct to insert in his main text an interpretation not attested by the Greek manuscripts but found in the Latin translation of Leo Tuscus. '° With reference to the two main branches in the manuscript tradition of the *Oneirocriticon* distinguished by Drexl, *x* (= *codd. meliores)* and *y* (= *codd. deteriores),* Gigli noted that the abridgment includes readings that belong to both branches. He therefore suggested that the epitomist based his abridgment either on one single model with contaminated readings from both branches of the manuscript tradition as described by Drexl, or on a number of different models belonging to both the *x* and *they* branches of the tradition.

Gigli identified a few dream interpretations that are included in *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 but are absent from the standard version of the text published by Drexl. Some of them are similar to interpretations offered by Artemidoros and pseudo-Nikephoros. Others are particular to *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 and do not appear anywhere else in the extant Greek dreambooks. Gigli considers the variants that are close to Artemidoros and pseudo-Nikephoros as additions made by the epitomist, who presumably knew these two texts. 11

If we examine *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 in the light of the evidence presented by Arabic dream interpretation, however, this conclusion must be modified. At least five out of nine interpretations that occur only in *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 and no other extant Greek source can be found in Arabic dreambooks. 12These interpretations must already have existed in the model for the abridgment. Moreover, Arabic dreambooks contain all four interpretations that occur in the Paris abridgment and in pseudo-Nikephoros. Since the phrasing in *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 is far removed from the phrasing in Nikephoros, it is safe to conclude that the source of these interpretations in the abridgment is not Nikephoros but a version of the *Oneirocriticon* longer than the one printed by Drexl. The five interpretations that occur in *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690 and Artemi-

9 E.g. *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690, fol. 126v, col. 2: ii µi:v Kapfo Ei~ avopa y£povi:a Kat cp£t8wA6v; in Drexl 154, 16: avopo~ µqicri:ou ... cpnowA.ou, but in apparatus rBRSTV: y£pov1:0~ cp£lOOJAou. Further examples in Gigli, "Gli onirocritici del cod. *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690," pp. 81-85.

10*Paris. Suppl. gr. 690,* fol. 128, col. 2: wcra-ui:w~ Kat o oaKtUAto~ ~acriAEtov £~oucriav Kat yuvmKo~ Kat i:£Kvoiv oi]A.wmv E)'.El (Likewise, a ring suggests royal power and signifies a wife and children); cf. Drexl 211, 22-23.

11Gigli, "Gli onirocritici de! cod. *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690," p. 85.

12I have searched in the five Arabic dreambooks I chose as the basis for comparing the *Oneirocriticon* to Arabic dream interpretation, two of which are available only in manuscripts; of the remaining three published versions, only one has an index of dream symbols. Given these conditions, it is possible that I may have missed some interpretations in the Arabic.

doros present a somewhat more complicated case. I have been able to locate four out of five in Arabic. The phrasing of two of those interpretations in Paris. Suppl. gr. 690 and the Greek text of Artemidoros is very close, however; therefore, it is not out of the question that the epitomist was familiar with this second-century text. 13

The fact that the additional interpretations of Paris. Suppl. gr. 690 can be found in Arabic dreambooks should keep us from assigning them to the epitomist. Since the purpose of an abridgment is to shorten a work, it is unlikely that the epitomist would add even a few further interpretations from different sources at the same time as he was eliminating hundreds of others from his model.44 It is more likely that all the additional interpretations, including those that Gigli attributed to the epitomist's knowledge of Artemidoros and Nikephoros, existed in the epitomist's model, again suggesting a version of the Oneirocriticon longer than the one found in Drexl's critical edition. Such a conclusion is supported by two additional pieces of evidence: first, one of the examples collected by Gigli that confirm readings rejected by Drexl for the critical text but reproduced in the apparatus of the edition indicates that the epitomist's model was a text longer than the one printed in the critical edition.15

13 For a detailed catalogue of interpretations missing from Drexl's text and the corresponding Arabic interpretations, as well as the possible connection between the abridgment of Paris. Suppl. gr. 690 and the Greek text of Artemidoros, see Appendix 1.

14 The only phrase in the abridgment that at first sight points to the use of additional sources is in Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, fol. 128r, col. 2: ΜΑΡΓΑΡΟΙ· Τινές δε δάκρυα και κλαυθμον είπον, ή φόβον από έξουσίας (Pearls: Some said that [they signify] tears and wailing, or fear of an authority). However, the phrase "τινές δε είπον" ( "some said," which could be a direct translation of the Arabic قـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ dreambooks) must already have existed in the postulated extended version from which the abridgment was made. Gigli ( "Gli onirocritici del cod. Paris. Suppl. gr. 690," p. 84) mentions that the interpretation of pearls as tears occurs in two other Byzantine dreambooks, those attributed to Nikephoros and to Germanos: μαργαρίται δηλούσι δακρύων ροήν (Pearls signify the flowing of tears). For the relevant texts, see Nikephoros, "Das Traumbuch des Patriarchen Nikephoros," ed. F. Drexl, Festgabe Albert Erhard (Bonn and Leipzig, 1922), pp. 94-118, verse 184; and Nikephoros, Pseudo-Nicephoro: Libro dei sogni, ed. G. Guidorizzi (Naples, 1980), verse 68. Also Germanos, "Das Traumbuch des Patriarchen Germanos," ed. F. Drexl, Laographia 7 (1923), pp. 428-48, verse 138. The interpretation of pearls as tears is also found in Islamic dream interpretation: see al-Nabulusi, vol. 2, p. 198; also Appendix 1. For the interpretation of pearls as φόβον άπο έξουσίας (fear of authority), see Drexl 211, 1-9.

15 See Gigli, "Gli onirocritici del cod. Paris. Suppl. gr. 690," pp. 83-85. Drexl 239, 8 ff: Περί στρουθίων, codd: περι τρωγλητών και διαφόρων στρουθίων. This was rejected by Drexl because only orpovelia are discussed in the subsequent paragraph. However, Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, fol. 129r, col. 1: ΣΤΡΟΥ ΓΛΙΓ [sic] · Οί τρωγλοδύται και τα λοιπά στρουθία ἀτιμίαν ἐκ φίλων δηλούσι. Cf. also Vat. er. 573. fol. 212v: περί στρουγλιτών και διαφόρων στρουθίων (the chapter talks about στρουθία and όρνιθας έναλίους ή λιμνίτας ή άπλώς φιλύδρους).

Second, additional evidence from *Vat. gr.* 573 and the twelfth-century Latin adaptation of Pascalis Romanus also leads to the conclusion that the Greek archetype was longer than Drexl' s critical edition. 16

The Greek archetype was an adaptation of Arabic material, the foreign character of which left clear traces in some of its passages. The abridgment in *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690, on the other hand, provides a text that is not only shorter, but also purged of its exotic details, so it has lost much of its foreign flavor. References to concepts that would have been unfamiliar and possibly irrecognizable to a Byzantine reader were eliminated. For example, the epitomist eliminated the numerous allusions to polygamy that can still be found throughout the critical edition; 17 he chose to retain the interpretation of the five fingers as representing acts of piety, though their interpretation as the five daily prayers, an Islamic religious duty, was eliminated. 18 Further on, only three of the planets are given a specific interpretation; the remaining four, which, in the critical

18*Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690, fol. 125v, col. 2: oi oaK1UAOt El<; 1a £pya Kpivov.m •ii<; 1tlCT1EW<; wu avOpcimou. (The fingers are interpreted as a person's acts of faith). Cf. Drexl 45, 11 ff: Ai XEtpE<; Kal. oi oaK1UAOt d<; 1a £pya •ii<; 1ttCT1EW<; 1ciiv av0poonwv OtaKpi vovmt ... Kat npciiw<; 6 µ£ya<; 1ciiv OaKTUAWV Kpi VE1at El<; 1i]v Euxiiv WU op0pou, OEU1Epo<; i\wt 6 Atxav6<; Et<; 1i;<; 1phri<; wpa<; 1i]v Euxi]v Kpi VE mt, 1pi *W<;* 6 µfoo<; •ii<; EK1TI<; wpa<;, 6 *an'* auwu i\wt 6 1£mpw<; •ii<; EVcl1TI<; wpa<;, n£µmo<; 6 EAclXtcrW<; •ii<; Ecr1tEpt vii<; EUXii<; (The hands and fingers signify a person's acts of faith .... The thumb signifies the morning prayer; the forefinger, the prayer of the third hour; the middle finger, the prayer of the sixth hour; the ring finger, the prayer of the ninth hour; the little finger, the evening prayer). For further discussion on the interpretation of fingers, see chapter 7.

16See also the introductory note to Appendix 2 and the interpretation of eating honey discussed in chapter 5.

17 There is, however, one exception. In the interpretation of ribs (fol. 126r, col. I) a reference to polygamy was retained, probably because the epitomist failed to understand the meaning of the term yvi]<nm yuvatKE<; (legitimate wives), which makes sense only in the context of Islamic law, with which he was unfamiliar. rvi]<nm yuvaiKE<; must correspond to the women whom it is lawful for one to marry according to Islam, while ai EK y£vou<; cruyyEVEt<; (blood relatives) must be the women that a Muslim is prohibited from marrying because of their degree of kinship to him (see Qur'an 4:23-24). The interpretation of ribs in the abridgment reads as follows: ai itAEupat yuvaiKa<; crrtµaivoucrw, ai µEv iivw µ£y1cr1m yvricria<;, ai OE Ka1w yuvaiKa<; cruyyEvEi<; (The ribs signify women; the upper, larger ribs legitimate wives, and the bottom ribs women who are relatives). Cf. Drexl 55, 5-8: ai nAEupai datv ai yuvatKE<;. ai µEv *iivw,* ai µ£y1cr1m, yvi]<nm yuvmKE<; datv, ai OE Ka1w ai EK y£vou<; Eicrl.v cruyyEvEi<; (The ribs are the women; the upper, larger ribs are the legitimate wives, and the bottom ones are the relatives from the same family). The Arabic dreambooks I have checked all agree that "a rib is a woman, because she was created from a rib" (Ibn Qutayba from Jerusalem, *Yahuda ar.* 196, fol. 30a). The creation of Eve from the rib of Adam as narrated in Genesis 2:21-23 was known to Muslims through religious traditions and theological commentaries; see, e.g., Ibn Qutayba, *Kitab al-Ma'arif* (Cairo, 1935), p. 7. I have been unable to find an Arabic dreambook that differentiates between upper and lower ribs, though I believe that this differentiation was made in the Arabic source of the Greek passage. Artemidoros does not write anything about dreaming of ribs.

edition, correspond to officials not of the Byzantine but of the caliphal court, are given a more general interpretation.19 Paris. Suppl. gr. 690 also omits the name of a "Saracen" sweet that is interpreted as sickness because of its color, leaving the shortened interpretation somewhat obscure.20 Further abbreviated interpretations that occur in Paris. Suppl. gr. 690 are similarly obscured by the omission of details indispensible for understanding the passage."

