The tradition for Sappho Lobel-Page 144

Question

Here is the fragment as it appears in Voigt's edition:

Bergk gives the text:

μάλα δὴ κεκορημένας
Γόργως

and the critical note:

So Voigt seems to say the one codex for this, which is curated (?) by Vossius, read μάλα δὴ κεκορημένου στόργος, and that Hoffmann proposed her version, while Wolf had κεκορημένη and Bergk had the above text, with Toup having recognized the name Gorgo in this quootation.

However, Bergk says the tradition had στοργᾶς, Ursinus had κεκορημένος στόργος, and he "emendavi haec" to the form he gave.

This begs the question:

What did the tradition actually read, στόργος or στοργᾶς? I mean, it couldn't be both… or was there a margin note, perhaps by Vossius himself (as happened with the Hesychius gloss to ὠράνα, where he is responsible (AFAICT) for reading that as ὦ (specifically Ἐραννὰ, while others later read Εἴρανα or some contraction by comparison with LP 91) instead of ὤραννα=οὐράνια)?

Bonus questions:

1. What is the difference between "scripsi", "correxi", and "emendavi" in Bergk's edition?
2. What could στόργος mean? Does it even exist? Perseus doesn't have it (at least via the Greek Word Study Tool)…
3. What work is "Aldi Thes. Cornucop.", i.e. what do Thes. and Cornucop. stand for, what is this work like, why does it seem to quote a work by Herodian called Π[ερὶ] κλίσ[εων] ὀνομ[άτων], and what does Choeroboscus have to do with this? Is it like, Choeroboscus quoted Aldi Thes. Cornucop. which quoted Herodian? And why all this quoting?
4. (Unrelated, sprung from another fragment) What is the English for Italian sinafia, Greek συνάφεια, i.e. when a word is broken between two lines of a poem (e.g. in the Hymn to Aphrodite where we have πύκνα δίννηντες πτέρ' ἀπ' ὠράν' αἴθε- / ρος διὰ μέσσω, / indicating the break between the last Sapphic hendecasyllabic and the closing adonean)?

Update

Bonus question 4 was answered by @AlexB's comment: it's called synaphia, as I luckily guessed correctly :).

Answer 1

1. In the critical apparatus scripsi conventionally introduces a conjecture by the editor, whereas a successful conjecture (i.e. an emendation) is introduced with either correxi or emendavi (cf. Tarrant 2016: 164-166),

also cf. West 1973, 'If the editor wants to emphasize his confidence in a conjecture which he has adopted, he can transpose "uinxerunt Heinsius (or scripsi) : iunxerunt codd." into "iunxerunt codd.: corr. Heinsius (or correxi, or emendavi)"' (pp. 90-91).

2. A screenshot of the relevant passage from Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis:

It seems you've been using a very old, outdated edition Bergk 1843. I have checked two later editions de visu, Bergk 1867 and Bergk 1882 and in both editions the only form mentioned is στόργος:

Bergk 1867:

Bergk 1882 (I'm unaware of any other later editions, and this is the edition of Bergk you should use, that is, if you feel necessary to refer to Bergk at all):

Two screenshots from Jonathan Toup (Toupius 1778):

3. Aldi Thes. Cornucop. stands for Thesaurus Cornucopiae et Horti Adonidis first published by Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius) and Urbano Valeriani in 1496 in Venice. It contains works by various Greek grammarians, including Choeroboscus and Herodian.

Q: "why all this quoting?"

A: Because not much of what Herodian wrote (in the second century) survived. His treatise Περὶ κλίσεως ὀνομάτων is preserved "primarily in fragments found in Choeroboscus' commentary on Theodosius" (Dickey 2007: 76), which Poliziano, Varinus (Guarino) Favorinus and Carolus Antenoreus decided to put together with other Greek texts on noun declension and accentuation, which in its turn was published by Aldo Manuzio and Urbano Valeriani (van Gulik, English transl. 2018).

4. It's synaphia, cf. "Synaphia: prosodic continuity, particularly two verse lines following each other without a period end in between" (Brill's New Pauly).