It is impossible to know when the abridgment was made. The text in Paris. Suppl. gr. 690 was not created ad hoc. A model for it already existed, as is obvious from scribal errors.22 The only secure terminus ante quem for the

20 Paris. Supp. gr. 690, fol. 128r, col. 2: ή βρώσις των φοινίκων άγαθόν έστιν, άλλά και του μέλιτος και του σάχαρ. το δε γλύκισμα νόσον διά το χρώμα (Eating dates, as well as honey and sugar, is a good thing, but a sweetmeat signifies sickness because of its color). Cf. Drexl 198, 3-5: εί δὲ τρώγει γλύκισμα σαρακηνικὸν τὸ λεγόμενον παλουδάκιν, εύρήσει νόσον διά τα χρώματα και το πύρ αναλόγως της βρώσεως (If he is eating the Saracen sweetmeat called paloudakin, he will find sickness commensurate with what he ate because of the colors and the fire). In the abridgment, note that vooov in the accusative is an inconsistency in syntax, probably carelessly carried over from its model.

21 E.g., Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, fol. 128r, col. 1: τα ποδόρτια είς μισθοποίησιν πτωχών κρίνονται, άναλόγως της εύωδίας ή δυσωδίας αύτών (Slippers are interpreted as giving charity to the poor, depending on their pleasant or foul smell). Cf. Drexl 176, 5-8: ἐάν τις ϊδη, ότι περιεβάλετο ποδόρτια νέα εύωδίαν έχοντα, μισθοποιήσει πτωχοις έκ τῆς ὑπάρξεως αύτου, εί δε δυσωδίαν έχοντα, φήμην κακὴν εύρήσει δια το δυσώδες έν τώ έργω του utotov autov (If someone dreams that he was wearing new slippers that had a pleasant smell, he will give charity to the poor out of his own fortune. If they had a foul smell, he will earn a bad reputation on account of his charity because of the foul smell). Also Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, fol. 128v, col. 1: ό ίστος το μεν τούτου συνήθως κέρδος σημαίνει, a phrase that is virtually incomprehensible. Cf. Drexl 215, 9-10: ἐἀν ἴδη τις, ὅτι ὑφαίνει ἐν οϊκῳ αὐτοῦ συνήθως, εύρήσει έν τω έργω αὐτοῦ κέρδος ἀνάλοΥον του ἔργου τῆς ἀνατάσεως (If someone dreams that he was weaving in his house, if he usually does this, he will find profit in his work in proportion to the amount of work stretched out on the loom).

22 Changing a preposition in the first part of a composite verb in Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, fol.

19 Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, fol. 127r, col. 2: ό ήλιος είς πρόσωπον κρίνεται του βασιλέως, ή σελήνη είς το δεύτερον από του βασιλέως πρόσωπον. Ή 'Αφροδίτη είς το της αύγούστης λογίζεται. Οί λουποί πλανήται είς τούς μεγιστάνας (The sun is interpreted as the person of the king, the moon as the second most important person after the king. Venus is reckoned as the queen. The rest of the planets as noblemen). Cf. Drexl 129, 12-18: ὁ ήλιος είς μέγαν βασιλέα κρίνεται .... Και ή σελήνη, ώς είρηται, είς πρόσωπον του δευτέρου έστιν από του βασιλέως και ή 'Αφροδίτη είς πρόσωπον της Αύγούστης: και ό Ερμής είς πρόσωπον του πρώτου των γραφέων του βασιλέως κρίνεται και ό Άρης είς τον πρώτον πολεμιστήν του βασιλέως και ό Ζεύς είς τον πρώτον του πλούτου και της διοικήσεως του βασιλέως και του χρυσίου και ό Κρόνος είς <τὸν> πρώτον ποιναλιστὴν διακρίνεται (The sun is interpreted as a great king .... The moon, as was mentioned, is the person who is second in authority after the king, and Venus is the queen. Mercury is interpreted as the chief among the scribes of the king, Mars as the chief warrior of the king, Jupiter as the one in charge of the wealth, administra- tion and gold of the king, and Saturn is interpreted as the chief punisher and chastiser). For further discussion on the interpretation of the moon and the stars, see chapter 5.

composition of this model remains 1075-85, the date of *Paris. Suppl. gr.*  690.

*Vat. gr.* 573.23 14th and 15th century, paper, 380 fols., 22 cm x 14 cm., anthology of 31 miscellaneous texts, put together from 7 parts of various manuscripts in 7 different hands.

The *Oneirocriticon* is found on fols. 120r-213v, which belongs to part 5 of the manuscript (fols. 46-214). 24 The watermarks of this part suggest that it was written in the fifteenth century. 25It is followed by a prayer that was pronounced before asking for a dream to be interpreted, a list of the days and hours most auspicious for dreams, and an anonymous lunar dreambook (fols. 213v-214v).26 The scribe copied the text of the *Oneirocriticon* from a model with numerous lacunae. He therefore left a number of pages blank in his copy, apparently hoping to find a model that preserved the missing passages so he could complete the text later.

The text of the *Oneirocriticon* as it stands in *Vat. gr.* 573 cannot be put into either of the two families of texts identified by Drexl in his critical edition *(x*  = *codd. meliores; y* = *codd. deteriores).* It contains readings that indicate its affinity with both families, though examples putting it close to they family are more numerous. 27Vat. *gr.* 573 contains a few interpretations that are absent

23This report is based on my examination of fols. l 20r-2 l 4v in microfilm, and on the description of the manuscript by R. Devreesse, *Codices Vaticani Graeci,* vol. 2 [codd. 330-603], (Rome, 1937), pp. 469-77.

24 Ibid., p. 477.

25 The watermarks are discussed ibid.

26 For the prayer and the lunar dreambook in *Vat. gr.* 573, see also the description of the Oxford *Baroccianus* 206 (13th-14th century), fol. 232 in *CCAG,* vol. 9, p. 24. The *incipit* and *desinit* of this section of *Baroccianus* 206 seem to indicate that its text might coincide with that of *Vat. gr.* 573, but I have not examined the *Baroccianus* and cannot be sure.

27 Examples from the first ten pages of the critical edition that show *Vat. gr.* 573 to belong toy: *Vat. gr.* 573 has nunoc; for nuKvoc; (2, 16); EvT)AAayµ£vT) for iouayyioA.tl;;oµ£vT) (2, I); Bapaaµ for Bapaµ (2, 26); PA.Emov for npopA.Emov (5,6); 1:0u A.aou npooiouxioi:m il uniopiouxioi:m for wu A.aou imiopiouxioi:at (9, 13); rrA.ouoiac; for rrpomaoi.ac; (10, 2); <1>aviopw8i]oio1m for <1Jwpa0i]oioi:at

126v, col. 2: £av nc; iiop£a lO\J E<J'tOAtoµ£vov £v i:tvt 16nC(l £v c\i OUK £~ioonv iiop£a npo£pxioo0m instead of cio£pxrnem. Cf. Drexl 103, 26-27: £av nc; lO\J Km' ovap, on ci<JiiA.0iov iiopiouc; Eo't0Atoµ£voc; EV 101tC(l, OU OUK ~v 1unoc; cio£pxrn0m aui:ov ... Transposition of words in *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690, fol. I 28r, col. I: 10 KaµioA.auKtov Tj1:0t ioi.c; 1T]v Kc<IJaA.T]v 'tOV 8c<J1tO/;;ovi:a 'tOU 6pciiv1:0c; avayio1m instead of 10 KaµioAaUKlOV cic; i:T]v Kc<IJaA.T\v Tj1:0t 10V 8rnn61;;ov'ta 'tOU 6pciiv1:0c; avayio1at. Cf. Drexl 168, 15-17: £av lO\J nc;, on <1>opioi KaµcA.aUKlOV ... 'tOU10 cic; 1T]v U7tcp£xouoav au1:0u Kpi. VC'tat Kc<IJaA.T\v. The abridgment must have been in circulation long enough for the word ni.mt v to change into mKpi.av *(Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690, fol. 127r, col. I; see Gigli, "Gli onirocritici de! cod. *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690," p. 83).

from Drexl's text and can be as long as half a manuscript page. The longest additions are the following:

1. Vat. gr. 573, fols. 162v-163r, to be added after Drexl 105, 11, pu0 Tlepì iepewv (chapter 159, "On Priests"). In Vat. gr. 573 the excerpt is titled Περι ίερέων και μοναχών. ἐκ τῶν Ινδών (On Priests and Monks, from the Indians):

Γυνὴ ἐαν ἴδη ὅτι ἐγένετο ἱερεὺς καὶ συνελειτούργει ἱερεῖ, ταχύ ἀποθανεῖται, και σωθήσεται. ἐαν τις ἴδη ὅτι συνάντησε τινὰ μοναχὸν φορωντα σταυρὸν ύπογεγραμμένον ώς μεγαλόσχημον, εί μεν ώμίλησεν αὐτώ γλυκέα καὶ χρηστά, ίδου κρατείτω ούτως εί δε μὴ, τούναντίον. εἰ δὲ ἔτυψεν αὐτὸν ὁ τοιοῦτος μοναχός, εύρήσει χάριν ό ίδών, είς τὴν ψυχὴν αύτού, παρὰ άγίου. ό γὰρ μοναχὸς ό σεσημειωμένος είς άνθρωπον του θεου κρίνεται. και άπερ τυφθη έξ έκείνου, δωρεά έστι άγίου τινός.

 If someone dreams that he met a monk wearing the sign of the cross like monks of the higher order {do, and] if [the monk | talked to [the dreamer] in sweet and kind words, let the dreamer hold on to them. If not, the opposite. If this monk beat him, the dreamer's soul will receive the grace of a saint, for a monk wearing the cross is interpreted as a man of God. And whatever beating the dreamer suffered from the monk is a spiritual benefit from a saint. If the monk did not wear the sign of the cross, and did not have the long habit of monks of the higher order, but was only wearing his cassock, if he was old, this is interpreted as a bad circumstance. If he talked to the dreamer in a nice and orderly manner, or gave him something, the dreamer will obtain something moderately good, commensurate with the [monk's] gift. If the monk was young and fought with the dreamer, the dreamer will fall ill with an uncurable sickness, as if he were an old man. If the dreamer beat the monk with the long habit of the higher order, he will make an offering and address a request to a saint commensurate with the blows. If he beat the young [monk], he will be harmed by an enemy.

2. Vat. gr. 573, fol. 183v, to be added after Drexl 157, 28, at the end of o' ' EK των Περσών και μόνον περὶ ἀπώρας παντοίας (chapter 200, "From the Persians Alone, on All Kinds of Fruit"):

(11, 23). In the same pages there are only three examples that indicate the affinity of Vat. gr. 573 with x: Vat. gr. 573 has βασιλέως for φαραώ (4, 12); αγαπηθήσεται for άγαθοποιηθήσεται (9, 13); εί δὲ οὐκ ἐτελείωσε (11, 7).

On chestnuts: chestnuts are interpreted as days and nights. If someone dreams that he was eating fresh chestnuts, let him know that he is about to go through good days. If they are many, his life will be longer. If they were dry, the days will be bad and dire. If he dreamt of someone or gave him [chestnuts (?)],28 these are other days, either good or bad, depending on the [kind of] chestnuts. Likewise, silk worms are interpreted as days. If someone dreams that he received such fruits or almonds from a king, if they are fresh he will have good times for months or days commensurate to the number [of the nuts]. If they are dry, let him know that he will die, as was said, in a period of time commensurate fwith the number of nuts].

3. Vat. gr. 573, fol. 209v, to be added after Drexl 230, 21, in σπβ' Έκ των Ίνδών, Περσών και Αίγυπτίων περὶ σφηκών καὶ μελισσών ἀγρίων και ήμέρων (chapter 282, "From the Indians, Persians and Egyptians on Wasps and Wild and Domesticated Bees" ):

ἐὰν Ίδη τις ὅτι εὐρεν μέλι μετὰ κηρίου αὐτοῦ, ἐνόλοΥον τοῦ μέλιτος πλούτον. πλήν δέ, μετα βίας όλίγης. εί δε εύρε μέλι και έφαγεν αὐτό, γινωσκέτω ὅτι διασυντόμως θέλει ίδεῖν τὸ μέλλον αὐτοῦ, κὰν τε καλὸν, εἴτε ἐναντίον. εἰ δε ΐδη ότι ευρεν ή ήρεν ή έφερον αύτφ μέλι έψητον ήτοι γλύκισμα μετα άρρωμάτων, εύρήσει θλίψιν και στενοχωρίαν, άναλόγως του γλυκίσματος. εί δε έκτὸς ἀρρωματων ἐστίν, ἐλαττοτέρα ή κρίσις ἐστὶ τῆς θλίψεως καὶ στενοχωρίας, όμοίως ἐαν ϊδη τὶς ὅτι εὐρε κηρία σβεστὰ μικρὰ καὶ ἀπῆρεν αυτά, γινωσκέτω ό τοιούτος, ότι διασυντόμως μέλλει αποθανειν. εί δὲ εἰσὶν άπτόμενα, εύρήσει χαράν και άγαλλίασιν, αναλόγως των κηρίων, πλήν έκ του καπνού. εί δε μὴ, τουναντίον. εί δὲ ϊδη ὅτι ἔσχε λαμπάδας, αί λαμπάδες, εἰς καιρούς κρίνονται, και άρχοντας. εί δε σβεσται είσιν, είς μηνας τόσους, αναλόγως των λαμπάδων, μέλλει αποθανείν.

If someone dreams that he found honey with its honeycomb, he will find wealth commensurate with the honey, though through the use of some violence. If he

28 There seems to be a lacuna in this part of the Greek text.

found honey and ate it, let him know that he will soon meet with his future, whether good or bad. If he dreamt that he found or took or was brought baked honey, that is, a dessert with spices, he will find sorrow and trouble commensurate with the dessert. If it was without spices, the interpretation of sorrow and trouble is more moderate.  If they were lit, he will find joy and delight commensurate with the candles. Save for the smoke [sic]. If not, the opposite [?].20 If he sees that he had torches, the torches are interpreted as time and noblemen. If they were extinguished, he will die in as many months as there are torches.

4. Vat. gr. 573, fol. 201r-v, to be added after Drexl 207, 26, in σνβ' 'Eκ των Περσών περὶ ἀσμάτων καὶ ὀρχημάτων, αὐλήσεως καὶ κιθάρας (chapter 252, "From the Persians on Songs and Dances, Playing the Flute and the Cithara"):

ἐαν Ίδη τις ὅτι ἔκρουε βούκινα εἰς αὐλὴν τινὸς, ἤτοι εἰς κάστρον, γινωσκέτω είς όντινα παίζουσι τα τοιαύτα, μέλλει άποθανείν ή κινδυνεύσειν ό βίος αύτου και ή δόξα αυτού, ή και είς φυλακὴν ἐμβληθήσεται. εἰ δὲ εἰς πόλεμον ἐστὶν ή πόλις ἐκείνη, στενοχωρηθήσεται παρ՝ ἐχθρῶν. εἰ δὲ ἔστιν ἀνακαράς, ἀναμφιβόλως, είς θάνατον κρίνεται. όμοίως και είς τὴν πόλιν είς ήν παίζουσιν άνακαράδες, θανατικόν μέλλει γενέσθαι, και άκουσθήσεται. ή δε ζαμάρα και τα αλλα, είς ύβρεις και ατιμίας κρίνονται.

If someone dreams that he was sounding horns in someone's court, that is, in a castle, let him know that the person for whom such instruments were played will die, or his life and glory will be endangered, or he will be thrown into prison. If that city is at war, the enemy will bring it to dire straits. If the instrument is an anakaras, it is undoubtedly interpreted as death. Likewise, in a city where anakarades are played, a plague will take place and will be heard. The zamara" and the other [instruments] are interpreted as offense and dishonesty.

Three additional interpretations are not unique to Vat. gr. 573, but are also found in Paris. Suppl. gr. 690. Right after the paragraph on the interpretation of crabs and other crustaceans (Drexl, chap. 300) and before the last paragraph on the theory of dream interpretation (Drexl, chap. 301), two brief interpretations are inserted: Περὶ ψύλλων καὶ φθειρών (On Lice and Fleas) and περὶ αλατος (On Salt). These interpretations also appear at the very end of the relevant passage in Paris. Suppl. gr. 690 (fol. 129r, col. 1): Αί ψύλλαι είς ἐχθροὺς πτωχούς κρίνονται. Ωσαύτως καὶ οἱ όλίγοι φθεῖρες. Οἱ δὲ

29 Possible lacuna in the Greek text.

30 A small drum having a hemispheric body of copper or wood.

31 A wind instrument consisting of two pipes.

#### 102 CHAPTER THREE

7t0AA0l 7tAOtYtoV 8riA-oucn. To 8£ aA-ai:; 1rn't a'U'tO £l~ 1tAOU'tOV ii8uv EKpteri (Lice are interpreted as poor enemies. A few fleas [are interpreted] likewise, while many fleas indicate wealth. Salt is also interpreted as pleasant wealth). *Vat. gr.* 573 contains none of the other interpretations found in *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690, but absent from Drexl. It is impossible to know whether the brief interpretations on lice, fleas and salt at the end of the *Oneirocriticon* were added by the scribe of *Vat. gr.* 573 who, as is indicated by the blank spaces left at various places in the manuscript, was looking out for a copy that would allow him to fill in the lacunae in his text, or whether it already existed in his model. But whoever made this addition seems to have had both a long and an abridged version of the *Oneirocriticon* at hand, but not to have compared the two very carefully, probably because he did not expect to find anything new in the abridgment. Possibly, after a brief examination of the two texts, he only spotted the three additional interpretations that appear at the very end of the abridgment under a separate heading. Since finding the other additions to the abridgment requires a thorough and careful examination of the two texts in their entirety, he added to the text that he was copying only those extra interpretations that were easy to spot.

*Bononiensis (Bibliothecae Universitatis)* 3632. 14 December 1440, paper, 475 fols., 29.6 cm x 21.9 cm. A number of epistolary formulae appear on the first six folia; most of the rest of the first half of the manuscript (up to fol. 266) contains an assortment of medical texts. The second half is an anthology of texts pertaining to the occult sciences: astronomy (including a glossary on the Arabic names of the signs of the zodiac on fols. 327v-329), magic, and geomancy.32 The *Oneirocriticon* is on fols. 442r-467r.

This manuscript contains only part of the *Oneirocriticon.* The sequence of chapters differs greatly from the one in Drexl 's critical edition,33 but is the

32 For descriptions of *Bononiensis (Bibi. Univ.)* 3632, see Chester Charlton McCown, *The Testament of Solomon* (Leipzig, 1922), pp. 21-25; also A. Olivieri and N. Festa, "Indice dei codici greci delle Biblioteche Universitaria e Comunale di Bologna," *Studi Italiani di Fi/o/of?ia Classica*  3 (1895), pp. 442-56; rpt. C. Samberger and D. Raffin, eds., *Catalol?i codicum f?raecorum qui in minoribus bibliothecis ita/icis asservantur in duo volumina collati et novissimis additamentis aucti*  (Leipzig, 1965). A description of the contents from fol. 266 onward can be found in *CCAG,* vol. 4, pp. 39-46.

33 On the index of chapters on fol. 442 is written: a rrpciJA.oyo~ wu crripiµ wu ovriproKpi wu· ~ EK WV flVOWV O'KE'lfl~ KptO'EW~ OVEtpfrrrov· *y* EK WU A6you WV flVOWV 1tEpt Kpt0'£0~ ov£iprov· 8 EK wv riv8rov 7tEpt vE<)>EA.wv· E itEpt avEµrov· ~ itEpt i]A.iou Kat O'EAT]vri~ Kat acr-rEpwv· itEpt ~poxT]~· Tl 1tEpt 1tUAOU Kat OlO'W8ia~· e 8tiiYT\O'T\~ ov£ipmo~· l 8tiiYflO'l~ E'tEpa; ta 1tEpt 0Epµov u8mwv· t~ 7tEpt rro-rripiou· ty itEpt rrA.i]0ou· t8 itEpt avacrmcrEw~· tE itEpt rrapa8icrou·

same as that in *Paris. gr.* 2419, which allows us to conclude that the two manuscripts belong to the same branch of the manuscript tradition.

The *Bononiensis* is the only illustrated manuscript among the Greek manuscripts of the *Oneirocriticon* that I have examined. The portraits of the four dream interpreters mentioned in the text (Syrbacham, Baram, Tarphan and Sereim), each labeled with his name, appear on fol. 443v, between the table of contents and the beginning of the text. Other parts of the manuscript containing different texts are also illustrated with analogous portraits of authors. The organization of the pictorial composition on fol. 443v and a comparison with the other portraits in the manuscript indicate that this illustration was not conceived to accompany the text of the *Oneirocriticon;* rather, it was borrowed from the illustrations of some other text, and the figures were relabeled to make it relevant to the context of the *Oneirocriticon.*

British Library *Additicius* 8240. 34 17th century, paper, 149 fols., 15 x 9 cm., written in various hands. The manuscript contains an assortment of dreambooks. It was put together from a number of different manuscripts, and contains a collection of various texts. It once belonged (as no. 421) to Frederic North, fifth Earl of Guilford ( 1766-1827), 35 and before him to the eighteenth-century Phanariot intellectual Nikolaos Karatzas. 36

The volume, as it is bound today, contains a wide variety of texts ranging from a description of the Holy Land combined with a number of *gnomologia,*  to a treatise on meter in ancient Greek poetry, and an exposition of the doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and the Latins. It also contains three texts

36 See G. Papazoglou, "Cheirographa tou Nikolaou Karatza eis ten bibliotheken tou Brettanikou Mouseiou (allote cheirographa Guilford)," *EEBS* 49 (1994-98), pp. 247-48.

u; rrEpi yEi:v11<;· ti; rrEpt avyyi:/...wv· tT\ rrEpt rrpo<)>111c0v arrocrw/...wv Kat otoacrKa/...wv· 18 rrEpt rricr1mw<;· K rrEpt' KPT\WV, etc.

34 The most comprehensive description of the manuscript and its contents can be found in *CCAG,* vol. 9:2, pp. 28-29. Its description in *List of Additions Made to the Collections in the British Museum in the Year 1831* (London, 1833), p. 6, is inadequate. My information is either found in the relevant manuscript catalogues or is based on my examination of the manuscript.

35 Frederick North, fifth Earl of Guilford, was a well known philhellene and chancellor of the Ionian University of Corfu. Upon his death in 1827 his various collections, including his collection of manuscripts, were bequeathed to the Ionian University, but were recovered by his executors, because the university failed to comply with certain conditions set down in the bequest. Some of the Guilford manuscripts ended up in the British Museum as *Add.* 8240, 20016-17, 20036-7, 27430-1; see *Dictionary of National Biography,* vol. 14, p. 610. On the manuscripts owned by Frederic North, see also B. Mpompou-Stamate, "He bibliotheke Guilford sten Kerkyra (1824-1830)," *Ho Eranistes* 20 (1995), pp. 97-162; and M. Paize-Anagnostopoulou, "He bibliotheke tou N. Karatza kai to cheirographo *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 1375," *Hellenikn* 49:1 (1999), pp. 69-70.

#### CHAPTER THREE

on dream interpretation,37 one of which, on fols. 124v-126v, is an excerpt from the Oneirocriticon (fol. 124v inc.: Έκ τών Περσών και Αἰγυπτίων περὶ διαφόρων εἰδών. Έαν ἴδη τις ὅτι ἀπεπλύθη καὶ ἔβαλεν ίμάτια ... ; fol. 126v des .: τέξει θυγατέρα). This excerpt corresponds to Drexl 203, 27-205, 26 (chapter 247).38 Compared with the text in Drexl's critical edition, the excerpt in Additicius 8240 presents frequent variant readings. These variants link BL Additicius 8240 to Rigault's edition of 1603 and its source, Paris. gr. 2538.

The excerpt from the Oneirocriticon is immediately followed by two sentences that do not appear in Drexl's edition and seem to belong to another text:

της αγάπης ϊδιον φησί των τα κατ΄ αυτήν ζηλούντων, μίαν αποδείξαι γνώμην.των νοητών διαβάς, τὴν ούσίαν ὁ νούς ἀνόητος γίνεται, θεώ προσβάλλων ὑπέρ πασαν δτι κατ΄ ούσίαν, και γνώσιν, και νόησιν, δια την ήδονὴν ἀγαπώμεν τα πάθη, ώς δια τὴν όδύνην, τὴν ἀρετὴν, φεύγωμεν [sic].

He says that a characteristic of love is that those who strive for it produce a uniform opinion.

The mind, after going beyond the essence of mental things, becomes mindless with regard to God, applying above all <essence> that as far as essence, knowledge and understanding are concerned, we are fond of passions because of pleasure, as we avoid virtue because of pain.

It has been impossible to locate these sentences in any of the texts available through the electronic database of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae.39 They seem to belong to a philosophical or patristic work. A possible explanation for copying these lines as if they also belonged to the Oneirocriticon is that in one of the ancestors of BL Additicius 8240, the excerpts from the Oneirocriticon must have appeared just before the text to which these two sentences belong.40 The end of the excerpt from the Oneirocriticon as it appears in BL Additicius 8240 must have come at the end of a verso page, and the two unidentified

37 Besides the excerpt from the Oneirocriticon, the texts on dream interpretation from BL Additicius 8240 are: fols. 31v (olim 347)-32v: Διάλεξις, ήτοι έρμηνεία περί των της σελήνης; fol. 120 (οlίm 49)-124r: Νικηφόρου πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως όνειροκριτικόν κατά άλφάβητον δια στίχων.

38 The text in BL Additicius 8240 presents slight variations from Drex1's text. For example, its incipit in Drexl reads: ' Eav iδη τις ότι απεπλύθη και έβαλε νέα ίμάτια ...

39 Thesaurus Linguae Graecae [computer file]. CD ROM no. D. (Irvine, Calif., 1992).

40 The Oneirocriticon (or excerpts from it) were copied together with patristic and philosophical works in Paris. Suppl. gr. 690, Vat. gr. 573, Vindob. philos. et philol. gr. 162, Athos, Iviron 4285.165.

sentences copied at the very beginning of a recto page. At a later time a certain number of folia containing the end of the *Oneirocriticon* (or its excerpts) and the beginning of the unidentified text, including its title, must have become separated from the manuscript. A scribe copying from this ancestor of BL *Additicius* 8240 must have joined the two excerpts without noticing that some folia were missing and under the misapprehension that both belonged to the same text, since they ran from one page to the next with no new title in between.

Among the interpretations of a lance found in Drexl 205, 8-9 and Drexl 205, 9-10, a phrase that looks like a marginal note which crept into the main text has been inserted. This phrase is placed in the manuscript within parentheses and reads as follows: aviip E1tt<)>8ovo~ µ£ya lWKOV i::i8£ *[sic].* Kat yci'l:COV *[sic]* £lvm KEKAi]pCO'l:at, anapat'l:T]WV 1:0 OUCi'l:UXT]µa, Kat 8av<h(\) µ6A.t~ naucr6µi::vov (An enviable man although [ti 8£] /dreamt of [doi::] a great evil and ... allotted the misfortune to be inevitable and would hardly stop by death).41

*Petropolitanus Bihl. Acad. scient. graec.* 161 (olim Instituti Archaeolog. Constantinopol.). 1731-1740, paper, 41fols.,14.5 cm x 10.2 cm. Various texts, most of them on divination.

This manuscript possibly preserves excerpts from a vernacular paraphrase of the *Oneirocriticon* in fols. 35-39v. According to the description of the manuscript in the *Catalog us Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum,* 42 these folia contain a dreambook titled' EK wu ovi::tpoKpi wu wu Tapa<)>av wu 43 ao<)>ou (From the dreambook of Taraphan the Wise). Inc.:. Eav l01J~ nva~ onco~ avaa'!:T]8ij VEKpo~ - des.[fol. 39]: µna a<jlEnia~ KlVTJO'El Katµ£ Ota<jlopav. T£A.o~. I have not been able to examine this manuscript.

*Zagara* (Bibliotheke Zagoras, Thessaly) 89. 44 1594, paper, 245 fols., 19 cm x

41The passage is so corrupt that an accurate translation is impossible.

42*CCAG,* vol. 12, p. 48. The manuscript is also described in I. N. Lebedeva, *Opisanie rukopisnogo otdela hihliotheki Akademii nauk SSSR,* vol. 5 (Leningrad, 1973), p. 153, but there the text is only designated as "interpretation of dreams."

43 Tapa<1>av1:0u' in *CCAG,* vol. 12, p. 48. Tap<1>av is the name of the Egyptian dream interpreter mentioned in the *Oneirocriticon* (Drexl 3, 13).

44Described in K. I. Dyobouniotes, "Katalogos ton kOdikon tes bibliothekes tes Zagoras," *Neos Hel/enomnemon* 13 (1916), pp. 451-52; rpt. as a separate volume (Athens, 1920); it is projected that it will shortly be reprinted again in J. Declerek, J. Naret, C. de Vocht, eds., *Catalogi manuscriptorum graecorum qui in periodico "Neos Hellenomnemon" olim puh/ici iuris facti,*

13 cm. Oneirocriticon (fols. 4r-154v), Physiologos (fols. 155r-237v), collection of oracles (fols. 238r ff.). Incipit (fol. 4r): βιβλίον όνειροκριτικόν δπερ συνήξε και συνέταξε αχα΄. έτει ό Έσειρήμ ό όνειροκρίτης του πρωτοσυμβούλου Μαμούν.

The date axa (1601) obviously resulted from a misreading of the name Axuèr.40 A note on fol. 154r informs the reader that the text was copied in the year 6875 (of the world era = 1367 of the Christian era): Έγράφη το παρόν βιβλιαρίδιον το καλούμενον Ονειροκριτικόν κατά το έν Θηβύλαις και έδόθη τω όσιωτάτω ἐν μοναχοῖς κυρίω Γρηγορίω τω Χρυσοχόου, τω ἐκ Τρίκκης τῆς Θεσσαλίας ἐν τῷ ζωοε΄. Οἱ ἀναγινώσκοντες εὐχεσθαί μοι έν Κυρίω τις γράψαντι (The present booklet called Oneirocriticon was copied according to [the copy] in Thebylai46 and was given to the most devout among monks master Gregory Chrysochoou from Trikke in Thessaly in the year 6875. You who read it pray to the Lord for me who wrote it).

The manuscript also contains a second text. It is a vernacular version of the Physiologos, with the title (fol. 155r): Φυσιολογία νέα τὴν όποίαν τὴν ἔκαμεν ὁ Δαμασκηνὸς ἀπὸ τῶν παλαιῶν φιλοσόφων τὰ βιβλία καὶ ἔχει των χερσαίων ζώων και τών θαλασσίων είς φράσιν κοινήν (New Physiologos which was composed by the Damascene from the books of the old philosophers; it contains [information] on the land and sea animals expressed in the vernacular). The Physiologos is accompanied by a note on fol. 241r that gives the year 7102 of the world era (1594 of the Christian era): Και ἐγράφη το παρόν έν έτει ζρβ΄ (The present was written in the year 7102).

The manuscript is all written in the same hand. The note giving the year 1367 must have been copied from the model used by the scribe of the Zagora manuscript, as was the poem that precedes it (fols. 153v-154r); this poem, which gives biographical details on the scribe of the model, is designated as στίχοι ούς ευρον έν τφ ανθιβολαίω του όνειροκρίτου (Verses that I found in the model of the dreambook).47 Zagora 89 belonged to the eighteenthcentury patriarch of Constantinople Kallinikos III, who donated it to the school

adhuc usui sunt (Brussels, 1981--). For the most recent developments in the collection of the library of Zagora, see J.-M. Olivier, Repertoire des catalogues et de bibliothèques de manuscrits grecs de Marcel Richard (Turnhout, 1995), p. 851.

45 I assume that the scribe of Zagora 89, who copied the manuscript in the year 1594, understood the date 1601 to be of the world era, that is 3906 в.с.( !).

46 Thebylai (Little Thebes?) is not known to me from anywhere else.

47 "Verses that I found in the model of the dreambook."

of the town, according to a note on fol. 4r. 48 The dream symbols in the manuscript are presented in loosely alphabetical order, which still reflects the original thematic arrangement. For example, the sequence of the dream symbols that begin with "a" is avcicrmcrn;, ayyEAot, aATJTt *[sic],* ava8£v8pa~, aifoia, atµa Kat EAKO~, avEµot, acm.~pE~, aKav8a, aµ<1>iam~, aµa~a etc. I know of no other manuscript of the *Oneirocriticon* where the dream symbols have been rearranged in alphabetical order.49

*Marc. gr.* 299. 10th century, parchment, 196 fols., 30.2 cm x 24 cm, collection of texts on the occult sciences, mainly alchemy. 50 This manuscript is the oldest known surviving Greek alchemical codex and was part of Cardinal Bessarion's bequest to the Bibliotheca Marciana *(olim* 440).

The current binding includes at the beginning of the volume a number of flyleaves covered with writing by later hands. On one of these flyleaves (currently numbered Sr) one can read, in a fourteenth- or fifteenth-century handwriting, the introductory chapter from the abridgment surviving in *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690, dedicated to the theoretical principles of dream interpretation. This text corresponds approximately to part of chapter 301 in the critical edition of the *Oneirocriticon* (Drexl 240, 8-241, 14 ).

The manuscripts known to Drexl are presented here in the order in which he discussed them in the introduction to his critical edition; the first eight manuscripts were those he actually used and have a place in his stemma. The purpose of presenting them is to give a schematic picture of the problems inherent in the fragmentary character of the Greek manuscript tradition and to provide a

48 On the interest of Kallinikos in the school of Zagara, see A. Chrysoberges, *Ho patriarches Kanstantinoupoleos Kallinikos ho tritos ho ek Zagoras ( 1757)* (Zagara, 1995), esp. pp. 131 ff.

49 I would like to thank Mr. Theodoros Roussis, the librarian of the Zagara Public Library, for allowing me to examine the manuscript. Microfilms of manuscripts from peripheral Greek libraries are kept in the National Library in Athens; however, no reproduction of *Zagara* 89 exists there.

50 The most recent description of the manuscript can be found in E. Mioni, *Bihliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti,* vol. I: *Thesaurus Antiquus, Codices 1-299* (Rome, 1981), pp. 427-33. For an older but more detailed description of the manuscript by 0. Lagercrantz, see *CMAG,* vol. 2, pp. 1-22. The manuscript has been dated to the end of the 11th century by Mioni, to the 11th century by Lagercrantz-Zanetti, the 12th century by Morelli, and the I Oth-11 th century by Berthelot (for references to the corresponding publications, see Mioni, *Bihliothecae Divi Marci,* p. 427). I am following the date given by H. D. Saffrey in R. Halleux, *Les a/chimistes grecs 1: Papyrus de Leyde, Papyrus de Stockholm. Recettes* (Paris, 1981 ), p. xiv. After an examination of a microfilm of *Marc. gr.* 299, Professor Boris Fonkic was also in favor of a 10th-century date. I would like to thank Professor Fonkic for his advice.

quick reference to the Greek manuscripts. I added my own comments on the manuscripts that I have examined. More information on each manuscript can be found in Drexl's dissertation, as well as in the relevant library catalogues.51

*Vindob. philos. et philol. gr.* 111 ( = R). 52 13th century, parchment. Contains only the *Oneirocriticon.* Compared to Drexl's edition, the text is considerably abbreviated. From chapter 30 and on, there are several lacunae, which can be as long as one, two, or three pages.

*Vindob. philos. et philol. gr.* 162 ( = S). End of the 14th century, paper. Contains prophecies and excerpts from Anastasios Sinaites, Maximos Homologetes, Ioannes Pediasimos, etc. Some chapters, especially the long ones, have lacunae.

*Vindob. philos. et philol. gr.* 287 ( = T). 53 End of the 14th century and 15th-16th centuries, paper. Collection of astrological texts. Contains only parts of the *Oneirocriticon.*

*Vindob. philos. et philol. gr.* 297 ( = V). 16th century, paper. Contains only the *Oneirocriticon.* Possibly copied by' Icoavvrii; tEpEui; 6 EuA.orriµ£voi; 6 [o]\xovoµoi; ap-rrii; . 54 In 1562 this manuscript was acquired by J. Sambucus.55 He made it available to J. Loewenklau, who based the 1577 translation of the *Oneirocriticon,* the *Apomasaris apotelesmata,* upon it. The manuscript lacks the first folia, where the title and possibly the name of the author would have appeared, but the name Apomasaros was added by a later hand right after the interpretations of the first dream symbol, the resurrection of the dead, according to the Indians, Persians and Egyptians. 56 This note on the manuscript must have been the source for the title of the translation.

*Leidens. Voss.* 49 ( = L). 57 End of 15th century, paper. Contains only the *Oneirocriticon;* has several lacunae, the most extensive being one page long.

51 See Drexl, *Achmets Traumbuch.* References to library catalogues can be found in this publication, as well as in the prolegomena to the critical edition of the *Oneirocriticon.* My references are limited to library catalogues that superseded the ones mentioned by Drexl.

52 The four Viennese manuscripts are described in Hunger, *Katalog der griechischen Handschriften,* vol. 1, pp. 222, 265, 386, 392.

53 For a description of this manuscript, see also *CCAG,* vol. 6, pp. 51-53.

54 See Drexl, *Achmets Traumbuch,* p. 14.

55 Bought in Salerno for eleven ducats. See Hunger, *Katalog der griechischen Handschriften,*  vol. 1, p. 392.

56 Drexl, *Achmets Traumbuch,* p. 5

57 Described in K. A. de Meyier, *Codices Manuscripti 6: Codices Vossiani graeci et misce/lanei*  (Leiden, 1955), p. 157.

The last folio substitutes chapters with interpretations lifted from the dreambook attributed to Manuel Paleologos. Compared with the edition of this text by Delatte according to its version in *Paris. gr.* 2419 (where it is also copied immediately after a version of the *Oneirocriticon),* the excerpts in *Leidensis*  are very few and appear in no particular order.

*Paris. gr.* 2511 ( = P).58 End of 14th century, paper. Anthology of texts. Contains only parts of the *Oneirocriticon.* The text is partly a paraphrase.

*Ambros. gr.* 592 ( = A). 15th century, paper. Anthology of various texts. Contains part of the *Oneirocriticon* (about 27 pages).

*Bero/. gr.* 171 ( = B). 16th century, paper. Contains only the *Oneirocriticon.*  The text in this manuscript is very close to *Paris. gr.* 2538, used by Rigault for the *editio princeps.* The two manuscripts have the same lacunae, but the Berlin manuscript is not a direct copy of *Paris. gr.* 2538.59

These manuscripts were arranged by Drexl into the following stemma:

58 Described in detail in *CCAG,* vol. 8:4, pp. 70-72.

59 F. Drexl, "Die Berliner Achmethandschrift," *BZ* 24 (1924), pp. 307-12.

The manuscripts that Drexl knew of, but did not examine are:

*Paris. gr.* 2538. 16th (15th?) century, paper. Contains only the *Oneirocriticon,*  copied by Georgios Grammatikos. 60 Rigault based the 1603 edition on this manuscript. The text has several lacunae.61

*Paris. gr.* 2427. 16th century, paper. Contains only the *Oneirocriticon,* chaps. 1-70. Attributes the text to Apomasaros, because it is definitely a direct copy of *Vindob. philos. et philol. gr.* 297 (the source for Loewenklau's translation); *Paris. gr.* 2427 has the exact same lacunae as *Vindob. philos. et philol. gr.* 297 and even cuts the missing words in the middle in exactly the same way as they appear in the Vienna manuscript. It has several blank pages at the end, probably intended for copying the complete text from the Vienna manuscript, an intention that was never carried out.

*Paris. gr.* 2419. 62 15th century, paper. Collection of astrological texts copied by Georgios Midiates,63 which contains part of the *Oneirocriticon.*

*Borbon. gr.* 356 (III.E.34). 64 15th century, paper. Contains only the *Oneirocriticon.* The first folia are missing. The text begins with a chapter numbered 15 and entitled EK 'teov CTepcrffiv Kett Ai yuJt'ttrov 7t£pt 'tp1xrov Kett uJt~vTJi; Kett µetcrxetA.ffiv Kett +\~TJi;. Dept yeveiwv (From the Persians and Egyptians on Hair and Mustaches and Armpit <Hair> and Pubic <Hair>. On Beards) which corresponds to Drexl's chapter 42 (27, 11 ff.). The manuscript contains a complete text of the *Oneirocriticon,65* though several phrases or paragraphs

63 See Hunger, *Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800-1600,* vol. 2, no. 87 (with bibliography).

64 Described in S. Cirillo, *Codices graeci manuscripti regiae hihliothecae Borhonicae,* vol. 2 (Naples, 1832), pp. 469-70. The newer catalogues by G, Pierleoni, *Catalogus codicum graecorum Bihliothecae Nationalis Neapolitanae* (Rome, 1962), and E. Mioni, *Catalogus codicum graecorum Bihliothecae National is Neapolitanae,* vol. I: I (Rome, 1992), cover only manuscripts II.A. I to II.C.38 and do not include a description of this manuscript.

65 According to Drexl, *Achmetis Oneirocriticon.* p. xiii, the manuscript contains only chapters 15-192, but this is a mistake; the error was generated by the different method of numbering the chapters followed in *Borbon, gr.* 356, where the same subject when treated according to the Indians, Persians, and Egyptians is only numbered once, whereas in the critical edition it can be

60 See H. Hunger, *Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800-1600,* vol. 2 (Vienna, 1989), no. 104.

61See Ruelle, "La clef des songes d'Achmet Abou-Mazar," pp. 305-12, who identified the manuscript as Rigault's source and listed some of the lacunae, Beyond the description of this manuscript given by Drexl, further descriptions have been published by H. Lebegue, *CMAG,* vol. I, p. 62; by F, Cumont, *CCAG,* vol. 8: I, p. 20; see also A. Delatte, *Anecdota Atheniensia,* vol. I, p. 446; and idem, "Le lexique de botanique de *Paris. gr.* 2419," *Serta /eodensia* (Liege-Paris, 1930), p. 59.

62 Detailed description in *CCAG,* vol. 8: I, pp. 20-63.

are missing from various chapters. Moreover, the sequence of chapters does not coincide with either Drexl or Rigault or *Paris. gr.* 2419 and *Bononiensis (Bibi. Univ.)* 3632. Finally, the contents of the chapters themselves are also different from Drexl's text. 66

*Cantabrig. gr.* 1386 (0 8.11, 6102). 15th-16th century, paper. The greatest portion of the manuscript is taken up by Actuarius, *De Urinis.* The only parts of the *Oneirocriticon* are an index of chapters (incomplete) and part of chapter 1.

*Athas, Iv iron* 4285 .165. 15th century, paper. Anthology of nineteen texts belonging to various authors and literary genres. Contains only five chapters of the *Oneirocriticon* (= Drexl, chapters 221-26).

*Hierosol.* (of the patriarchate) *gr.* 220. 17th century, paper. Collection of texts on divination. Vernacular paraphrase of the *Oneirocriticon.*

*Hierosol.* (of St. Sabbas) *gr.* 555. Dated 26 April 1685. Paper. Most of the manuscript is taken up by a vernacular paraphrase of the *Oneirocriticon,* accompanied by three very brief ~povwA.Oyta.67

#### *Translations*

Among the several translations of the *Oneirocriticon* that were made at different times and into different languages, two medieval renderings from Greek into Latin are the most important for textual criticism. They were both made during

numbered as many as three times. The concluding chapter in *Borbon. gr.* 356 is numbered 193, but its contents correspond to Dre xi's chapter 20 l.

66 To give an illustration of the problem, the contents of the first folia in *Borbon. gr.* 356 and their corresponding passages from Drexl' s edition are: [ tE] EK i:ciiv itEpaciiv Kat ai yuni:iwv 7tEpt i:ptxciiv Kat uni\vric; Kat µaaxaA.ciiv Kat i\13ric;. CTcpt yEvEiwv (= Drexl 27, 11-27, 25 = µ[3. Despite the title in *Borbon. gr.* 356, nothing on beards is included); t<; itEpt i:ptxciiv 1:0u AOl7tOU aroµmoc; (= Drexl µy); EK 't:OOV 7t£paciiv Kat aiyuni:iwv 6µ6<1>wva 7tEpt i:ptxciiv 't:OU AOl7tOU aroµmoc; (= Drexl µ8); 7tEpt i:ptxciiv yuvmKO<; (= Drexl 217, 8 ff.= a~E); lT\ EK 't:OOV ivociiv 7tEpt aA.n<l>ii<; (= Drexl 18, 5-15 =Ky); EK 't:OOV 7tEpaciiv 7t£pt clAEllj/ECll<; (= Drexl 18, 16-22 = K); EK 't:OOV aiyuni:iwv oµoiwc; (= Drexl KE); EpcO'tf\at<; (= Drexl 15, 17-24 = t0); EpcO'tf\at<; &Uri ( = Drexl 16, 1-10 = K, though narrated in the first person); t0 EK 't:OOV i vociiv itEpt µoaxou auv0Ei:ou £1'.ioaµiac; (includes Drexl K<; and Ks under the same title); K itEpt 0uµtmripiwv Kat KaitviaECllV ( = Drexl 20, 1-8 = KT\); oµoiwc; ( = Drexl 20, 9-19 = A.); Ka 7tEpt Koupa<; (= Drexl 20, 20-26 = A.); EK i:ciiv itEpaciiv itEpt Koupac; (= Drexl 21, 1-8 =A.a, to which is added Drexl 16, 21-24, to which is added Drexl 17, 16-19); K[3 EK i:ciiv ivociiv itEpt yEvnaooc; (= Drexl 22, 25-23 = A.Ii, to which is added Drexl 16, 19-21 and 16, 24-17, 2); itEpt i:ptxciiv (= Drexl 23, 10-16 =A.£).

67 Neither of the two Jerusalem manuscripts is included in K. W. Clark, *Checklist of Manuscripts in the Libraries of the Greek and Armenian Patriarchates of Jerusalem Microfilmed for the Library of Congress, 1949-50* (Washington, D.C., 1953).

the reign of Manuel Komnenos (1143-80), an emperor with a very keen interest in the occult sciences. The two translations were made almost simultaneously and can be dated with accuracy.

The earliest Latin translation is not complete. Excerpts of the *Oneirocriticon*  were translated by Pascalis Romanus and incorporated into his book *Liber Thesauri Occulti,* a work on dream interpretation that, according to its title, was published in Constantinople in 1165.68 The only information we have on Pascalis Romanus is furnished by his own prefaces to the four works of his that have survived. All four are translations or adaptations of Greek texts. 69 Through these prefaces we can verify his presence in Constantinople from 1158 to 1169. It is not known whether he was a Greek born in Rome or a Roman who became acquainted with the Greek world late in life or a Roman born and raised among Greeks.70 Most recently T. Ricklin has argued that he had connections with the Venetian society of Constantinople.71 He was a lowranking clergyman and had some knowledge of medicine, though not enough to qualify as a proper physician. 72

The *Liber Thesauri Occulti* is divided into three books. The first book discusses the nature of sleep and dreams based on ancient and medieval sources of a scientific, philosophical and literary character. 73 It also contains some infrequent and unacknowledged borrowings from the *Oneirocriticon.74* The remaining two books are a *clef des songes* entirely composed of passages from Arternidoros and the *Oneirocriticon* translated from Greek into Latin. 75 The interpretations are arranged thematically, inspired by, but not exactly copying, the organization of the material found in the two Greek works. The arrangement of the interpretations in the *Liber Thesauri Occultiwas* devised by Pascalis Romanus himself. 76

68 Edited with an introduction by Collin-Roset, "Le *Liber Thesauri Occulti."* For a detailed discussion of the work and its sources (mainly concentrating on its philosophical aspects concerning the nature of dreams) in connection with 12th-century Byzantine philosophical pursuits, see Ricklin, *Der Traum der Philosophie,* pp. 247-322.

69 Their titles are *Disputatio Judeorum contra sanctum Anastasium, Liber thesauri occulti, Cyranides, Ystoria Beate Virginis Mariae.* For more on these works, see Collin-Roset, "Le *Liber Thesauri Occulti,"* pp. 113-17; and Ricklin, *Der Traum der Philosophie,* pp. 248-50.

7° Collin-Roset, "Le *Liber Thesauri Occulti,"* p. 112.

71 Ricklin, *Der Traum der Philosophie,* p. 322.

72 Collin-Roset, "Le *Liber Thesauri Occulti,"* pp. 112-13.

73 Ibid., pp. 125-31.

74 Ibid., p. 130.

75 Ibid., p. 131.

76 Ibid., pp. 138-139.

The *Liber Thesauri Occulti* is from Pascalis Romanus's own pen up to book III, chapter 2. The remainder (book III, chapters 3-15) reproduces word for word the Latin translation of the *Oneirocriticon* by Leo Tuscus, which was finished in 1176.77 The editor of the *Liber Thesauri Occulti,* Simone Collin-Roset, concludes: "We therefore definitively accept that the dreambook by Pascalis Romanus remained unfinished; that he abandoned it in 1165, or a little later, in order to translate the Cyranides ... ; and that at least ten years later, a scribe attempted to supplement it by attaching to it [the text of] Achmet translated by Leo Tuscus. "78

Collin-Roset carefully noted the source of each interpretation given in books II and III of the *Liber Thesauri Occulti* and quoted the corresponding passage in either Artemidoros or Achmet. For that purpose, however, she did not use the Greek text of either work, but only their Latin translations.79 Out of hundreds of interpretations she lists eighteen which she was unable to identify in the works of Artemidoros and Achmet. Collin-Roset then proceeded to compare the eighteen additional interpretations of Pascalis Romanus with the only French translation of an Arabic dreambook available to her, Pierre Vattier's seventeenth-century translation of a twelfth-century author, 'Abd al-RaJ:iman b. Na~r al-Shiraz! (or al-Shayzari) al-Nabarawi. 80 She managed to match two of the eighteen interpretations with passages from Vattier's translation. Remarking that nothing in the works of Pascalis Romanus shows that he knew Arabic, she concluded that he possibly used Greek translations of Arabic treatises that have not survived, or he found some of these interpretations in the popular

77 Ibid., p. 135.

78 Ibid., p. 139.

79 " ••• nous avons cite Artemidore d 'a pres la traduction de Cornarius reproduite par N. Rigault, et Achmet d'apres celle de Leo Tuscus contenue dans le manuscrit d'Oxford [Bodi. Digby 103] ou !'on trouve egalement le *Liher thesauri occu!ti* et, en cas de necessite celui du manuscrit 337 de Carpentras. En cas de lacune de la traduction de Leo Tuscus, nous avons eu recours a celle de J. Leunlcavius, reproduite et completee par N. Rigault" (Collin-Roset, ibid., p. 125). A direct reference to Drexl's critical edition is only given once (p. 140). The combined texts of Leo Tuscus, Leunclavius, and Rigault are still different from Drexl's, which explains why Collin-Roset was unable to identify a few passages.

80*L' onirocrite mussulman, ou la doctrine et !'interpretation des songes selon /es arabes, par Gahdorrhachaman fils de Nasar. De la traduction de P. Vattier* ... *sur le manuscrit arahe du "recueil de ce qui se peut dire de meilleur sur !'interpretation des songes* (Paris, 1664). This book is extremely rare today. I have been unable to locate a copy in any American library. There is one in the British Library and another in the Bibliotheque Nationale; see also A. Fischer, "Die Quitte als Vorzeichen bei Persern und Arabern und das Traumbuch des 'Abd-al-~ani an-Nabulusi," pp. 305-6. The Arab author was a physician to \$alaJ:i al-Din al-Ayyiibi; see Fahd, *La divination arabe,* pp. 354-55, no. 116.

tradition of the Mediterranean, which was likely to have been influenced, even to a limited degree, by its equivalent Arabic tradition. 81

A direct comparison of the additional interpretations in Pascalis Romanus listed by Collin-Roset with the Greek texts in their most recent critical editions reveals that eight of the eighteen, including the two matched by passages in the dreambook of 'Abd al-Raqman b. Na~r, can be found in either the *Oneirocriticon* or Artemidoros. 82 A ninth interpretation corresponds to a passage from *Vat. gr.* 573, which is missing from the critical edition of the *Oneirocriticon.* Where did the remaining nine come from? At least the ones that do not represent Pascalis Romanus's own understanding of passages from Artemidoros83 were probably in the version of the *Oneirocriticon* that Pascalis Romanus used for the compilation of the *Liber Thesauri Occulti,* which must have been longer than Drexl' s text.

Our examination of the abridgment from *Paris. Suppl. gr.* 690, and the text found in *Vat. gr.* 573, already furnished proof for the existence of a version of the *Oneirocriticon* which was longer than the text published by Drexl. Examination of the *Liber Thesauri Occulti* corroborates this conclusion by showing that the model of Pascalis Romanus was, at least in part, closer to the Paris abridgment than Drexl's text is. The introductory chapter to book II of the *Liber Thesauri Occulti,which* immediately precedes the interpretations, is very close to the introductory chapter of the Paris abridgment that includes remarks on the theory of dream interpretation found in the last chapter of Drexl's edition. Moreover, two passages of the Paris abridgment identified by Gigli as missing from Drexl's text can be found in the introduction to book II by Pascalis Romanus.84 Therefore, both the order of presentation and passages from the *Liber Thesauri Occulti* confirm that the particularities of the Paris abridgment were extant in its model and should not be attributed to the epitomist.

The *Liber Thesauri Occulti* is not only the earliest translation of Artemidoros and the *Oneirocriticon* into Latin; 85 it also furnishes important textual evidence about the form and content of a more extensive version of the *Oneirocriticon.*  It should therefore be used in any future critical edition of the Greek text.

81 Collin-Roset, "Le *Liber Thesauri Occulti,"* p. 137.

82 See Appendix 2.

83 This might be the case with nos. 3, 13 and 18 (see Appendix 2).

84 For the outcome of dreams in twenty units of time (e.g., twenty years, twenty months, twenty weeks, twenty days, or twenty hours) and the significance of pearls and black clothes for those who wear them regularly, see Appendix 1.

85 Collin-Roset, "Le *Liber Thesauri Occulti,"* p. 131.

The earliest complete translation of the *Oneirocriticon* was made in 1176, seven years after the one by Pascalis Romanos. The translator was Leo Tuscus, who is known to us from other sources as well. 86 He and his brother Hugo Etherianus, to whom the preface to the translation of the *Oneirocriticon* is addressed, were natives of Pisa. They both came to Constantinople to seek a career during the reign of Manuel Komnenos, since this emperor was known for employing Latins in his services. Hugo, Leo's older brother, was a layman with a thorough theological education and author of several theological treatises that won him a cardinal's hat shortly before the end of his life in 1182. He arrived in Constantinople before 1166 and soon caught the attention of the emperor, who consulted him on doctrinal questions and ordered him to write his long, three-book treatise on the procession of the Holy Ghost. This treatise, written in collaboration with his brother Leo,87 was Hugo's most important work and was frequently mentioned by later Greek theologians.

Leo was an interpreter in the imperial chancery. Besides the *Oneirocriticon*  he also translated the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and wrote a theological treatise, *De haeresihus et praevaricationibus Graecorum.* In his preface to the translation of the *Oneirocriticon,* he gives the reason for undertaking this work: 88 Hugo had dreamt that the emperor Manuel was riding on the bronze horse of the statue that surmounts the column called Augustiana in Constantinople. He was surrounded by several erudite Latins and was reading a booklet in Latin. In the dream Manuel singled Hugo out for special attention, after Hugo had interrupted his reading. The meaning of this dream remained obscure for the two brothers until 1166, when Manuel ended by decree the theological controversy over the inferiority of the Son to the Father started by Demetrios of Lampe. Manuel's decision was influenced, according to Leo, by reading Hugo's booklet, *De Filii Hominis Minoritate ad Patrem Deum.* It was the outcome of Hugo's dream that gave Leo the idea of translating the *Oneirocriticon* into Latin. 89 Based on a reference to Manuel's campaign against the

86 The facts presented here on the lives and works of Leo Tuscus and his brother Hugo Etherianus are taken from A. Dondaine, "Hugues Etherien et Leon Toscan," *AHDLMA* 27 (1952), pp. 67-134.

87 Ibid., p. 68.

88 The full text of the introduction was published by Haskins, *Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science,* pp. 217-18 and idem, "Leo Tuscus," pp. 45-47.

89 In a recent article, Schreiner hypothesized, "Der AnlaB zur Ubersetzung des beriihmten Traumbuchs des Achmet, den Leo schildert, wirkt eher wie eine Parodie, aber die Form scheint dem Kaiser doch geschmeichelt zu haben: Hugo, der Bruder, hatte im Traum Kaiser Manuel gesehen, wie er in der Ubersetzung des Buches las"; see P. Schreiner, "Der Austausch von

Turks, Haskins dated the translation of the *Oneirocriticon* by Leo Tuscus to 1176.90

Several manuscripts of Leo Tuscus's Latin translation are known, 91but no critical edition has ever been published. The oldest manuscript that survives, *Digby* 103 in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, is from the twelfth century; it is also our oldest manuscript for Pascalis Romanus's *Liber Thesauri Occulti.92*

In addition to the the twelfth-century translations of Pascalis Romanus and Leo Tuscus, a third translation of the *Oneirocriticon* into Latin was made by J. Loewenklau, and published in 1577. Loewenklau's translation attributed the original text to Apomasar. In the 1603 edition of the *Oneirocriticon,* Rigault reprinted Loewenklau's translation opposite the Greek text, supplementing it with his own Latin rendering of the passages that were missing from Loewenklau' s Greek manuscript but that existed in Rigault's Parisian source.

The evidence collected so far indicates that the translations of the *Oneirocriticon* into the vernacular European languages were all based on these three Latin renderings of the work. They can therefore be divided into three groups, depending on which Latin translation provided their source. The first and most recent group is represented only by printed texts; it comprises translations made from Loewenklau's 1577 edition. The members of this group can be easily identified, since they all attribute the work to Apomasar.93

Of the members of the second group, those based on the translation of Leo Tuscus, none mentions an author's name. Following Leo Tuscus's translation, their title refers to the alleged Indian, Persian and Egyptian sources used for

92 On the importance of this manuscript, see Ricklin, *Der Traum der Philosophie,* pp. 307-22.

Motiven und Ideen," in *Europa Medievale e mondo Bizantino.Contatti effettivi e possibilita di studi comparati,* ed. G. Arnaldi and G. Cavallo (Rome, 1995), p. 3. Schreiner does not explain why he considers the motive for the translation to function as a parody. The book that Manuel was reading in Hugo's dream was in any case most likely to have been the latter's *De Fi/ii Hominis Minoritate,* rather than a translation of the *Oneirocriticon.*

90 Haskins, "Leo Tuscus," pp. 45-47.

91*Wolfenbuttel* 2917; Bodleian *Digby* !03; modern copy in *Ashmolean* 179; BL *Harleian*  4025; Bibliotheca Casanatense, C. vi. 5 (new no. 1178); the printed catalogue of this library, M. Ceresi et al., *Catalogo dei Manoscritti della Biblioteca Casanatense,* 5 vols. (Rome, 1949-58), only covers manuscripts 1-500 and does not include the old C.vi.5; *Vat. lat.* 4094; BN *lat.* 7337; *Vindobon.* 5221; *Marburgensis* B 21; listed in Thorndike, *History of Magic and Experimental Science,* vol. 2, pp. 292-93; Haskins, *Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science,* p. 217; *Achmetis Oneirocriticon,* ed. Drexl, p. ix. A further list of extant manuscripts in N. F. Palmer and K. Speckenbach, *Triiume und Kriiuter. Studien zur Petroneller "Circa Instans" Handschr(ft und zu den deutschen Traumbuchern des Mittelalters* (Cologne and Vienna, 1990), p. 125.

93 For the German members of this group, see Palmer and Speckenbach, *Triiume und Kriiuter,*  p. 127. The first French translation from Loewenklau's Latin appeared in 1581.

the composition of the Greek original, or it echoes Leo's designation of the work from its content as "De somniis et oraculis."94 The earliest of them is possibly the thirteenth-century BN *franr,;ais* 1553.95 The earliest printed one is also the earliest printed version of the *Oneirocriticon* in any language: an Italian translation of Leo Tuscus' s text that appeared in Venice in 1525 under the title, *Expositione degli Jnsomnii secondo la lnterpretatione de lndi, Persi, ed Egyptii, tradutta da Greco in Latino per Leone Toschano, ed al presente data in luce per ii Tricasso Mantuano ad Alessandro Bicharia Patricio Pavese.*  Several reprints were made, as well as a French translation from the Italian, which first appeared in 1552.96

The third group seems to have been based on both Pascalis Romanus and Leo Tuscus. The oldest representative of this group is possibly the Anglo-Norman dreambook preserved in *Berlin* Q. 968 of the Staatsbibliothek preussischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin.97 While this manuscript is from the middle of the fourteenth century, the translation itself is older, possibly from the end of the thirteenth century. 98 The translation is anonymous; 99 it was made for an aristocratic lady, Alice de Courtenay or, as the name was later deciphered, Alice de

96 Thorndike, *History of Magic and Experimental Science,* vol. 2, p. 297, mentioned an anonymous Latin dreambook titled *Expositio somniorum* from BN */atin* 16610, which he dated to the 12th-13th century. According to Thorndike's report, this work had been influenced by the Latin translation of the *Oneirocriticon* by Leo Tuscus and until then had remained unpublished. Thorndike's information on the text is repeated by Lamoreaux, "Dream Interpretation in the Early Medieval Near East," p. 283. The dreambook in question is in fact a copy of Pascalis Romanus's *Liher thesauri occulti,*  known to and utilized by Collin-Rosel, the editor of the text; see Collin-Rose!, "Le *Liher Thesauri Occu/ti,"* pp. 118-19.

99 The manuscripts of this dreambook give no information on the identity of the translator. However, Suchier identified him as the Carmelite monk Jean Golein; see Suchier, "Altfranzosische Traumbticher," p. 133.

94 For example, the French translation is called "Exposicion et significacion des songes" [sic].

95 Three French and two Czech manuscripts are known. See W. Suchier, "Altfranzosische Traumbticher," *Zeitschrift furfranziisische Sprache und Literatur* 67 (1956-57), 129-67. The text of BNfran~ais 1317 was published by Berrio!, *Exposicions et significacions des song es.* Berriot's introduction repeats information from secondary literature (sometimes with mistakes). His edition of the text is supplemented with readings from *Berlin* Q. 968 (whose text is based both on Leo Tuscus and Pascalis Romanus, which Berrio! seems to be unaware of), BN fran~ais 24.432, *Cmpentras latin* 337, the 1581 printed French edition of Denis Du Val, and the Latin translation that accompanied Rigault's Greek text in the 1603 edition. However, Berrio! does not discuss the connection between the texts used, nor does he give a *stemma codicum.* I have been unable to consult the more recent cri\ical edition by M. G. Glover, "Critical Edition of the Middle French Version of Achmet ibn Sirin's Oneiromancy."

97 Ibid., p. 135.

98 Berrio!, *E.1posicions et significacions des songes,* p. 42.

Couty. 100 Its title reads *so/om* [ = *selon] ceo qe Daniel le Prophete le fist,*  which gives the false impression that the work is yet another recension of the dreambook of Daniel, versions of which existed in Arabic, Greek, Latin and a number of European vernacular languages. It seems that this translation generated a whole group of dreambooks attributed to Daniel. The connection of the *Oneirocriticon* to a branch of the vernacular tradition of Daniel's dreambook has so far been ignored by contemporary research. 101

Besides its versions in Latin and other European languages that could be characterized as translations, the *Oneirocriticon* served as a source for the compilation of original treatises on dreams. Establishing which Latin or vernacular version furnished the immediate source for each author requires further research, but the contents of two treatises indicate the author's familiarity with the interpretations contained in the *Oneirocriticon.* The first is William of Aragon's *De prognosticatione sompniorum. 102*According to the editor of the text, William seems to have known the *Oneirocriticon* by way of Leo Tuscus' s Latin translation. 103 The fifteenth-century author Venancius of Moerbeke based part of his treatise on prognostications *(De presagiis futurorum libel/us)* on William's work. w4 The second is the treatise on dreams by the Milanese physician, mathematician, and philosopher Girolamo Cardano ( 1501-

100For the reading "Alice de Courtenay." see Steinschneider, "Ibn Shahin und Ibn Sirin," p. 239; Berriot, *Exposicions et significacions des songes,* p. 42, reads "Alice de Couty."

101The recent publication of S. Fischer, *The Complete Medieval Dreambook: A Multilingual, Alphabetical "Somnia Danie/is" Collation* (Bern and Frankfurt-am-Main, 1982), fails to mention anything on the subject. Speckenbach in his study of medieval German dream books, *Triiume und Kriiuter,* does not connect the "Dritte Uberlieferungsgruppe" (pp. 133-35) of the dream book of Daniel with similar passages from the Greek *Oneirocriticon,* though he is aware of the *Oneirocriticon*  in ten Latin, three Old French and two Czech manuscripts (pp. 125-27). For an additional Slavonic manuscript, see chapter I, n. 20.

'°2 R. Pack, "De prognosticatione sompniorum Libellus Guillelmo de Aragonia adscriptus," *AHDLMA* 33 (1966), pp. 237-93; Spanish translation, *Arnaldus de Villanova, De la inte1pretacion de los suenos* (Madrid, 1975); see also R. Pack, "Addenda to an Article on William of Aragon," *AHDLMA* 35 (1968), pp. 297-99. About the attribution of William's work to Arnald of Villanova, a 13th-century physician who interpreted dreams for the kings of Aragon and Sicily, see Thorndike, *History of Magic and Experimental Science,* vol. 2, pp. 301-2.

im Pack, "De prognosticatione sompniorum," p. 247. Given that Pack detects a possible influence of Artemidoros on the work of William, and that Artemidoros, except for the utilization of his work in the 12th-century *Liber thesauri occulti* by Pascalis Romanus, was translated into Latin for the first time in 1539, the sources of William's possible acquaintance with Artemidoros should be investigated.

104See R. Pack, "A Treatise on Prognostications by Venancius of Moerbeke," *AHDLMA* 43 (1976), pp. 311-22.

76), whose *Somniorum Synesiorum omnis generis insomnia explicantes, Libri IV,* was published in 1562. 105

Each translation was also, to a greater or lesser extent, an adaptation which further removed the new product from the original text. The problems in the manuscript tradition of all Latin or vernacular renderings are the same as for the Greek manuscript tradition: no two manuscripts preserve an identical text. Modern scholarly works mention, but do not sufficiently explore, the relationship between the Greek *Oneirocriticon* and its renderings into other European languages, as well as the influence of the *Oneirocriticon* on original works in these languages. 106 Much remains to be done in this field of research, as well as on the subject of the relationship of the body of Byzantine dream interpretation to its counterparts in the rest of medieval Europe. *w7*

#### *Editions*

The *editio princeps* of the Greek text appeared in Paris in 1603. 108 The volume comprised the Greek text and Latin translation of Artemidoros, Achmet, Astrampsychos and Nikephoros. 109 In his preface to Achmet, the editor N. Rigault noted that he consulted two Greek manuscripts from the collection of the Bibliotheque du Roi, without giving their call numbers. Rigault's text reproduces faithfully the text of *Paris. gr.* 2538 of the fifteenth or the sixteenth

107The main handicap of recent researchers seems to be their inability to read Greek. Both Collin-Roset and Berriot, the editors of a Latin and a French version of the *Oneirocriticon*  respectively, did not use Drexl' s critical edition but relied instead on the Latin translation that accompanies Rigault's text for their comparisons. Let us hope that the recent English and German translations of Drexl's text will help remedy the situation, though no real textual study can be undertaken without the Greek text. A partial French translation has been prepared by Anne-Marie Vincent-Bernardi, "L' *Oneirocriticon* d' Achmet: Traduction et commentaire," 2 vols., Ph.D. diss., Universite Aix-Marseille I, 2000.

108It appeared in the same year from two print shops: "ex officina Claudii Morelli" and "apud Marcum Orry." The *National Union Catalog* (pre- 1956), vol. 22 (1968), only records the Orry printing (NA 0439075). More copies of the second than of the first printing seem to be available in university libraries in the United States. In the printing "ex officina Claudii Morelli," pp. 27-30 of the *Oneirocriticon* are repeated between pages 274 and 275. This defect is absent from the Orry printing. Otherwise, the two are identical.

109*Artemidori Daldiani et Achmetis Sereimif Oneirocritica. Astrampsychi et Nicephori versus etiam Oneirocritici. Nicolai Rigaltii ad Artemidorum Notae* (Paris, 1603).

105 See Fahd, "L'oniromancie orientale," pp. 350-51; for a number of passages establishing the relationship between Cardano and the *Oneirocriticon,* see 0. Gotthardt, *Uher die Traumhiicher des Mittelalters,* pp. 11-13.

106 Some remarks in Fahd, "L'oniromancie orientale," pp. 347-74; also E. Ploss, "Byzantinische Traumsymbolik und Krimhilds Falkentraum," *Germanisch-Romanische Monatschriji* 39 ( 1958), pp. 218-26 and Gotthardt, *Uher die Traumhiicher des Mittelalters.*

#### 120 CHAPTER THREE

century that is still today at the Bibliotheque Nationale. The second manuscript that Rigault claims to have consulted was identified by Ruelle as *Paris. gr.*  2427. 110However, this manuscript was acquired by the Bibliotheque du Roi much later, in 1719. Ruelle's identification should therefore be rejected. 111 Drexl assumed that the second manuscript mentioned by Ruelle, possibly copied from *Paris. gr.* 2538, has been lost, but it is possible that this second manuscript never existed.

Deciding whether Rigault had used one or two manuscripts for his edition has implications for the importance that should be assigned to the readings of the *editio princeps.* If we accept that only one manuscript was used, then all discrepancies from *Paris. gr.* 2538 should be attributed to Rigault's own intervention. If we grant that two manuscripts were used, we should treat the *editio princeps* as an indirect source for the readings of a manuscript that is no longer extant. Rigault does not seem to have been very thorough in his search for Greek manuscripts to prepare his edition of the *Oneirocriticon: Paris. gr.*  2511 and 2419, which contain excerpts from Achmet, including the beginning of the text in which Rigault was interested, were already in the Bibliotheque du Roi in 1594, but Rigault did not use them, 112 nor does he claim to have used the second manuscript for the reconstruction of the text; he only claims to have consulted it to establish the identity of the author-to no avail, since the second manuscript was, like the first, missing its beginning pages. We know that in the early days of printing, editors sometimes tried to disguise the inadequacy of their work by making false claims about the sources of their texts. 113 Rigault would not have been the first editor to base his text on a single manuscript, while announcing that he had consulted two. 114It is certainly improbable that a manuscript disappeared from the royal collection of France, especially one whose presence there is otherwise unrecorded and whose disappearance cannot be accounted for.

The Greek text in Rigault's edition was accompanied by Loewenklau's Latin translation, published in 1577. Loewenklau had based his translation on *Vindob.*

110Ruelle, "La clef des songes d' Achmet Abou-Mazar," p. 306.

111Drexl, "Die Berliner Achmethandschrift," p. 312.

112Ibid., n. 3

113For the practices of editors and printers in the first centuries of printing, see A. Dain, *Les manuscrits,* 3rd ed. (Paris, 1975), p. 162.

114Robotel, who edited the text of Aelian the Tactician in 1552, pretended that he had found in the Marciana two "satis vetusta exemplaria" ; in reality, all he had used was a copy ( an6ypm1>ov) of *Marc. gr.* 516 (14th century). See Dain, ibid.

*philos. et philol. gr.* 297, the text of which has several lacunae, when compared with *Paris. gr.* 2538. The parts missing from Loewenklau's text were supplemented by Rigault's own Latin translation. Since both the Viennese and the Paris codex lacked the first folio, Rigault substituted the first two missing chapters by translating back into Latin the Italian translation of Leo Tuscus's text, which had been available in print since 1525.

Rigault's edition has a number of drawbacks, including its reliance on only one or two manuscripts. 115However, the plans of later scholars to improve on Rigault did not soon materialize. 116In 1894, C.-E. Ruelle in a brief article compared Rigault's text with *Paris. gr.* 251 land *Paris. gr.* 2419. As a result, he made a number of emendations to Rigault's text, listed a few of its lacunae and called for a new critical edition. 117The call was taken up by Drexl, who laid the foundation for a new critical edition in his dissertation of 1909, 118 and published the final product in 1925. 119

Drexl inventoried sixteen Greek manuscripts of the *Oneirocriticon,* no two of which has exactly the same text. Seven out of the sixteen manuscripts contained only selected chapters. 120 Two contained a vernacular paraphrase; 121 another had only a table of contents and a paraphrase of most of what is chapter l in Drexl 's edition. 122 The remaining five copy the text from beginning to end, but all have lacunae of various lengths and a varying sequence of chapters. Unavoidably, Drexl's final product (or any editor's for that matter) is a pastiche of chapters forming a version that does not exist in any surviving manuscript. The challenge for an editor in such a situation is to establish criteria that would allow him to choose the sequence of chapters and the readings that are the closest to the archetype.

120 T, P (which contains a text so altered in places, that it is almost a paraphrase; Drexl, *Achmetis Oneirocriticon,* p. xii), A, *Paris. gr.* 2427, *Paris. gr.* 2419, *Borbon. gr.* 356 (III. E. 34) and *Athos, lviron* 4285.165

115Cf. the criticism in F. Drexl, "Studien zum Text des Achmet," *BZ* 33 ( 1933), p. 13.

116 We have seen that a posthumous edition of the text by J. Tollius (1630-96) was never printed. For other aborted plans for a new edition and corrections of Rigault's text, see Drexl, *Achmets Traumhuch,* pp. 6-7.

117 Ruelle, "La clef des songes d' Achmet Abou-Mazar," pp. 305-12.

118Drexl, *Achmets Traumhuch.*

119Drexl, *Achmetis Oneirocriticon.* Negative comments on the editorial method in Latte, review of *Achmetis Oneirocriticon,* ed. F. Drexl, pp. 413 ff. and V. de Falco, review of *Achmetis Oneirocriticon,* ed. F. Drexl, *BZ* 27 (1927), pp. 113 ff.

121*Hieroso/.* (of the Patriarchate) *gr.* 220 (17th century); *Hieroso/.* (of St. Sabbas) 555 (17th century).

122 *Cantahrig. (Trinity College) gr.* 1386 (0 8.11,6102) of the 15th or 16th century.

#### 122 CHAPTER THREE